Sanchez calls Iraq war a nightmare

[tony mitra]

Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who was the commander of coalition forces in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 has issued a blistering criticism of U.S. management of the war. He was particularly scathing on political leaders, implying Mr. Bush and his war cabinet as well as the congress, accusing them of lust for power that resulted in loss of lives of American soldiers, and well as the war.

The news is hitting headlines everywhere, on CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html), BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7042805.stm), Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/13/wsanchez113.xml), Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101202459.html?hpid=topnews), and other outlets.

Calling the political leaders as incompetent and corrupt, Sanchez stated that these leaders would have faced courts martial for dereliction of duty had they been in the military.

Strong words, but is it timely wake up call, or political blustering, or a mix of both?

Cheers.
:)

[Kyi Yo]

I've heard he's coming out with a book. I've also read where he's seeking revenge for being tossed under the bus during the Abu Gharaib hearings. He was exonerated, but he also wasn't recommended for that 4th star by the administration and was basically forced to resign.

In spite of all of that, I agree with his assessment. It's backed up by many other retired generals and military analysts. His isn't the lone voice in the wilderness, he's joining a growing clamor from military personnel.

[Labrocca]

Oddly the government has made enemies not only externally but internally within the military as well. It's not a pretty thing. I wasn't around during Nam or WWII so I don't know if this type of thing is normal but I suspect it's not. High commanders are leaving the military and becoming war critics in droves and getting rich in the process. I am not sure how I feel about that.

If I was retiring and I know I could make $250k+ from a book deal or maybe some money from appearances I would be extremely tempted to be a critic even if I wasn't.

[bobbylien]

How can we hold this administration accountable for their actions? I'd say hang them all when they get out of office but that might be a little bit much for the American people to handle. We need Bill and Hillary to finish the job.

[ViolaLee]

Another "phoney soldier"?

[Scorpion]

Having served two comabat tours in Vietnam with Bravo and Delta Troops, 2/7th Cavalry, 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile), I can attest that war is a nightmare. Sometimes a necessary nightmare.

But when a war is precipitated on falsehoods and propaganda then it is a crime and the politicians who tendered those falsehoods are nothing more than common criminals.

It's time the criminals were dealt with as they deserve.

[PatrickHenry]

Sometimes you need a necktie party.

[ECW]

or impeachment. Take away junior's presidential pension and I'll be happy.

[Trish]

It seems everyone is quite thrilled with Gen.Sanchez' assessment of the Iraq war even coming from the distant view of 3 years. I wonder if everyone is as thrilled with one of the general's observations that has not been posted on this thread:

"America has not been fully committed to winning this war. Partisan politics have hindered this war effort." http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,22582589-401,00.html?from=public_rss

Then of course there's this assessment offered by General Sanchez:

"Sanchez went on to offer a pessimistic view on the current U.S. strategy against extremists will make lasting gains, but said a full-scale withdrawal also was not an option.

"The American military finds itself in an intractable situation ... America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq," said Sanchez, who works as a consultant training U.S. generals" http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/13/iraq/main3363824.shtml

Or how about this comment the General made in the same speech. I haven't seen anyone post or comment about it:

"The basic ethics of a journalist, as laid out here, of seeking truth, fair and comprehensive accounting of events and issues, thoroughness and honesty, all are sometime victims of the massive agenda driven competition for economic or political supremacy. The death knell of your ethics has been enabled by some parent organizations who have chosen to align themselves with political agendas. What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our service members who are at war, in some cases."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/13/iraq/main3363824.shtml

So what about it folks? Is General Sanchez STILL sounding the clarion bell?

[ECW]

Is General Sanchez STILL sounding the clarion bell?

Yes. Taking the people to task that took us into this war without the proper ways to win it are totally responsible.

It seems everyone is quite thrilled with Gen.Sanchez' assessment of the Iraq war even coming from the distant view of 3 years.

The time lag is irrelevant. The sentiment is what counts and he's gotten it correct. There was a way to win this war but George ignored those who wanted to do it their way and instead insisted on his way or the highway. When the military caved in and did not fight for what they knew to be the better way, we wound up with the quagmire we have today.


I wonder if everyone is as thrilled with one of the general's observations that has not been posted on this thread:

"America has not been fully committed to winning this war. Partisan politics have hindered this war effort." http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,22582589-401,00.html?from=public_rss

Another true statement. The politicalization of this war by the Bushbots was nothing short of incredible. Everything from the fear-mongering, to the color coded scare tactics, to the subjugation of our civil rights in the name of security, to the torture that was allowed to happen, to the illegal detentions of suspects, to the illegal renditions, to the secret prisons to the lack of a trial for anyone, to the chaos of Iraq after the invasion, to the disbanding of all military and civil authority without adequate replacements in place, to the looting of the armories, to the attacks to American personnel, to the extended service times, to the call up of reserve troops, to the cutting and running in Afghanistan before OBL was acught, to the extended tours troops have to face, to cut backs in their downtimes, to the Stop Loss program which ruined so many lives, to privatizing the war, to paying contractors five times as much as our own troops, to supplying those contracors with the best weaponry while our own troops have to scavenge, to troops having to buy their own body armor, to being charged for mess hall food while wounded, to the GOP fighting a proposal to increase the death benefits for our troops, to not supplying enough armored vehicles, to failing to train Iraqis to defend themselves, to ignoring the death squads supplied with American weapons, to not showing deceased American troops as they return from the war, to discrediting any critics of the war with personal attacks by Bush attack dogs, to lack of oversight for American tax money that was supposed to help rebuild Iraq, to supplying troops with tainted water due to carelessness by a contractor, to overlooking the rapes of female soldiers by male soldiers, to the killing of so many civilians, to refusing our allies an opportunity to help rebuild Iraq and then ask them for money to rebuild the place, to being unable to stop ethnic cleansing, to a thousand other things, yes, partisan politics has hindered this war effort. No national sacrifice for our troops means a failure of leadership.

