Bush Resorts To 911

[Ralph]

I favor heavy reinforcements in Iraq ASAP. My question is: where do we get them?

[Lilith]

Corlyss: "Gimme a fu*cking break" ... Nice language. Trying to be tough like Bush?

[pizza]

" But even if true, so what?" So what? How long do you think this war will go on as public support shrinks further and further? Did you hear the Bush speech - there wasn't an original thought in it. Only the deceptive linking of Iraq to 9/11 (From the same guy who holds hands with Saudi Princes) and that pathetic plea to Americans to send their children to war.
I think it's all a shame because we have wasted many lives and many limbs and countless billions of dollars in a war this administration fumbled from the beginning. The countless mistakes and lack of strategy are becomming more and more apparent to everyone. How come we have so many dim wits among the best and the brightest?

It's too bad people of the present made-for-TV generation weren't around to experience the wars of my generation. Wars don't follow a screenwriter's script and there are no easy solutions to winning them. It takes tremendous effort, perseverance, and patience. There are no quick fixes. The sooner the public understands these basic concepts, the sooner it will come to terms with the realities of how major military conflicts are solved. This is a long-haul struggle against a brutal totalitarian confederation of radical Muslim groups that are bent on destroying Western Civilization and substituting their own in its place; what's more, they make no pretense that their objectives are anything other than the spread of Islam throughout the world, and by force if necessary. We have no choice but to continue to oppose them if we want to survive.

[Lilith]

"We have no choice but to continue to oppose them if we want to survive."
Agreed...lets try doing it intelligently. Can we?

[JackC]

"We have no choice but to continue to oppose them if we want to survive."
Agreed...lets try doing it intelligently. Can we?

Yes, as we generally are at the moment.

[pizza]

I favor heavy reinforcements in Iraq ASAP. My question is: where do we get them?

In my view that's not how wars against guerrilla forces are won. They're won by the careful gathering of intelligence and the surgical deployment of forces through the information learned from it. To do it will require something akin to the Israeli model, where limited special forces are used to destroy the enemy because we know in advance what they're planning. This will take time to develop as well as a change in basic military planning and attitude, but it's the best way to demoralize and defeat forces that won't meet your superior fire power head on.

[JackC]

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/

A typically insightful article by Melanie Phillips regarding the Left's hysteria, evidenced on this thread, over GWB's linking of Iraq and 9/11.

[Ralph]

I favor heavy reinforcements in Iraq ASAP. My question is: where do we get them?

In my view that's not how wars against guerrilla forces are won. They're won by the careful gathering of intelligence and the surgical deployment of forces through the information learned from it. To do it will require something akin to the Israeli model, where limited special forces are used to destroy the enemy because we know in advance what they're planning. This will take time to develop as well as a change in basic military planning and attitude, but it's the best way to demoralize and defeat forces that won't meet your superior fire power head on.

*****

Guerrilla forces don't come in "One Size Fits All" configurations. The Israelis operate in a relatively small combat zone outside their borders. We have a big operational theater. The terror inflicted by insurgents against their own people will fundamentally destabilyze the country if not clearly and effectively smashed. That, in my view, requires far more troops than were originally committed or are now deployable.

In Vietnam presence was the key to suppression. Of course rapid air assault deployment can be important but not when we are confronted with small cadres.

[Lilith]

Many of us who still remember the lies that came out of Washington and Saigon during Vietnam War, and it is extremely painful to relive this again today. I really thought that it was, well, maybe, just this one war that we lied about. The Bush Team is showing how easy it is to start lying again. The Weapons of Mass Destruction issue- well, I bend over backwards and grit my teeth and accept that they really thought it so. Thats a big concession I think.
But these lies liking Iraq with 9/11 are about as calculated as you can get.
And they show how desperate this administration is as it continues to lose support at home and troop options in the field.

[JackC]

Many of us who still remember the lies that came out of Washington and Saigon during Vietnam War, and it is extremely painful to relive this again today. I really thought that it was, well, maybe, just this one war that we lied about. The Bush Team is showing how easy it is to start lying again. The Weapons of Mass Destruction issue- well, I bend over backwards and grit my teeth and accept that they really thought it so. Thats a big concession I think.
But these lies liking Iraq with 9/11 are about as calculated as you can get.
And they show how desperate this administration is as it continues to lose support at home and troop options in the field.

Gee, you wouldn't by any chance be HOPING that things get worse in Iraq, would you???

