Cancel The Invasion, I Have A Hang Nail

A couple points while linking this bit from ABC's Tapper verifying Obama's Afghanistan story from the debate. If Clinton and the libs AND the McCain's in Congress hadn't savaged our military budget in the nineties, these problems might not be so pronounced now. I doubt Obama would build it up, he just wouldn't use the military. And he showed no leadership on Iraq.

Americans have too short a memory - years of sanctions, pleading for Saddam to comply with the UN, all to no avail. We were right to go in when we did, if anything, we waited too long. Anyone who thinks Obama is ready to be CIC is crazy and willing to embrace a weak America when it comes to such issues. That's the last thing we need right now.

Obama stinks. But as a typical Republican voter, I still have yet to hear a convincing explanation as to where was John McCain in the 90's under Clinton when these issues were allowed to grow. It might have been nice to have a war hero in the Senate defending the military then. Neither side showed much leadership in this area during the nineties. They seized the so-called Peace Dividend and used it as a rationale to spend.

As for the losers and cowards now turning against the Iraq decision, like Coburn, apparently, I have no respect for them at all. There's no leadership in doing that once we made the decision to go in. And that decision was correct at the time, despite what the revisionists would have us believe.

At last night's debate in Texas, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, told an anecdote about an Army captain that is causing a lot of chatter in the political world.

Obama was making a point about what he called "the single most important foreign policy decision of this generation, whether or not to go to war in Iraq." His point was that in opposing the war he "showed the judgment of a commander in chief.  And I think that Senator Clinton was wrong in her judgments on that."

Comments

[IslamoLlama]

"--If Clinton and the libs AND the McCain's in Congress hadn't savaged our military budget in the nineties, these problems might not be so pronounced now. I doubt Obama would build it up, he just wouldn't use the military. And he showed no leadership on Iraq.--"

No kidding. All the Star Wars Missle Defense money that Clinton refused to sign off on, all the aircraft carriers he refused to build and bombers he refused to order more of...

It's amazing how when we sent troops into Bosnia and Sudan we didn't have these problems. However, two years after 9/11, when Rumsfeld/Powell/Cheney/Bush punched the "Go" button for Iraq, it was STILL Clinton's fault for not buying more gear. In 2005, when troops were getting hit by wave after wave of roadside bomb, it was Clinton's fault for not order MRAPs. In 2007, when the VA Hospital was reported in crisis, it was STILL Clinton's fault for failing to maintain the system even after he left office.

Talk about your ZERO accountability. I don't think I've ever seen such flagrant passing of the buck. What does Bush even do, sitting in that Oval Office? Did the six years of conservative President, conservative Congress just not count when it came to Defense spending? Was Rumsfeld actually in charge of the Pentagon between 2000 and 2006, or was cleaning up the Iraq/Afghanistan mess still Clinton's responsibility?

Absolutely staggering, the amount of cognative dissonance you can fit into a website.

"--Americans have too short a memory - years of sanctions, pleading for Saddam to comply with the UN, all to no avail. We were right to go in when we did, if anything, we waited too long.--"

All to no avail? Are you still insisting that Saddam had the WMDs no one could find?

/facedesk
/facedesk
/facedesk

The stupid! It hurts!

[scarshapedstar]

"If Clinton and the libs AND the McCain's in Congress hadn't savaged our military budget in the nineties, these problems might not be so pronounced now."

Right. After all, the War on Terror is only in its sixth year. When we fought WWII, it took us several decades to get to the point where we were cranking out hundreds of bombers and tanks each week... wait, no, it didn't. Maybe the problem is that you can't tax-cut your way to victory? Nah, that can't be it.

I blame Michael Moore.

[templar knight]

I have to give Sir Lameness some credit here, as there was every opportunity for Bush and Rumsfeld to send in adequate forces in the initial invasion, rather than trying to occupy Iraq on the cheap. If we had the force structure that we should have had in the first place, and had we handled the occupation better, we wouldn't be having to worry about the Democrats having a chance to re-take the Presidency.

[Dan Riehl]

"Are you still insisting that blah blah blah"

Your 20/20 hindsight is unremarkable, given that you have your head so far up your ass.

[Grim]

The cuts were Cheney's.

http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/cheney.htm

[seekeronos]

I'll find myself actually agreeing with Sen. Coburn here.

I think that going after Saddam when we still had OBL and A-Q running amok in A'stan was a not only a mistake, but a serious strategic blunder.

But we went in anyway, based upon faulty/incomplete intel on WMDs.

