Comments on: Accountability in Iraq

By: Roger

Roger — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 07:02:16 +0000

Well, they think his tax cuts for the wealthy are responsible for an improved economy. But, of course, they have nothing to do with our huge trade deficits.

And so on . . . .

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 20:19:07 +0000

I thought Bush was "the decider". Do you cats hold him responsible for anything that has happend on his watch?

By: Roger

Roger — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 20:18:34 +0000

It made no sense to invade Iraq before rooting out Al-Qaeda, LJD. No one argued for or against Somalia, etc. The point was the Repubs hypocrisy then vs. their sudden eagerness to go after evil dictators now that we should be focused on a direct threat to our country. This stuff is not difficult.

By: LJD

LJD — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 19:55:46 +0000

No matter how you slice it, Iraq was NOT central to GWOT until we invaded.

Keep living in your 'assessment' of the past. Regardless of what you belive in the run-up to the war, Saddam WAS a key contributor to terror. Being a threat to the mainland U.S. is now irrelevant: He was in violation of international law, was continually attacking our military enforcing the law, he needed to be toppled, and we were the ones the U.N. chose to do the job. Again, regardless of the past, sounds like you admit that Iraq IS central to the GWOT. - nuff said about that.

I love how you guys move the goalposts. Going to Somalia and Yugoslavia are o.k. It is now o.k. to trample over Afghanistan to find one guy. It is o.k. to trade nukes with North Korea (or Iran). It's o.k. to sacrifice tens of thousands in bloody all-out conventional warfare in Sudan. Iraq is not o.k. I guess in your minds, it depends on who is making the call.

Also, you carry many many assuptions. As if things would be any different in Afghanistan, North Korea, or Iran if we had stayed out of Iraq. Must be great to have that crystal ball that works in reverse.

By: Roger

Roger — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 19:41:49 +0000

Amen, legion. I keep waiting for LJD to actually explain his rants, but no dice.

Hmmm. Seems to me when Clinton was fighting Al-Qaeda, the Repubs kept shouting "wag the dog" and doing everything they could to stop him. They were more interested in talking about Clinton's sex life than defending the country. Hypocrites.
Wait, I forgot how all the Repubs were clamoring to invade Afghanistan before 9/11 and were eager to back Clinton's military actions against dictators and warlords around the world, like in Somalia and Serbia. My bad.

By: legion

legion — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:18:50 +0000

When will you people understand that Iraq was/is/ will be fundamental to the GWOT?

When someone can actually demonstrate that that was true prior to OIF. Yes, Iraq could have become, over a number of years, a threat to regional stability. Yes, Saddam was a complete bastard, desparately in need of two to the head. But considering them a threat to the existence, or even physical security, of the US is ridiculous. And before you spout off that the GWOT is supposed to protect "the world" from terror, not just the US, you might want to ask the State Dept how many more terror attacks there have been worldwide since we invaded Iraq. If that info hasn't been retroactively classified due to Bush's embarrassment. The simple fact is that it made _no damn sense_ to invade Iraq. We hadn't properly secured Afghanistan. Pakistan, with its rogue scientist, has proven to be more of a nuclear-proliferation threat than Iraq (or Iran, for that matter) could ever hope to be. North Korea is a threat to both regional stability _and_ the US physically - a half-cocked, fully loaded, fully insane, nuclear-bombing NK isn't in China's interest either. No matter how you slice it, Iraq was NOT central to GWOT until we invaded.

By: LJD

LJD — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:06:58 +0000

I suppose Clinton 'planned' to capture Bin Laden as well. He managed not to do anything there either.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:52:51 +0000

Pre-9/11, Bushco planned to attack Iraq.

In 1998, so did ClintonCo. But he's excused because he didn't actually do anything.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:33:05 +0000

Remember liberals: everyone in the military volunteered. gawd how that must make you frustrated!!!

By: LJD

LJD — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:51:15 +0000

When will you people understand that Iraq was/is/ will be fundamental to the GWOT? 9/11 was only the tipping point for us to become involved in treating a long festering sore.

Blaming the current state of the world on your imagined foe "the Neocons" is no different than blaming the GWOT on "those Brown Peopole". Wake up and smell the coffee.

By: Roger

Roger — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:34:23 +0000

Jem, let me clarify for you. Pre-9/11, Bushco planned to attack Iraq. After 9/11, Bushco and company proceed to attack Iraq rather than deal with the threat to our country revealed by 9/11. Your response pretends you don't understand thias simple point. The neocon game of playing "stupid on purpose" has been overused and is no longer effective.

By: Jem

Jem — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 08:15:43 +0000

Roger and RJN,
Having seen the target lists for the war plan before Rumsfeld and Franks had it redone and worked some targeting issues during Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, your argument about going with the pre-9/11 plan simply doesn't mesh with reality.

But it's not bad as rants go...so long as your audience is equally ignorant of the facts.

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 05:24:07 +0000

The "long-ago Powell era"? You mean the one where we actually won a war?

By: RJN

RJN — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 03:35:54 +0000

Give 'em hell Roger. You are spot on.

This was a fiasco pushed by the neo-cons. Nothing mattered to them except getting the U. S. into a strategic position in Iraq.

By the way, the Taliban are retaking Afghanistan, and increasing their influence in Pakistan.

By: Roger

Roger — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 03:19:13 +0000

"My impression ... having read their columns, is that their political-military worldview is still firmly grounded in the pre-9/11 world." -- No Donald, it was Bushco's worldview that failed to adjust after 9/11. They implemented their pre-9/11 plan to attack Iraq despite 9/11. They should have adjusted to the new priority 9/11 made clear and stuck with getting Al Qaeda. "We havenâ??t seen great leadership like Bushâ??s for a long long time and wonâ??t again prob for a long time." -- Chris, we've never seen "leadership" like this before, nor I pray will we ever see it again. "It is not that military advice was ignored . .." -- John, Powell tried to tell them from the beginning that Iraq was a bad idea. The chickenhawks did not listen to his sound military advice, or to anyone else's advice that didn't agree with what they were already determined to do. To hear you guys talk, you'd think Bin Laden had been caught and executed years ago and Al Qaeda had been wiped out and the threat of further terrorists attacks eliminated. Our Great Leader has failed miserably and we will likely pay the price for it. Of course, you'll always be able to blame our military for it, I suppose, or the next President--but only if a Democrat is in office. Your disregard for our country and our military simply to support a politician at all costs is disturbing.