"Sanchez went on to offer a pessimistic view on the current U.S. strategy against extremists will make lasting gains, but said a full-scale withdrawal also was not an option.

Betwixt and between is where the Bush policies have left us.

"The American military finds itself in an intractable situation ... America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq," said Sanchez, who works as a consultant training U.S. generals" http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/13/iraq/main3363824.shtml

The military? The public finds itself in an even more dire situation: an endless war.

Or how about this comment the General made in the same speech. I haven't seen anyone post or comment about it:

"The basic ethics of a journalist, as laid out here, of seeking truth, fair and comprehensive accounting of events and issues, thoroughness and honesty, all are sometime victims of the massive agenda driven competition for economic or political supremacy. The death knell of your ethics has been enabled by some parent organizations who have chosen to align themselves with political agendas. What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our service members who are at war, in some cases."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/13/iraq/main3363824.shtml

When you allow one man to run everything without question, you wind up with a corrosive environment just like we have today. Not all journalists want to buck their corporate masters. The politics arrives when one side refuses to do what is correct and plays a game with their lives. Six years of no oversight and four years of a war that has been cheer led by a former cheerleader brings you to a point where it is cutthroat all the time. Refusal to agree to any compromises on the part of this WH will do that to your war effort.

[BoogyMan]

I truly find it interesting and eye opening that Gen. Sanchez, who definitely has the right to speak his mind, is vaunted for having put forth an ideology that in part agrees with the left wing while others are sell outs and betrayers.

Did anyone notice the scathing condemnation that Sanchez also had for the mass media? ..crickets...

http://www.militaryreporters.org/sanchez_101207.html

[Deadshot]

It's politics as usual, Boogy and you know that. The reason that Sanchez is being put on a pedistal by the left is the same reason the right would put an environmentalist that went against the left on a pedistal.

When a member of the U.S. Military, even a former member, of high rank goes against the Right, and becomes what Rush Limbaugh has described as a "phony soldier" the left will pick up on it and bring it to the forefront.

It is what it is, just another slam against Bush and the GOP :clapper::ecstatic::clapper:

[BoogyMan]

When a member of the U.S. Military, even a former member, of high rank goes against the Right, and becomes what Rush Limbaugh has described as a "phony soldier" the left will pick up on it and bring it to the forefront.

I wasn't aware that Gen. Sanchez did anything to join the ranks of Jesse MacBeth or Lauro Chavez DS. :D

[Deadshot]

When a member of the U.S. Military, even a former member, of high rank goes against the Right, and becomes what Rush Limbaugh has described as a "phony soldier" the left will pick up on it and bring it to the forefront.

I wasn't aware that Gen. Sanchez did anything to join the ranks of Jesse MacBeth or Lauro Chavez DS. :D


I didn't say that he did but, like it or not, he is a Liberal poster boy now. My guess is that the General would not like being one, but he expressed a view that is accepted and lauded by the Left, and ignored by the right.

So now you're on our side, maybe Hillary will appoint him to the Joint Chiefs:ecstatic:

[BoogyMan]

Man what a segway DS.

Did you read the commentary in the link I posted as to what Gen. Chavez had to say about the media? Ouch.

[Deadshot]

Yeah, but we don't vote on the media. This General has blew holes in the Rights ideals and views of Iraq, he's done the same with the media. But right now, today, most of us look on both the media and the GOP as shit anyway. But the GOP means something, without people to back it up it will sink further and further in '08 elections.

Seriously Boogy, do you really think anyone's going to take the General's comments about the media to heart as much as the man's comments about the War? He's a military, not media, expert.

Everybody thinks the media is bogus anyway. Hell Faux News is Bullshit, but CNN is Horseshit - as is most media. They'd rather tell us about Brittany or Princess Diana or the new Hollywood fad then "real" news any day of the week.

Now if Ted Koppel or Walter Kronkite called out the media, and then commented and slammed the war, which do you think would be getting more news play? There comments about their area of expertise, or their comments on something that is in their periphery?

Nobody, but those on the Right, are looking at the media comments. They're looking there because it's all they have that is positive out of all of his comments.

I don't blame them, but it is just another example of just how far they (GOP/Conservatives) have fallen...

[dgun]

Sanchez is right about all of it. Including the media. And including the cowards in congress who failed to live up to their responsibility.

I give Bush 80% of the fault. But the media, by allowing themselves to be cowered by the Bush administration early, and Congress, especially the Dems in congress at the start of the war who also displayed tremendous cowardice, get 20% of the blame.

And all of them should be held accountable for their role in this failure of our Republic.

[Trish]

Is General Sanchez STILL sounding the clarion bell?

Yes. Taking the people to task that took us into this war without the proper ways to win it are totally responsible.

It seems everyone is quite thrilled with Gen.Sanchez' assessment of the Iraq war even coming from the distant view of 3 years.

The time lag is irrelevant. The sentiment is what counts and he's gotten it correct. There was a way to win this war but George ignored those who wanted to do it their way and instead insisted on his way or the highway. When the military caved in and did not fight for what they knew to be the better way, we wound up with the quagmire we have today.