Then we displaced the entire Iraqi governmental structure and tried to let the Shi'a majority govern as a majority, and were barely able to contain the mess that caused when we continued to de-Baathify the country (as opposed to partitioning it as we did Germany, or partially de-nazifying it by allowing lower-level functionaries and other "folks who knew how to keep the lights on, the water running, the telephones ringing, and the sewers flushing").

Indeed, if we had just cut of the head and shoulders (Saddam + the top echelons of Baath Party members) and kept some of the more disaffected generals and even put them on the US payroll in some capacity, we could have averted much of the bloodshed Iraq has experienced while putting the Iraqi army and police forces to rights sooner, under an American puppet government with the Sunni applecart still more or less able to function.

Yet, we did as we did, and nearly lost the war until the Surge was initiated.

Of course, you fight the war with the men and material that you have and not with that which you want; but better still is a war that need not be fought today.

And I'll pass over that whole constitutionality thing; that process of circumventing (what would have been a GOP majority congress) the Congress's lawful responsibility to declare or withhold a declaration of war for a conflict whose scope has gone far beyond a simple police action or an emergency mustering of military forces to suppress an insurrection or repel an invasion or otherwise a limited action to protect American interests abroad is galling.

[Dan Riehl]

"The cuts were Cheney's."

Stop trying to pass off BS here. Prudent cuts under Bush grew out of control under Clinton when mil spending went south as a percentage of GDP in the 90's. Save your uninformed nonsense for your liberal blog friends.

[reliapundit]

the alleged events took place before the last prez election.

even if true - and they seem beauchampish to most rational, experienced military people - they would have much bearing on the 2008 election as d-day's errors.

[BobInStamford]

Obama bin Laden may not have been smoked out and brought to justice by the Decider, but at least patriots can sleep at night knowing that Saddam Hussein will not fly anymore aircraft into American buildings ever again.

[templar knight]

"Obama" bin Laden

Obama? Hahahahahahaha! Once in a while a liberal will tell the truth, even if they don't mean to!

[BobInStamford]

Yes, shiftless lesbian athletics supporter, Obama is a terrorist. Now grill some fatty food for your kinfolk.

[Yoda]

"Obama is a terrorist."

Don't know about that, but he has kept company with weatherman bombers.

[old trooper]

Yoda: Obama is a Socialist!

Bob-O-in Stamford(? where the hell is that?): get back on your Meds or your Parole Hearing will not go well. That electro-shock therapy must not have worked.

[moldy]

Why did the US need to invade Iraq? No freak-outs please, this is an honest question.

[Chief]

Prudent cuts under Cheney ? ? You must have a plexiglass belly button, 'cuz, you Sir, have your head up your ass ! !

Cheney, as Sec Def, savaged the military with unconscionable budget cuts. That Clinton continued the with a smaller military is undeniable.

Back to the original post: Obama obviously has made some serious connections with true patriots.

[Chief]

Prudent cuts under Cheney ? ? You must have a plexiglass belly button, 'cuz, you Sir, have your head up your ass ! !

Cheney, as Sec Def, savaged the military with unconscionable budget cuts. That Clinton continued the with a smaller military is undeniable.

Back to the original post: Obama obviously has made some serious connections with true patriots.

[Chief]

Prudent cuts under Cheney ? ? You must have a plexiglass belly button, 'cuz, you Sir, have your head up your ass ! !

Cheney, as Sec Def, savaged the military with unconscionable budget cuts. That Clinton continued the with a smaller military is undeniable.

Back to the original post: Obama obviously has made some serious connections with true patriots.

[syn]

Shortly after attacking Al Queda in Afghanistan, didn't Al Zawaheri(sp?) move into Iraq. It seems to me an irrational premise that Islamic Jihadists were everywhere in the Middle East except Iraq particularily when AQ affliates such as Salam Pax were training some 25 miles north of Baghdad.

Further given the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act along with the 9/11/2001 attacks and given Saddam's support of Jihad against America, continuing to ignore Saddam and the 17 United Nation resolutions against him would have been a disasterous mistake.

All throughout the 1990's America tried the approach of using covert operations to go after specifically AQ leader Bin Laden however, missed the target time and again. Most Americans weren't even aware of America's military presence protecting Kurds from Saddam's genocidal ambitions.

Sometimes I wonder if some Americans are terrified by the rising tide of Islamic Jihad and want to defeat this barbaric enemy however, they would rather it be done without their knowledge since such awareness disrupts the course of their personal dreams and ambitions.