And no matter how many times you say he's LYING about Iraq and 9/11, it doesn't make it true.

Besides, read the Melanie Phillips article. If the shoe were on the other foot, Michael Moore and you would have had a field day drawing up a conspiracy theory based on those facts.

[Lilith]

"Gee, you wouldn't by any chance be HOPING that things get worse in Iraq, would you??? "

No. Actually, two years after Bush declared this operation successfully concluded (remember the battleship pics), I would have hoped we would have gone in with enough force (250,000) and some excellent planning and would now be removing troops and winding down our involvement.

And what do you hope for Jack? The anniliation of Syria and Iran, like Corlyss proposes?

[JackC]

"Gee, you wouldn't by any chance be HOPING that things get worse in Iraq, would you??? "

No. Actually, two years after Bush declared this operation successfully concluded (remember the battleship pics), I would have hoped we would have gone in with enough force (250,000) and some excellent planning and would now be removing troops and winding down our involvement.

And what do you hope for Jack? The anniliation of Syria and Iran, like Corlyss proposes?

So your big beef is that we didn't invade with enough troops, and our plan wasn't good enough.

And what are you proposing now, that we send more troops in, or pull them all out because all is lost????

[herman]

And no matter how many times you say he's LYING about Iraq and 9/11, it doesn't make it true.

It's the other way around. There isn't a shred of evidence for the link, nor for the WMD, and yet you keep saying it's true - occasionally by asserting that the fact that there's no trace of evidence means that that it's true. Saddam was that clever.

And frankly, when you're talking of hsyteria, I think you're talking about yourself, trying to hold on to the notion that there's evidence, and a casus belli when most people (even in the GOP) are acceding there are big credibility problems. Witness also the vicious language Corlyss is resorting to to bolser the case - as if.

[Lilith]

"And what are you proposing now, that we send more troops in, or pull them all out because all is lost????"

I am proposing now that people like you and Pizza stop trying to
"fit the facts to the policy". There is no link between Iraq and 9/11.
Is simple, its accurate. And lets not try to sell a failing national policy on lies, like we did in Vietnam.

[JackC]

"And what are you proposing now, that we send more troops in, or pull them all out because all is lost????"

I am proposing now that people like you and Pizza stop trying to
"fit the facts to the policy". There is no link between Iraq and 9/11.
Is simple, its accurate. And lets not try to sell a failing national policy on lies, like we did in Vietnam.

So you are not saying what we should do. Why am I not surprised.

[Lilith]

"So you are not saying what we should do. Why am I not surprised." -Jack

You let these fools put us in the horrible position we are today, and then you should ask me - ME - what to do? ASK THEM JACK. THEY PUT US HERE. ASk the best and brightest in Washington. I'm sure they'll have a real simple answer for you.

[JackC]

"So you are not saying what we should do. Why am I not surprised." -Jack

I should let these fools put us in the horrible position we are today, and then you should ask me - ME - what to do. ASK THEM JACK. THEY PUT US HERE

I see, so you have nothing to say about the future. You just want to say "Bush screwed up" and Bush is a liar.

[Lilith]

I wanted to say 'Stop the Lying" Mr Bush. Thats pretty much what I'd like to say.

[Corlyss_D]

"And what are you proposing now, that we send more troops in, or pull them all out because all is lost????"

I am proposing now that people like you and Pizza stop trying to
"fit the facts to the policy". There is no link between Iraq and 9/11.
Is simple, its accurate. And lets not try to sell a failing national policy on lies, like we did in Vietnam.

You're as vocal and insistent as you are ignorant. There's no point in talking with you. It's a real pity is that you vote.

[pizza]

And no matter how many times you say he's LYING about Iraq and 9/11, it doesn't make it true.

It's the other way around. There isn't a shred of evidence for the link, nor for the WMD, and yet you keep saying it's true - occasionally by asserting that the fact that there's no trace of evidence means that that it's true. Saddam was that clever.

And frankly, when you're talking of hsyteria, I think you're talking about yourself, trying to hold on to the notion that there's evidence, and a casus belli when most people (even in the GOP) are acceding there are big credibility problems. Witness also the vicious language Corlyss is resorting to to bolser the case - as if.

Many items of evidence were produced concerning the link from sources in a position to know. One has only to piece them together in order to see the entire picture. But that takes two things you ain't got: an open mind and the patience to draw reasonable inferences. Even more revealing is your attitude concerning WMDs; that they were used on the Kurds and Kuwaitis is beyond question. But in your view Saddam, with great remorse and fully realizing the error of his brutal ways, ordered them destroyed in an unprecedented act of contrition.