I wonder if everyone is as thrilled with one of the general's observations that has not been posted on this thread:

"America has not been fully committed to winning this war. Partisan politics have hindered this war effort." http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,22582589-401,00.html?from=public_rss

Another true statement. The politicalization of this war by the Bushbots was nothing short of incredible. Everything from the fear-mongering, to the color coded scare tactics, to the subjugation of our civil rights in the name of security, to the torture that was allowed to happen, to the illegal detentions of suspects, to the illegal renditions, to the secret prisons to the lack of a trial for anyone, to the chaos of Iraq after the invasion, to the disbanding of all military and civil authority without adequate replacements in place, to the looting of the armories, to the attacks to American personnel, to the extended service times, to the call up of reserve troops, to the cutting and running in Afghanistan before OBL was acught, to the extended tours troops have to face, to cut backs in their downtimes, to the Stop Loss program which ruined so many lives, to privatizing the war, to paying contractors five times as much as our own troops, to supplying those contracors with the best weaponry while our own troops have to scavenge, to troops having to buy their own body armor, to being charged for mess hall food while wounded, to the GOP fighting a proposal to increase the death benefits for our troops, to not supplying enough armored vehicles, to failing to train Iraqis to defend themselves, to ignoring the death squads supplied with American weapons, to not showing deceased American troops as they return from the war, to discrediting any critics of the war with personal attacks by Bush attack dogs, to lack of oversight for American tax money that was supposed to help rebuild Iraq, to supplying troops with tainted water due to carelessness by a contractor, to overlooking the rapes of female soldiers by male soldiers, to the killing of so many civilians, to refusing our allies an opportunity to help rebuild Iraq and then ask them for money to rebuild the place, to being unable to stop ethnic cleansing, to a thousand other things, yes, partisan politics has hindered this war effort. No national sacrifice for our troops means a failure of leadership.

"Sanchez went on to offer a pessimistic view on the current U.S. strategy against extremists will make lasting gains, but said a full-scale withdrawal also was not an option.

Betwixt and between is where the Bush policies have left us.

"The American military finds itself in an intractable situation ... America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq," said Sanchez, who works as a consultant training U.S. generals" http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/13/iraq/main3363824.shtml

The military? The public finds itself in an even more dire situation: an endless war.

Or how about this comment the General made in the same speech. I haven't seen anyone post or comment about it:

"The basic ethics of a journalist, as laid out here, of seeking truth, fair and comprehensive accounting of events and issues, thoroughness and honesty, all are sometime victims of the massive agenda driven competition for economic or political supremacy. The death knell of your ethics has been enabled by some parent organizations who have chosen to align themselves with political agendas. What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our service members who are at war, in some cases."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/13/iraq/main3363824.shtml

When you allow one man to run everything without question, you wind up with a corrosive environment just like we have today. Not all journalists want to buck their corporate masters. The politics arrives when one side refuses to do what is correct and plays a game with their lives. Six years of no oversight and four years of a war that has been cheer led by a former cheerleader brings you to a point where it is cutthroat all the time. Refusal to agree to any compromises on the part of this WH will do that to your war effort.


Sanchez is not simply taking to task the people who took us to war. He's also taking to task the media who regularly subverts war efforts, and those involved in partison politics who hinder the war effort. Since partison means an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance - now which "side" do you suppose Sanchez is referring to as "hindering" the war - the "pro" Conservative side, or the "anti" Liberal side?

According to General Sanchez "...a full-scale withdrawal [is] not an option...America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq." Since you acknowledge the general's correct assessment of the Iraq war, I am assuming that you will now compromise (to use your words) your personal political anti-war views in deference to the general's superior understanding and perspective of the war?

[ECW]

No, because unlike Sanchez and the majority of the people on this board, I was not in favor of this war to begin with and cannot condone continuing it no matter who is in favor of it or who is against it. I have always advocatied setting a deadline (30 days as an example) and then getting the hell out. Let the Arab League and the UN do what they have wanted to do since Day One which is advocate for peace in what is a civil war. It ought to be none of our concern now that Saddam is gone. Leave Iraq to the Iraqis and get the hell out of there.

[Scorpion]

Sanchez is not simply taking to task the people who took us to war. He's also taking to task the media who regularly subverts war efforts, and those involved in partison politics who hinder the war effort. Since partison means an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance - now which "side" do you suppose Sanchez is referring to as "hindering" the war - the "pro" Conservative side, or the "anti" Liberal side?

According to General Sanchez "...a full-scale withdrawal [is] not an option...America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq." Since you acknowledge the general's correct assessment of the Iraq war, I am assuming that you will now compromise (to use your words) your personal political anti-war views in deference to the general's superior understanding and perspective of the war?


Hello Trish:

You're spot on correct and very well said.[hr]
No, because unlike Sanchez and the majority of the people on this board, I was not in favor of this war to begin with and cannot condone continuing it no matter who is in favor of it or who is against it. I have always advocatied setting a deadline (30 days as an example) and then getting the hell out. Let the Arab League and the UN do what they have wanted to do since Day One which is advocate for peace in what is a civil war. It ought to be none of our concern now that Saddam is gone. Leave Iraq to the Iraqis and get the hell out of there.


To cut and run now would expose Iraq to an unparalleled sectarian slaughter, a virtual invasion by Iran and Syria and a delapidated infrastructure that will take over a decade to rehabilitate. Not to mention the criticism the US would be subjected to for failing in its obligation to protect Iraqi civilians until Iraqi security forces are capable of a complete takeover.

Sanchez is right. We should never have started this misadventure in Iraq, but since we did we're in it for the long haul, like it or not.

[tony mitra]

No, because unlike Sanchez and the majority of the people on this board, I was not in favor of this war to begin with and cannot condone continuing it no matter who is in favor of it or who is against it.

Many inside the US and many more around the world were against the Iraq invasion, did not believe the WMD story, did not like the US to go against world opinion and the UN, did not like to see the US carry out a preemptive war against a non-threatening nation on questionable grounds, and also did not support the idea of having Saddam tried in a Kangaroo court, instead of at the International Criminal Court at the Hague. Finally, many do not subscribe to the doctrine of a perpetual global war on metaphysical concepts terror without fixed targets as a valid strategy to begin with.

So, in this kind of atmosphere, it is but likely that everything will be politicized - after all, the whole affair of going into Iraq was a spinned out blockbuster that tanked.

