Comments on: Suicide Bomber Said Cause of Iraq Attack

By: LJD

LJD — Mon, 27 Dec 2004 12:51:01 +0000

O.K. The post was about a suicide bomber.
Enter all of the tired, old, worn-out anti-war sentiments and criticisms of the Bush administration that were so well worn out during the campaign.
So what now?
Assuming every one and their mother has heard you bitch for over a year. What is your solution? Or, don't you have one?
I've posted it a hundred times before: complaining solves nothing. If the Dems understood that, they may have gotten into the White House.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Fri, 24 Dec 2004 16:37:43 +0000

No, Ken, I lived through 'nam. Damn near gt called up for it, in fact.

And I've also been around long enough to kno when someone's trying to paint a victory as a defeat.

By: ken

ken — Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:17:01 +0000

Jim, glad you asked. The point about taxes is to demonstrate that the politicians who send our military to war have a certain level of commitment. If they are not willing to pay for it, both financially and politically, then you can be absolutely sure that the war is not worth fighting and is lost before it even starts. The point about Bush prancing about an aircraft carrier is similar. It demonstrates beloved leaders complete lack of seriousness in the matter of this war.

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 24 Dec 2004 13:57:46 +0000

Ken,

I may understand your comment about having enough forces and feel that is a debatable point. What seems completly spurious to me are your points about taxes (why is it that tax policy is connected to the conduct of this war?) and Bush's trip to the aircraft carrier (Sarcasm on: I am sure all the insurgents were just being good Iraqi citizens but as soon as they saw the flight suit with the Mission Acomplished banner they thought...we'll show him a thing or two. If only he didn't wear the flight suit Iraq would be at peae /Sarcasm off)

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Thu, 23 Dec 2004 22:53:05 +0000

"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990," he said on an Infinity Radio call-in program. "Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that." Donald Rumsfeld, Infinity Radio call in show, Nov. 15, 2002

By: ken

ken — Thu, 23 Dec 2004 21:59:42 +0000

I canât help but think this is an extension of their desire to project this effort in IRaq as a lost cause.

bithead, I take it you are perhaps too young to have lived through the turmoil of the Vietnam era?

This war was a lost cause as soon as Bush refused to committ adequate military forces to get the job done, as soon as he refused to raise taxes to pay for it, and as soon as he started prancing about in a too tight flight suit on the deck of an aircraft carrier declaring 'mission accomplished'.

Don't blame the press when the fault belongs with the politicians in Washington who started this war on a lie and then denied our military the forces needed to win.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Thu, 23 Dec 2004 20:15:33 +0000

It was fair for officials to be working n the mortar idea.

What was unfair was the post running at length about how the whole thing was an issue of increasing accuracy of mortar attacks.

Normally such conjecture has been left for at least the investigation to occur. That didn't happen here before WaPo got ito their Chicken Little routine.

I can't help but think this is an extension of their desire to project this effort in IRaq as a lost cause.

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Thu, 23 Dec 2004 20:15:11 +0000

Much like 'Nam, our forces can't tell who is friend or foe most of the time. The kid who is shining a Marine's boots today may be tossing a grenade at him tomorrow.

It is clearer with every passing day that disbanding the Iraqi army was a vast mistake. An intact army with good leadership would probably have had a much better chance of stabalizing the country. More non-planning by the Bush admin.

By: ken

ken — Thu, 23 Dec 2004 18:56:36 +0000

bithead, I think it was reasonable on the part of officials to assume, at least initially, that the attack originated outside the security perimeter of the base. The Washington Post article was based upon the comments of officials operating under that assumption. Reporting this does not damage the credibility of the newspaper. Nor does it damage the credibility of the officials. It is what it is.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:56:04 +0000

This correction wuld seem to blow a hole in the credibility of the WaPo article of yesterday, claiming that officials were worried about the accuracy of the targeting employed by the insurgents.

By: LJD

LJD — Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:54:01 +0000

"I wish that 2,000 U.S. soldiers were killed,"

Nice. Perhaps he would like to take responsibility for his country's security? Didn't think so.

This guy probably packed the vest himself. Abu Ghraib is too good for him.