Your attitude toward the obvious reminds me of the first two of the three famous Chinese Buddha Monkeys -- See No Evil, Hear No Evil and Speak No Evil.

[Lilith]

"You're as vocal and insistent as you are ignorant. There's no point in talking with you. It's a real pity is that you vote."

Gee, that wasn't what you were saying about me on the Schiavo thread. I thought you were falling in love with me.

Well, at least I can gain some satisfaction in knowing that my vote cancels out yours

[Alban Berg]

It's a real pity is that you vote.

So much for democracy . . . .

[Ralph]

"And what are you proposing now, that we send more troops in, or pull them all out because all is lost????"

I am proposing now that people like you and Pizza stop trying to
"fit the facts to the policy". There is no link between Iraq and 9/11.
Is simple, its accurate. And lets not try to sell a failing national policy on lies, like we did in Vietnam.

You're as vocal and insistent as you are ignorant. There's no point in talking with you. It's a real pity is that you vote.

*****

How can it be "a pity" that any person votes his/her conscience in a country where so many do not value that wonderful franchise? Your remark, Corlyss, is truly ad hominem.

[karlhenning]

An example of what the President has so frequently and so successfully exploited these past few years: emotion trumping both reason and principle.

[JackC]

An example of what the President has so frequently and so successfully exploited these past few years: emotion trumping both reason and principle.

From the mouth of someone who can't seem to see that he is at least as dogmatic in his beliefs as those who he ridicules.

[pizza]

An example of what the President has so frequently and so successfully exploited these past few years: emotion trumping both reason and principle.

From the mouth of someone who can't seem to see that he is at least as dogmatic in his beliefs as those who he ridicules.

Don't be too critical, Jack. It's the prerogative of every armchair quarterback who never threw a pass in the face rushing linemen.

[Werner]

And it's the privilege of every literate apologist to pontificate regardless of the facts, right?

[karlhenning]

I'd be amused if Jack the Dog-o-matic can point to my alleged dogmata. He doesn't engage my part of the conversation, he just plugs into his script.

Along these lines, it were hard to find something more purely mindless than Jack's response to the Article Not Read
(Those of you who just want to pat Jack on the back, probably won't wish to read it, either; your prerogative, of course.)

[pizza]

And it's the privilege of every literate apologist to pontificate regardless of the facts, right?

Of course, and I'll defend to the death your privilege to do so. Carry on.

[Corlyss_D]

And it's the privilege of every literate apologist to pontificate regardless of the facts, right?

No. Insert Moynahan quote here. The problem with liberals is they feel that their deeply emotional and ultimately irrational animus against Bush is so great that no lie is too transparent or false or destructive to repeat over and over again as tho' it were truth, a truth that only they are priviledged to perceive and which entitles them to rule even in the face of widespread public disblief. They make pronouncement of conclusory opinions as though they were facts and damn the rest of us for not seeing what is so apparent to them. Practically I don't see much difference between their behavior and paranoid delusional manifestations of schizophrenia.

[Ralph]

And it's the privilege of every literate apologist to pontificate regardless of the facts, right?

Of course, and I'll defend to the death your privilege to do so. Carry on.

*****

Privilege or right: there's a difference.

[rwetmore]

An example of what the President has so frequently and so successfully exploited these past few years: emotion trumping both reason and principle.

That's right, anyone who voted for Bush in '04 has been hood-winked by a bunch of lies, and is too dumb to see it. This, of course, includes the vast majority of our fighting armed forces, who overwhelmingly voted for the President. A minor detail our immensely erudite, reasoned, principled, and never emotion trumping media (lol) has conveniently decided to ignore.

I have been hearing this "hood-winked" nonsense from liberals and anti-Bushers over and over again. Bush isn't claiming that Iraq was connected to 9/11. He is simply pointing out that many of the people attempting to disrupt the formation of the democracy over there come from the same group of people who attacked us on 9/11.

If this war isn't a vitally important piece in the overall war on terror, then why have the terrorists, including Bin Laden, declared it so????

[Barry]

I both agree and disagree with you, Randall. I agree that Iraq has become a major battlefield in the war on Islamic fundamentalist terrorits; i.e. the same people behind 9/11 (in a general sense).