Some are beginning to suspect that the fall of the Soviet Empire did more harm to the Americans than to the Soviets, as it stripped a reason for the military industrial complex to keep sapping public funds for its self preservation, and it now needs a continuous enemy of a global scale, and terror with shifting targets and a war without a specific end not only suits this juggernaut, but it cannot survive without it.

That the situation in Iraq will be intractable if a powerful dictator/emperor/king is removed, has been known for centuries. That is why the place has been run by iron fisted systems. If you want to talk liberty, then you need to break up almost all the nations in that jigsaw puzzle and redraw all the border maps, or let the place go through its own wars and settle where they will, while kicking out not only one kind of dictators, but ALL kings and rules, including the pro-west stooges. And of course, you do not start with Iraq - you start with Palestine and Israel, and accept the fact that any such shake out in the middle east will strengthen the hands of Iranians.

Cheers.
:)

[dgun]

and it now needs a continuous enemy of a global scale, and terror with shifting targets and a war without a specific end not only suits this juggernaut, but it cannot survive without it.

I can understand why the world would thinks this. But it's not the case. When Bush is gone, we'll see positive changes.

[bobbylien]

Great post Tony.

[preservanation]

This is the man you are suporting...Interrogation Techniques Approved by Lieutenant General Sanchez Included Intimidation by Dogs, Stress Positions, Sensory Deprivation (3/29/2005)


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: media@aclu.org

ACLU Obtains September 2003 Memo Central to Abu Ghraib Story

NEW YORK -- A memo signed by Lieutenant General Ricardo A. Sanchez authorizing 29 interrogation techniques, including 12 which far exceeded limits established by the Army's own Field Manual, was made public for the first time by the American Civil Liberties Union today.

"General Sanchez authorized interrogation techniques that were in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Army's own standards," said ACLU attorney Amrit Singh. "He and other high-ranking officials who bear responsibility for the widespread abuse of detainees must be held accountable."

The ACLU has a lawsuit pending against Sanchez alleging direct responsibility for the torture and abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody. The existence of the memo and excerpts of it were previously published in The Washington Post, but it is being reprinted in full here for the first time.

The Defense Department initially refused to release the September Sanchez memo on national security grounds. After the ACLU filed legal papers specifically challenging the withholding of the memo on those grounds, the Defense Department reconsidered its position and released the document to the ACLU late in the afternoon on Friday, March 25, 2005. At the same time, the Defense Department released a previously leaked October 12, 2003 Sanchez memo that superseded the September Sanchez memo.

In a letter sent yesterday to Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, who is overseeing the case, the ACLU said that the Department of Defense (DOD) "has demonstrated a singular disregard for this Court's repeated orders and has continued to engage in a pattern of delay." DOD has asked four times for extensions in turning over documents.

The Sanchez memo dated September 14, 2003, specifically allows for interrogation techniques involving the use of military dogs specifically to "Exploit(s) Arab fear of dogs?," isolation, and stress positions. Make up your minds.

[lily]

[quote=Trish]

Sanchez is not simply taking to task the people who took us to war. He's also taking to task the media who regularly subverts war efforts, and those involved in partison politics who hinder the war effort. Since partison means an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance - now which "side" do you suppose Sanchez is referring to as "hindering" the war - the "pro" Conservative side, or the "anti" Liberal side?

Which "side" was the media on, when they were promoting this war?[hr]

To cut and run now would expose Iraq to an unparalleled sectarian slaughter, a virtual invasion by Iran and Syria and a delapidated infrastructure that will take over a decade to rehabilitate.

According to who, Scorpion? The same people that had no clue what they were doing.

As for their infrastructure......I've said this from the begining. Let the Iraqis re-build. Why are we sending in foreigners to do the jobs that the Iraqis are not only willing but able to do? We want their economy to start up, don't we? Pay the Iraqis to build it, then they will not only have jobs, but a pride in their country.

Sanchez is right. We should never have started this misadventure in Iraq, but since we did we're in it for the long haul, like it or not.

Yeah........well you know........I'm just about ready to let those Iraqi soldiers that we've been equiping and training for 5 years start earning their paycheck.........and don't even get me started on the Parliment.

[Labrocca]

Having served two comabat tours in Vietnam with Bravo and Delta Troops, 2/7th Cavalry, 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile), I can attest that war is a nightmare. Sometimes a necessary nightmare.

But when a war is precipitated on falsehoods and propaganda then it is a crime and the politicians who tendered those falsehoods are nothing more than common criminals.

It's time the criminals were dealt with as they deserve.



You mean like these people?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePb6H-j51xE

This is a great page at GOP.com pointing out all the TOP DEM leaders voicing their approval for going after Saddam. But of course it's all Bush's fault right?

http://www.gop.com/demfacts/DemsAtoZ.aspx

[preservanation]

Amazing that people have not seen or even heard about this.
Control of info is the socialist agenda.
Ask Chavez, Castro, Stalin, oh yeah and Alinsky!
Get it yet?

[lily]

I don't think I ever get tired of hearing Low Spark of High Heeled Boys....anyway, Labrocca.......you do know that all those statements were made before the inspectors were done inspecting.......right?

[tony mitra]

To me this video proves a few things, which is nothing new anyway:

1) The videos are generated not necessarily to speak the truth and the whole truth, but to push one or another partisan agenda. In other words, each trying to prove the other wrong in their action on the war in Iraq.
2) A lot of people accused Saddam of building the bomb within the US, while airtight proof was never around, and there were efforts to manufacture this evidence. Therefore, it was not a case of mistakes, but of actual fabrication of eivdence in order to sell the war.
3) That is does not really matter, if it is a Democrat or a Republican. They are all bought up, lock stock and barrel.
4) While Democrats accused Saddam, the Republicans actually ordered the war, and then changed the goal post halfway through, by not just removing Iraq's WMD program, but initiating a change of regime, democracy building, and helping them write the new oil law into their constitution.
4) The rest is only partisan politics and the appearance of a healthy democracy, i.e. Republicans versus Democrat. No matter who wins, he or she is likely already in the pocket of the military industrial complex, because of a simple fact. The way to the White house is only open through those pockets.