It's almost as if the rage towards Bush and his actions to defeat a tyrannical, jihad- sponsoring dictator is more about the anger of having their lives disrupted by something they don't want to face.

A couple of days after watching from my rooftop the WTC fall into ash I remember thinking that the event which had just occurred was bigger than my own life, that whatever was to come my place in this world was of little consequence in the course of history; I knew then I could never return to a time when life was only about serving myself and my own interests.

When the towers crumbled into ash so crumbled my narcissistic illusions that life was all about me.

[BobInStamford]

Settle down, old redneck. Your time is past. Enjoy your government welfare.

[syn]

Let me clarify, shortly after the United States attacked AQ in Afghanistan, al Zawaheri moved into Iraq.

Islamic Jihad is a Global enemy and Iraq is just one of many fronts in this war, would it not be preferable to establish allies such as Afghanistan and Iraq than to have simply pulverized the entire Middle East? Decades of ignoring the rising tide of jihad is what allowed Islamic Jihadist to consume more territory and terrorise the populations in their control; after decades of United Nation's appeasement, of covert operations, of no-fly zones, of hiding under a 'peace, love and understanding' bubble America really had no option left but too insert ourselves in the Global Jihad war against the West. Saddam was one of several state sponsors of Global Jihad, not because he himself was a Jihadist but because Jihadists served a useful purpose for his own ambitions; leaving him with the power to freely sponsor Global Jihad would have empowered Global Jihad.

Our actions in Iraq have greatly diminished Islamic Jihad's power and made an important statement to Global Jihadist everywhere that America is neither a paper tiger or a weak horse.

[juandos]

Funny how all those who whine and babble on about how Iraq was a mistake seem to take herculean efforts to forget the following:

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT - December 16, 1998...(http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/12/16/981216-wh2.htm)

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's Armed
Forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by
British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and
biological programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their
purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States and, indeed,
the interest of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam
Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear
arms, poison gas, or biological weapons

[Fred Beloit]

People, people, people, put down that stale cool aide. This from 1/07 goes back to the basics. Please review. Obama is a pacifist/Marxist not the next messiah. He knows no more about the military nor when and when not to go to war than a nun knows about sex toys and lubricants.

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/topten/articles/20070128.aspx

[Philip McDaniel]

“Are you still insisting that Saddam had the WMDs no one could find?”
Well I am, for one. It’s a big desert. Israeli intelligence thought so and to this day believes they were removed and either buried or moved to safer sites.
Mistakes were made both in our attack and most importantly in our post invasion operations. That’s the nature of war however. Strategically, this war will turn out to be the best thing to have done at the time. Take a good look at a map and you will see why.

[Fred Beloit]

Here's more about how the West has been deluged by lies and propaganda about Iraq:

http://mediamythbusters.com/index.php?title=Questionable_Military_Accounts

And these poor trolls here have drunk deeply from the flowing bowl.

[Fred Beloit]

moldy, who never asked an honest question in her life and is subject to frequent freak-outs writes: "Why did the US need to invade Iraq? No freak-outs please, this is an honest question."

Here's an honest answer from someone in-the-know:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

[Fred Beloit]

Here is my honest question, moldy: When is the here and now unimportant to playing the game?

An honest answer: When it is Monday, the game was played yesterday, we won, and all we have to do now is stay and clean the stadium.

[Fred Beloit]

By the way, moldy, it looks to me like the next game on the schedule is Iran. Whadda you think?

[Fred Beloit]

An honest question, no moldy freak-outs please. Are the majority of liberals nuts? They seem to think so:

http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache:qkK6qF-iM0QJ:www.thelifegroup.org/files/650/Gallup%2520Survey%2520-%2520Republican%2520Mental%2520Health.pdf+gallop+poll+mental+health&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&client=firefox-a

[templar knight]

"An honest question....Are the majority of liberals nuts?..."

Well, the majority of liberal nicks who comment here are. Whether that is the majority of liberals who post here is difficult to know, considering the number of sock puppets one or two of our liberal friends have commented under.

But whether nuts are not, they're mean as hell, just so long as they comment anonomously. I'll bet you a thousand dollars a certain little turd here wouldn't dare talk about someone's children to that person's face. Even he would be ashamed, or in the alternative, too cowardly to do that.