But while Bush may never have clearly said that Saddam was behind 9/11, he and other high ranking members of his administration (maybe Cheyney more than anyone else) have mentioned Saddam and 9/11 in the same sentence enough times for long enough to lead a majority of Americans polled to say Saddam was at least partially responsible for 9/11 (that isn't a real recent poll......don't know what the current number would be). I don't think that's an accident. It's exactly what the administration wanted to get support for the war.

Now you can argue, as Corlyss has (and I'm at least somewhat sympathetic to her case), that American presidents have always lied regarding war and there isn't any way around it if you want to be successful and maintain some degree of public support. In other words, there are times when national security prevents a president from being completely candid with the public; and to go even further, fudging with the facts (and in this case, stopping short of outright lying) can also serve legitimate national security purposes.

And by the way, it was most definately reported in the mainstream media that the majority of those in the military supported Bush in November. I'm not sure where you got that from. But so what? Is it even remotely surprising that the military would be supportive of their very aggressive and supportive commander-in-chief? And in what way should that have impacted anyone's vote? There are a number of other professions I'm sure in which most of the people are overwhelmingly either liberal or conservative. You're welcome to your opinion, but a lot of the criticisms I've seen you level at the media has been way off.

[rwetmore]

I both agree and disagree with you, Randall. I agree that Iraq has become a major battlefield in the war on Islamic fundamentalist terrorits; i.e. the same people behind 9/11 (in a general sense).

But while Bush may never have clearly said that Saddam was behind 9/11, he and other high ranking members of his administration (maybe Cheyney more than anyone else) have mentioned Saddam and 9/11 in the same sentence enough times for long enough to lead a majority of Americans polled to say Saddam was at least partially responsible for 9/11 (that isn't a real recent poll......don't know what the current number would be). I don't think that's an accident. It's exactly what the administration wanted to get support for the war.

Well, I don't recall Cheney's remarks.

They way I remember it was that it was feared that Iraq could pass WMDs to terrorists who share hate for the US; not that Saddam had ties to 9/11 (maybe I'm wrong though)

Now you can argue, as Corlyss has (and I'm at least somewhat sympathetic to her case), that American presidents have always lied regarding war and there isn't any way around it if you want to be successful and maintain some degree of public support. In other words, there are times when national security prevents a president from being completely candid with the public; and to go even further, fudging with the facts (and in this case, stopping short of outright lying) can also serve legitimate national security purposes.

IMO, there is quite a difference between lying and simply trying to make the best case for a situation. Certainly Bush is leaving out facts that don't support his position there, but I don't consider that lying.

With war especially, it is very easy to focus on the negative or be pessimistic. I stongly believe that the only force that can truly defeat the United States in Iraq is loss of public support for the effort here at home. The terrorists in Iraq must be defeated, above all, to prove that their tactics will never work against us regardless of the situation. Any mistakes Bush has made are insignificant next to this, IMO.

And by the way, it was most definately reported in the mainstream media that the majority of those in the military supported Bush in November. I'm not sure where you got that from. But so what? Is it even remotely surprising that the military would be supportive of their very aggressive and supportive commander-in-chief? And in what way should that have impacted anyone's vote? There are a number of other professions I'm sure in which most of the people are overwhelmingly either liberal or conservative. You're welcome to your opinion, but a lot of the criticisms I've seen you level at the media has been way off.

Well, I don't remember hearing about it, and it was a very significant piece of news.

It's true that the military in general does vote Republican, but let's remember that the elections in Iraq hadn't taken place yet in November. The main stream press, at the time, would have had us believe that Iraq was the greatest piece of incompetence ever attempted in the history of warfare; a complete and total failure; the biggest blunder in history of the Universe, etc., etc.. Well, if this was true, certainly no group of people more than the fighting soldiers themselves would be aware of it and would NOT have voted overwhelmingly for Bush. That's mainly what I was trying to say.

[Barry]

So it's okay for the media to play right along with the administration by allowing Bush his "land on the flight-deck and proclaim major fighting over," but not for them to report that such a claim is false? Frankly, I think the administration deserves any negative publicity it gets after a bogus propoganda stunt like that (not to mention Cheyney's more recent claim that the resistance is in its last throes).

I agree with you that the war is not the unmittigated disaster that the left claims it is. As I've said many times, it may be years before we know if this gamble pays off strategically in the Middle East. There have been some positive signs, but also some negative ones.

I'm skeptical of Bush's reasoning for not sending more troops. I tend to agree with people like Powell, McCain and the fired general who favor using overwhelming force, with more troops to secure more population centers and other strategic areas, right off the bat. And if we can't spare enough troops to do that, then I'd have to rethink the wisdom of going into Iraq in the first place.