Cheers.
:)

[ECW]

No, because unlike Sanchez and the majority of the people on this board, I was not in favor of this war to begin with and cannot condone continuing it no matter who is in favor of it or who is against it. I have always advocatied setting a deadline (30 days as an example) and then getting the hell out. Let the Arab League and the UN do what they have wanted to do since Day One which is advocate for peace in what is a civil war. It ought to be none of our concern now that Saddam is gone. Leave Iraq to the Iraqis and get the hell out of there.


To cut and run now would expose Iraq to an unparalleled sectarian slaughter, a virtual invasion by Iran and Syria and a delapidated infrastructure that will take over a decade to rehabilitate. Not to mention the criticism the US would be subjected to for failing in its obligation to protect Iraqi civilians until Iraqi security forces are capable of a complete takeover.

Sanchez is right. We should never have started this misadventure in Iraq, but since we did we're in it for the long haul, like it or not.

Well, you can shove your "cut and run" rhetoric where the moon don't shine. In case you haven't noticed, almost the whole damned country is beset with sectarian violence. It hasn't gotten any better. In fact, it's gotten worse. Much worse. The longer we stay, the worse it will get. AQ in Iraq exists solely because we are still in country. Killing troops is SOP for them. The Iraqi army and police are nowhere to be found when the sh*t hits the fan.

The Iraqis have had four long ass years to get their act together and still haven't. What the hell? We train our soldiers in six months to go and fight in a war. We train cops to be patrol officers in ten months. What the hell takes four years to train? Are the Iraqis that stupid? Are we that stupid that we cannot train enough people to be cops and soldiers to keep the peace in Iraq? What is it? I'll tell you what it is: the Iraqis have very little interest in keeping the peace. They have come to expect us to carry their water for them while they take the training and armaments we have given them and go kill their religious opponents. Shia are taking revenge for decades of power held by the Sunni and the Sunni have gone underground because of it leading to more violence. Civilian casualties are an afterthought to either group and we are already being criticized for not being able to protect the citizenry as it is. Millions of people have left the country and the middle class, which would have been the largest job creator in a free Iraq, has abandoned the country and lost almost everything to the fighting. Our situation could not be much worse. How long do you propose we wait before we start holding the Iraqis accountable for their own country?

None of the benchmarks that were set for this government have been accomplished. After four years, WE ARE STILL AT SQUARE ONE. When do you realize that we are being played for the big-hearted fool while behind our backs both sides are killing each other at every opportunity. Ethnic cleansing. Religious strife. Bombing mosques. Ambushes. The list goes on and on.

And what about the reconstruction? In short, we have poured millions down a rat hole and have nothing to show for it and the oversight that ought to have caught this was prevented from doing its job by political appointees in the Bush Administration who did not want it known that they were giving money away and could not account for any of it.

Iran may have some influence in post-war Iraq if we leave but the Saudis also have a stake there as well and they will not allow their Sunni brothers to be slaughtered without doing something about it. The UN (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7008849.stm) is starting to realize that they can be a force for peace as well and has started to speak up about it. Most of the Iraqi people want us gone so they can take care of their country themselves. When do we start listening to them instead of the neocon warhawks who got us into this mess to begin with? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html)

[Labrocca]

I don't think I ever get tired of hearing Low Spark of High Heeled Boys....anyway, Labrocca.......you do know that all those statements were made before the inspectors were done inspecting.......right?


And you think that makes it better? It's my opinion that it was even MORE irresponsible of these Democrats (and yes Republicans) to make such statements. However both sides said these things based on what intelligence they did have. They stated these things based on the history of Saddam and what they were certain about.

I think these videos are a great example of why the Dems are no better than the GOP and voting Hillary won't change a damn thing imho. She will win..almost certainly at this point. And guess what..suddenly we will be "winning the war" under Hillary but it will be because of the hard work this administration has done.

I hear from the Dems daily that we went into this war under a false intention. Could getting out of the war under false intentions help? Getting out at this point seems more like a political move than anything else. It's certainly not a security or military move.

The Dems in these videos are clearly advocating for the war. Why is the Bush administration the sole entity responsible for it's mishaps? Could it be that the turn of the polls has created an agenda?

Certainly Sanchez is profiting from this new view. I guarantee that if he was FOR the war...he wouldn't make a dime! Here he is against it..and he gets book deal, tv interviews, and articles. Americans are self-serving...he is certainly a good capitalist American ain't he.

[preservanation]

Hey, Lab...start a restaurant, lot less stressful!:D

[Labrocca]

4) While Democrats accused Saddam, the Republicans actually ordered the war, and then changed the goal post halfway through, by not just removing Iraq's WMD program, but initiating a change of regime, democracy building, and helping them write the new oil law into their constitution.


Really? And what was this in 1998 while Clinton was President. This was 7 years AFTER the Gulf War of Bush Sr so don't blame him. He was also defending Kuwait and left Iraq after it was over.


President Clinton: "Earlier Today I Ordered America's Armed Forces To Strike Military And Security Targets In Iraq… Their Mission Is To Attack Iraq's Nuclear, Chemical And Biological Weapons Programs And Its Military Capacity To Threaten Its Neighbors …" ("Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq Attack," Agence France Presse, 12/17/98)

President Clinton: "Saddam Hussein Must Not Be Allowed To Threaten His Neighbors Or The World With Nuclear Arms, Poison Gas Or Biological Weapons." (President Clintion, Address To The Nation Announcing Military Strikes On Iraq, Washington, D.C., 12/16/98)

And remember...Hillary was right there with him. Certainly she knows and knew a great deal more than is telling us.