[Philip McDaniel]

"Are the majority of liberals nuts?" LOL! Interesting link, Fred, and thinking about the liberals I come in contact it seems so to me too. Hmm...have to think about this a bit. There might be some underlying reason here. It's perhaps not so much being a liberal as a specific type of liberal. Also, it would be interesting to see just what mental illness is involved... and are there more than one?

[BobInStamford]

Keep thinking, patriot. In the meantime, thank you for your service.

[templar knight]

"Keep thinking, patriot. In the ......."

The wizard of Boobland has spoken.

[LOL]

"it looks to me like the next game on the schedule is Iran."

Ahh the wingnut reveals it. It's all a "game" to him. He enjoys watching wars, like all the true patriots in teh wingnutosphere. He sits back on his computer chair, screams "USA! USA!" and eats his cheetos while others play and die in his "game".

[moldy]

Hi Fred,

I am definitely on the anti-war side, but I try to stay open to opinions from the other point of view. I posted my question in an attempt to open a sincere debate on the Iraq war and the justification for starting it.

I appreciate your first link. I read it in it's entirety.

My take on the article (please comment if I missed any major points) was that the justification for military action came from Iraq's possession of WMD's, their nuclear program and their support of terrorism against the US as the justification for military action.

I think that if these things were true, then there's plenty of justification for war. However, from what we heard in the last few years, it would appear that none of these things are really true. There are related links below. I believe there was a more recent report out about Iraq's WMD capability at the time of the war, but I couldn't find it. Anyone else have any links.

WMD's
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A12115-2004Oct6?language=printer
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/03/31/intel.report/index.html

Nuclear program
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17707-2003Oct25?language=printer

Terrorism links
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02EFD81E3DF935A35751C0A9649C8B63

When I challenge myself (maybe because I am more nuts than you? ;) I consider the issue of intent. He didn't have the weapons, but evidence does suggest that he wanted them badly. Maybe that was justification enough?

[Philip McDaniel]

LOL! I do enjoy your comments, BobInStamford, even if you are, as templar knight suggests, a sock puppet.
moldy, try this site:
http://www.debka.com/
Here's another:
http://www.stratfor.com/frontpage
And this one:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/index.html
You need to get past using just the NYT and WaPo for sourcing current & especially past info.
Cheers

[BobInStamford]

John McCain wore pajamas for 6 years for our freedom. It is because of his love of sleepwear and George Bush's courage that Iraq will never attack us again.

[syn]

Onee of these days moderates, independents and rational Democrats are going to find out just how much they've been bamboozled by the NY Times and it's sister-in-ink The Washington Post.

[Fred Beloit]

LOL, I suppose you are somewhat uneducated. Let me help you by providing a definition of the word "analogy". Read and so learn:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=com.google:en-US:official&hs=ETd&defl=en&q=define:analogy&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

[LOL]

heres a link for you chump

http://www.us-army-info.com/pages/enlist.html

[tally]

"Obama bin Laden may not have been smoked out and brought to justice by the Decider, but at least patriots can sleep at night knowing that Saddam Hussein will not fly anymore aircraft into American buildings ever again"

wait, you mean barack hussein obama? oh dear, it does get a tad confusing on the militant left.

[Worst President Ever]

What's screwed up the military budget is the stupid war in Iraq - the one we were promised wouldn't actually cost us anything, and what it did cost would be paid for by by oil.

We spend more on the military than the next 165 countries combined. And that doesn't include all the ancillary money that goes to military programs, research, etc. Or the money spent in Iraq since that's all funded through supplemental bills, rather than the Defense budget.

If half a trillion $$$ isn't enough money to beat a bunch of guys that have no army, no tanks, no air force, no factories, then there's something seriously wrong with our leadership.

[moldy]

Hi Phillip,

I guess I should have known that articles from the WaPo would not go over well on this blog ;).

I can appreciate this so I searched for links on the sites you suggested. Thanks for the links by the way. I will use them in the future as well.

I was able to find similar information that I found in the WaPo articles. Admittedly more factual and less interpretive that the WaPo.

WMD's
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol1_rsi_key-findings.htm

Nuclear Program
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/nuke-isg.htm

So different articles, but the conclusion seems to be the same. No WMD's, no nuclear program, but a big desire to get both.

I still debate whether the intent alone was enough justification for the war?

[Fred Beloit]

LOL, my dear friend, I've already been in the Army. Was affiliated with it for about eight years, including two on active duty. How about you?

here's a link for you chump

http://www.us-army-info.com/pages/enlist.html

[Fred Beloit]

"I still debate whether the intent alone was enough justification for the war?"