[Barry]

I should add that I've read numerous mainstream media reports on a number of American offensives and how successful some of them have been, including a couple in recent weeks. But the media bashers ignore those and pretend that only the negative is reported.

[Corlyss_D]

I should add that I've read numerous mainstream media reports on a number of American offensives and how successful some of them have been, including a couple in recent weeks. But the media bashers ignore those and pretend that only the negative is reported.

By statistical analysis, the negative stories run about 4 to 1 in MSM. I don't have to "ignore" anything.

[Barry]

Corlyss,

When a suicide bomber kills mulitiple people in a population center where members of the media are, what do you expect them to do? Ignore it? When the media was embedded with the invading troops, it was reported more like a John Wayne movie, completely glorifying the American effort (it looked like a Bush campaign commercial at times on TV when I was watching the coverage). When the initial invasion is over and it moves on to the type of war we've had for months now, the press is going to go where the most newsworthy action is. When the Americans pull some sort of major and successful operation, it gets reported.

If the press is going to be criticized for anything, it should be for being too easy to manipulate, both by the administation and the insurgents. They should be more independent.

[rwetmore]

So it's okay for the media to play right along with the administration by allowing Bush his "land on the flight-deck and proclaim major fighting over," but not for them to report that such a claim is false? Frankly, I think the administration deserves any negative publicity it gets after a bogus propoganda stunt like that (not to mention Cheyney's more recent claim that the resistance is in its last throes).

No, I agree with you 100%. What have I said that would make you think otherwise? The flight-deck thing was a major publicity stunt, and proves that the administration had no anticipation for the insurgency that would soon follow.

I agree with you that the war is not the unmittigated disaster that the left claims it is. As I've said many times, it may be years before we know if this gamble pays off strategically in the Middle East. There have been some positive signs, but also some negative ones.

I'm skeptical of Bush's reasoning for not sending more troops. I tend to agree with people like Powell, McCain and the fired general who favor using overwhelming force, with more troops to secure more population centers and other strategic areas, right off the bat. And if we can't spare enough troops to do that, then I'd have to rethink the wisdom of going into Iraq in the first place.

Certainly, more troops immediately after the march to Bagdad to secure the borders and strategic locations would have been better; that was clearly a mistake. It is certainly a fair criticism to question the wisdom of going, but what does that accomplish now? Nothing at all, as I see it.

The only discourse I can take seriously, at this point, is differing opinions on what we should be doing to win over there.

[Barry]

Randall,
I'd say the point of making that criticism now is that it isn't too late to add more troops to do a better job of securing the country. It's arguably an ongoing mistake.

[rwetmore]

Randall,
I'd say the point of making that criticism now is that it isn't too late to add more troops to do a better job of securing the country. It's arguably an ongoing mistake.

Well, that is what some say; I'm not so sure. I tend to agree with the logic that more troops, especially at this point, mean more targets for terrorists. More troops could also give many of the less informed in Iraq the impression that we are occupiers rather than liberators.

[Barry]

I agree that it might give the Iraqi people that impression. But in spite of that, what will really take away that impression is securing the country to the point where we can get out of there, and if sticking more troops in there can get us to that point more quickly, I'd favor it. Of course, that's a big if, and I don't have the information at hand to give an informed decision on whether adding troops will help end things more quickly. A few people I respect have said it would, but others differ. That's why I tend not to take hard stances with regard to Iraq. Things are still very much in flux.

[Corlyss_D]

Randall,
I'd say the point of making that criticism now is that it isn't too late to add more troops to do a better job of securing the country. It's arguably an ongoing mistake.

Well, that is what some say; I'm not so sure. I tend to agree with the logic that more troops, especially at this point, mean more targets for terrorists.

I've heard Rummy say that before. I don't buy it. That's a bull crap answer from a nation that's got too few warfighters for the job that needs doin'. If we had done this job in 1991 when we had 500,000 troops on the ground in the neighborhood we wouldn't have these problems of Zarqawi and his happy little band of Iranian funded/Saudi funded rebels. We might have other problems, but we wouldn't have these. If I were an Iraqi today, I'd be mad as hell at the Americans for making such a co*ck-up of a perfectly worthy and necessary mission. (And this from someone who thinks things are going comparatively well in Iraq and thinks we ought to be doing more than we are in the region.)