[tony mitra]

Hi Labrocca

Well, you took part of my comment, but not the last part.
So, yes Clinton likely lied that and yes Hillary likely knows a lot. Yes Bush sr did not change regime, but Bush jr did.

So, it all boils down in my mind to the possibility that it does not really matter which side of the aisle you are on. The path to the Whitehouse goes to the pockets of those that matter, and you are going to sing the same song, no matter with which tune, once you get there.

I wish things would prove me wrong.

One thing about Hillary though. She is a lot sleeker than Guiliani and the rest of the Republicans. I do not know if she will be a better president, but I suspect she can have Guiliani, Romni and the rest for breakfast, and come out without burping.

Cheers.
:)

[Labrocca]

Well, you took part of my comment, but not the last part.

Well that's because I wasn't refuting the other part.

[lily]

And you think that makes it better? It's my opinion that it was even MORE irresponsible of these Democrats (and yes Republicans) to make such statements. However both sides said these things based on what intelligence they did have. They stated these things based on the history of Saddam and what they were certain about.

Huh? Speaking out on the intelligence you have is what they are being paid for. I guess if they are at fault, then they are at fault for trusting this administration.

I think these videos are a great example of why the Dems are no better than the GOP and voting Hillary won't change a damn thing imho. She will win..almost certainly at this point. And guess what..suddenly we will be "winning the war" under Hillary but it will be because of the hard work this administration has done.

Sorry Labrocca......but the only hard work this administration has done is screw this up beyond repair and line pockets while they were doing it. Does it piss me off that now the Democrats that are running say they won't pull out of this war..........hell yes! But I can also understand that someone has to fix this fiasco.


Really? And what was this in 1998 while Clinton was President. This was 7 years AFTER the Gulf War of Bush Sr so don't blame him. He was also defending Kuwait and left Iraq after it was over.

Because Bush the Elder knew what would happen........as Cheney's words have proven.

[Trish]

To me this video proves a few things, which is nothing new anyway:

1) The videos are generated not necessarily to speak the truth and the whole truth, but to push one or another partisan agenda. In other words, each trying to prove the other wrong in their action on the war in Iraq.
2) A lot of people accused Saddam of building the bomb within the US, while airtight proof was never around, and there were efforts to manufacture this evidence. Therefore, it was not a case of mistakes, but of actual fabrication of eivdence in order to sell the war.
3) That is does not really matter, if it is a Democrat or a Republican. They are all bought up, lock stock and barrel.
4) While Democrats accused Saddam, the Republicans actually ordered the war, and then changed the goal post halfway through, by not just removing Iraq's WMD program, but initiating a change of regime, democracy building, and helping them write the new oil law into their constitution.
4) The rest is only partisan politics and the appearance of a healthy democracy, i.e. Republicans versus Democrat. No matter who wins, he or she is likely already in the pocket of the military industrial complex, because of a simple fact. The way to the White house is only open through those pockets.

Cheers.
:)


1. So videos are generated to show only a portion of the "truth" according to partison agenda. An interesting observation considering that such videos are only held up as being questionable when they refute or disprove theories or perspectives presented here. Otherwise, as can be seen from the Limbaugh video thread, they are held up to be THE truth!

2. I call into question your assertion that anyone ever accused Hussein of building the bomb within the U.S. I don't recall anyone, anywhere ever accusing Hussein of anything remotely similar.

3. World leaders believed that Iraq had WMD way before this administration. That this was a mistaken belief is now documented. However, President Bush was not the only person to believe this, nor was he the first. In their hatred of Bush, people choose to overlook this fact, but it is easily verified with the most cursory search. The "lies" Bush is accused of were the common belief at the time, not only in the US but in other countries. The belief that Hussein wanted to project for his own reasons and took great care to see that it was in fact believed.

4. So did the rest of the world, with the exception of France, Russia, and Germany who have since been proven to have been illegally colluding with Hussein for years. Their resistance to the Iraq war had nothing to do with a moral stance against war, or a belief that Hussein was a good guy, and everything to do with protecting their own illegal interests. The US was not alone in perceiving Hussein to be a threat.

[preservanation]

Trish Wrote:
Or how about this comment the General made in the same speech. I haven't seen anyone post or comment about it:

"The basic ethics of a journalist, as laid out here, of seeking truth, fair and comprehensive accounting of events and issues, thoroughness and honesty, all are sometime victims of the massive agenda driven competition for economic or political supremacy. The death knell of your ethics has been enabled by some parent organizations who have chosen to align themselves with political agendas. What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our service members who are at war, in some cases."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/1...3824.shtml
Thanks for pointing this out, Trish.
CNN, Telegraph, Washington Post, BBC all left that little tidbit out. I wonder why?
Sanchez is clearly blaming our media for American soldiers deaths in Iraq.
He is absolutely correct.

[Trish]

And you think that makes it better? It's my opinion that it was even MORE irresponsible of these Democrats (and yes Republicans) to make such statements. However both sides said these things based on what intelligence they did have. They stated these things based on the history of Saddam and what they were certain about.

Huh? Speaking out on the intelligence you have is what they are being paid for. I guess if they are at fault, then they are at fault for trusting this administration.

I think these videos are a great example of why the Dems are no better than the GOP and voting Hillary won't change a damn thing imho. She will win..almost certainly at this point. And guess what..suddenly we will be "winning the war" under Hillary but it will be because of the hard work this administration has done.

Sorry Labrocca......but the only hard work this administration has done is screw this up beyond repair and line pockets while they were doing it. Does it piss me off that now the Democrats that are running say they won't pull out of this war..........hell yes! But I can also understand that someone has to fix this fiasco.


Really? And what was this in 1998 while Clinton was President. This was 7 years AFTER the Gulf War of Bush Sr so don't blame him. He was also defending Kuwait and left Iraq after it was over.

Because Bush the Elder knew what would happen........as Cheney's words have proven.