Nobody could be this stupid, so I am forced to conclude moldy is a paid propagandist or a victim of BDS. We didn't go to war because Saddam had the "intent" to get WMD, it was because EVERYBODY, including his own army, thought he had chemical and possibly other WMD.

[WAHOO WILLIE'S BACK]

The "captains" story of how things were five years ago probably works real well for the average Joe Six-Pack and his artistic wife. For anyone who has any knowledge or has at minimum driven past an army base it is TOTALLY suspect. Let's just say 39 is not even 1/2 a company and even the Nat'l G combines "companies" from all over the country. As far as an army officer saying that the war was ill advised? Any who did not think that should be drummed out of the military. As should any who said it out loud. Any who thought it was illegal and unconstitutional should be court-martialed and shot, their families deported and their names erased from every pilar and post in the nation.

[rwilymz]

"Are you still insisting that Saddam had the WMDs no one could find?"

What's more, so's Hans Blix.

6,500 chemical shells found by the UN between '92 and '98, stored by the UN in locked warehouses at the time the UN left Iraq in late '98. In late '02 when the UN, lef by Hans Blix, went back, the first place he looked were those UN warehouses.

Empty.

That's 6.500 of 'em right there.

And right here, too, since you'll need a reference for this that you'll be able to tell your kids about.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2698857.stm

"Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs."

Imagine! Hoisted on the petard of the popular press. How often does that happen?

Now ... as for what happened to these chemical weapons ... I can still recall a certain Secty of State going before the UN Security Council with a slideshow depicting large Iraqi military trucks lining up before these warehouses in the weeks and months leading up to the reinstatement of the UN weapons inspections ... yet I also seem to recall that "everything" he said was "a lie".

Can't you?

...and yet ...we can't have it both ways. Either Blix was lying just as much as Powell -- and along with Blix lying there is a whole 6-year stream of lies coming from the first UN weapons inspection regime which fabricated finding this contraband in the first place -- or else the popular knee-jerk denunciations of Powell and the US in general is based upon political desire rather than fact. And if the latter, then the administration's critics are in effect doing to Truth, Justice and The American Way exactly what they claim the US did to same in the leadup to the Iraq Invasion.

"I still debate whether the intent alone was enough justification for the war"

Military action is justified in the face of cease-fire violations. Doesn't matter how big or small the violation; there are no rules of proportionality in International Law.

If Iraq violated the terms of the '91 Cease Fire, then any signatory to that cease fire is granted the authority to use military force to compel Iraq into compliance, ... or simply to punish Iraq, however you see fit.

You can quibble about the self-serving politics used to convince the voters, but that is a separate issue from "justification".

[WAHOO WILLIE'S BACK]

"6,500 chemical shells found by the UN between '92 and '98"

rw you are wasting your talents on these people. They needed SS-22s with "Newark or bust" written in Arabic on them to be convinced. Now don't rush in to tellus that an SS-22 wouldn't reach Newark from the sand box. My point is that it would have taken something more missile like and they would ALL be on board with the battle of the sandbox. Well, at least once Bill Mahr told them it was ok to be on board. You're dealing with sheeple, trying to give them grist to think on their own.

[Worst President Ever]

Your link is from 2003. Here's one from 2005:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/

In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.

“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall.

And from 2004:

WASHINGTON - Contradicting the main argument for a war that has cost more than 1,000 U.S. lives, the top U.S. arms inspector reported Wednesday that he had found no evidence that Iraq produced weapons of mass destruction after 1991. He also concluded that Saddam Hussein’s weapons capability weakened, not grew, during a dozen years of U.N. sanctions before the U.S. invasion last year.

“As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible.”

And from George Bush himself:

Now, look, I didn’t—part of the reason we went into Iraq was—the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t...

[WAHOO WILLIE'S BACK]

See hwere this leads, WPE who would know a weapon of mass destruction if his neighbor had one just has to jump in this tripe...But it would have been ok to go invade iraq had there been just one can of CS gas, right WPE?

[Worst President Ever]

Tripe is right. I read Blixx testimony. He doesn't say the UN ever had the shells. He says they had some Iraqi paperwork that says Iraq had 19,500 shells and 13,000 of them were used against Iran.

Read the transcript for yourself: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/index.html

Here's EXACTLY what Blix said:

I would now like to turn to the so-called air force document that I have discussed with the council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi air force headquarters in 1998, and taken from her by Iraq minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I'm encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.

The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi air force between 1983 and 1998, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.