Bush and Clinton had the same information from the same sources and drew the same conclusions from that information. Bush spoke out and acted upon the intelligence that was available to him, yet he is accused of lying while the Clinton administration is acknowledged as doing what it was being paid to do when it acted on that same information.

Between the Gulf War and the Iraq War there have been other military actions in Iraq by the US - all under Clinton's administration.

"Since the end of the Gulf War, military forces of the U.S., Britain, and to a lesser extent France have continued to see combat in Iraq. In hundreds of exchanges, allied aircraft have fired missiles and dropped bombs at Iraqi air defenses and radars deemed a threat to no-fly zone patrols.

On occasion, Iraq has claimed these attacks have destroyed civilian positions, including schools and hospitals. It has been impossible to confirm the facts behind these attacks or the damage inflicted on the Iraqi side.

Despite these nearly weekly exchanges, U.S. action has intensified on several occasions.

In 1993, the U.S. launched a massive tomahawk cruise missile strike against the Iraqi intelligence agency. The strike, retaliation for a foiled plot to kill former President Bush after he left office, leveled parts of Baghdad and was blamed for eight civilian deaths.

"This was a plot managed by the Iraqis to assassinate a former President of the United States," U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright said on the NewsHour two days after the attack. "We saw that as an attack on the United States, and under international law, Article 51 specifically, a country is entitled to defend itself when there is an attack upon it."

Following the strike, military action remained limited to no-fly zone incidents until some three years later. In the midst of an election year in the U.S, Iraqi forces crossed a line of control in northern Iraq, headed towards a so-called safe haven for Kurdish refugees. Within a day, U.S. forces launched another large round of cruise missiles and air strikes aimed at punishing Iraqi forces in the area.

The last major military strike came following the ouster of United Nations weapons inspectors in late 1998. The attack, dubbed Operation Desert Fox, struck at suspected weapons facilities and other military targets throughout the country." http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iraq/us_policy.html

Clinton not only believed there to be unauthorized weapons facilities in Iraq - he acted upon that belief more than once. Obviously, President Bush shared that belief both prior to his election and afterwards. Yet Bush is held up to be a liar while Clinton was simply acting on the information available. Can anyone say double standards?

I would also remind everyone that while the Gulf War is now seen as a "legitimate" military action by virtue of the UN's support, the anti-war rhetoric then is the same anti-war rhetoric being heard now:

"Congress returned from holiday recess, and some Democrats plunged into acrimonious opposition to Bush's [Sr. Bush] policy regarding Iraq. Debates continued in the coming days, and, across the U.S., hundreds of thousands demonstrated for peace and against war.

Among the demonstrators were those carrying signs with a message that had come late in the Vietnam War: "give peace a chance." There were those opposed to all violence, including some clergymen who held all warring to be immoral...

Among the demonstrators were university students - many of them the sons and daughters of Vietnam era protesters, eagerly taking up the cause that they believed had added significance to the previous generation.

Some took the position that the U.S. should let the Arabs settle their own disputes...And there were those who believed that Bush's policy was a manifestation of U.S. imperialism. Some reduced the conflict to an over-riding simplicity, claiming that it was all about oil. They ignored the issue that made U.S. entry into the war politically possible:that the Iraqis had invaded and forced themselves upon the Kuwaitis. Demonstrators chanted "Hell no, we won't go. We won't fight for Texaco." One sign carried by a middle-aged woman read, "No blood for oil. Bush, send your sons not ours." Bush was accused of gunboat diplomacy. The acid test of any progressive, wrote one Leftist, was taking a stand against U.S. imperialism. People were taking the generality that foreign policy was about access to resources to a certainty that in this specific instance that Bush had to be lying, that his motives for going to war could not be motivated by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait."
http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch36.htm

Whether or not we should have gone to war in Iraq is moot. It's already a done deal. However, the reasons we went to war were not invented by Bush, Jr. nor were they based on lies - we went to war based on escalation of the same reasons which were based on the same information used by previous administrations for taking action against Iraq.

[lily]

Trish........thanks for your version of a walk down memory lane. What I see missing however is any of the blame going on the administration that started this war and then ran it so bad, that we are just holding our head above water. Just how long do we have to wait, before this administration takes the blame for the mistakes made?

[Trish]

Trish........thanks for your version of a walk down memory lane. What I see missing however is any of the blame going on the administration that started this war and then ran it so bad, that we are just holding our head above water. Just how long do we have to wait, before this administration takes the blame for the mistakes made?


Bush has taken the blame...more than once. He's admitted that mistakes were made and accepted responsibility for those mistakes.

"The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people, and it is unacceptable to me," Bush said. "Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.

"It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq."
http://www.thestar.com/article/170018

"Bush said the United States erred in attempting large reconstruction projects soon after the invasion was completed.

"It didn't make any sense" undertaking these projects because "they became convenient targets for the enemy," he said. " . . . I'm getting down in minutiae. But there are some tactics that, when I look back, that would have done differently."

He also said the United States underestimated the nature of the threats U.S. and Iraqi forces would find inside the country.

"You know, every war plan is perfect until it meets the enemy -- and it's fine on paper until you actually start putting it into practice," he said. " . . . Decisions, you know, like preparing an Iraqi army for an external threat. Well, it turns out there may have been an external threat but it's nothing compared to the internal threat."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/24/
AR2006042400850.html

[tony mitra]

All thats fine and dandy, Trish.

What Mr. Bush has not done though, is own up that he lead his country to a preemptive invasion of a non threatening nation based on fabricated lies, going against the world view and the UN in the process, and he has yet to come up with why he really did so. When pressed on details, he tends to imply that his adminstration is stupid and wrongly read the intelligence on the ground, rather than that the intelligence itself was being doctored. In short, he lied to his own countrymen, as well as to the rest of the world and continues to perpetuate that lie. And he has started another process, convincing his nation that the new terrorist on the horizon is now Iran. Perhaps he wants to start another preemptive war before his time is up.

He is accepting faults in the execution of the Iraq war, but not the legality of it or the reason why that war was necessary, and you are presenting that as some sort of evidence of his innocense.

And we are not even listing illegal detension of foreigners, torture, rendition and along with whatever the administration is also doing in spying on its own people and attempting to subvert his judiciary and the secrecy in the ways his administration seems to work do things under the carpet so no one else notices, and all the rest that only sugarcoats the whole episode and paints Mr. Bush rather colorfully.

Why not read these books, by John Dean, a conservative republican himself, who played a key role in the Nixon-Watergate issue?

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51DZP02J3FL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg
Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush
by John W. Dean (April 2005)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ixXGeeMhL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg
Conservatives Without Conscience by John W. Dean (Aug 2007)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/419LqCCL3BL._AA240_.jpg
Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches by John W. Dean (Sept 2007)

Cheers and have a good one. :)

[lily]

Trish........thanks for your version of a walk down memory lane. What I see missing however is any of the blame going on the administration that started this war and then ran it so bad, that we are just holding our head above water. Just how long do we have to wait, before this administration takes the blame for the mistakes made?


Bush has taken the blame...more than once. He's admitted that mistakes were made and accepted responsibility for those mistakes.

"The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people, and it is unacceptable to me," Bush said. "Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.

"It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq."
http://www.thestar.com/article/170018

"Bush said the United States erred in attempting large reconstruction projects soon after the invasion was completed.

"It didn't make any sense" undertaking these projects because "they became convenient targets for the enemy," he said. " . . . I'm getting down in minutiae. But there are some tactics that, when I look back, that would have done differently."

He also said the United States underestimated the nature of the threats U.S. and Iraqi forces would find inside the country.

"You know, every war plan is perfect until it meets the enemy -- and it's fine on paper until you actually start putting it into practice," he said. " . . . Decisions, you know, like preparing an Iraqi army for an external threat. Well, it turns out there may have been an external threat but it's nothing compared to the internal threat."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/24/
AR2006042400850.html


I don't know Trish....most of those sound like excuses to me. If they really were admissions........he would do something to change things, instead of stay the course.

[Trish]

I don't know Trish....most of those sound like excuses to me. If they really were admissions........he would do something to change things, instead of stay the course.


He did change things. He changed the strategy. Now, maybe the change isn't the one that you, I, or others wanted. But he did make a change. Maybe the change didn't go far enough or soon enough, but he did make a change.

[preservanation]

Ok so Sanchez beat up on Bush....He joins the ranks of libs...but he also beat up on the lib media.
Ignore that at the risk of yet more hypocrisy while white-washing that and amplifying the other.
He is a man in toto (not the dog) and his views are legitiment in the same.

[tony mitra]

Ok so Sanchez beat up on Bush....He joins the ranks of libs...but he also beat up on the lib media.
Ignore that at the risk of yet more hypocrisy while white-washing that and amplifying the other.
He is a man in toto (not the dog) and his views are legitiment in the same.


Well, I didn't think the media was the subject of the discussion, but I shall agree with you. The mainstream press, lib or otherwise, is not very good as a source of information and underlying factors that make the news. At least some of us feel so.

But then there is the internet, and the wildly growing alternative sources of information, good and bad, bypassing the mainstream.

Cheers.
:)

[lily]

He did change things. He changed the strategy. Now, maybe the change isn't the one that you, I, or others wanted. But he did make a change. Maybe the change didn't go far enough or soon enough, but he did make a change.


Trish, by change of strategy, do you mean the latest surge?

[Trish]

All thats fine and dandy, Trish.

What Mr. Bush has not done though, is own up that he lead his country to a preemptive invasion of a non threatening nation based on fabricated lies, going against the world view and the UN in the process, and he has yet to come up with why he really did so. When pressed on details, he tends to imply that his adminstration is stupid and wrongly read the intelligence on the ground, rather than that the intelligence itself was being doctored. In short, he lied to his own countrymen, as well as to the rest of the world and continues to perpetuate that lie. And he has started another process, convincing his nation that the new terrorist on the horizon is now Iran. Perhaps he wants to start another preemptive war before his time is up.

He is accepting faults in the execution of the Iraq war, but not the legality of it or the reason why that war was necessary, and you are presenting that as some sort of evidence of his innocense.

And we are not even listing illegal detension of foreigners, torture, rendition and along with whatever the administration is also doing in spying on its own people and attempting to subvert his judiciary and the secrecy in the ways his administration seems to work do things under the carpet so no one else notices, and all the rest that only sugarcoats the whole episode and paints Mr. Bush rather colorfully.



Cheers and have a good one. :)



Well, Tony, if Bush led the country to war on lies and doctored intelligence, then he did so on the same lies and doctored intelligence which led Clinton to attack Iraq on 3 separate occasions during his administration. They're the same lies and doctored intelligence that Congress saw, other world leaders saw, and have been seeing for the last 16 years. They're the same lies and doctored intelligence that Hussein's own military believed.

As to being against "world" view that's an overstatement. As for the UN - now that's a joke. Why did he go against the UN? Simple...because it was France, Germany, and Russia who kept the US from getting UN approval. And why did they keep the US from getting UN approval? Well as time has certainly proven, it wasn't for any great love of the Iraqi people, nor was it an anti-war position, or some sort of morally superior perspective, nor was it in any way altruistic. They stood in the way because an attack against Iraq would screw THEM over. They were protecting their own lying, cheating, backstabbing selves.

You want to hang a liar label around Bush' neck? Be my guest. But don't stop with Bush - take the same label to all those other lying world leaders before Bush's presidency and during. You want to accuse Bush of crimes against the Iraqi people? Go right ahead. When you finish with him take a detour through Germany, France, and Russia to round up those Iraqi oppressors as well.

As to all that other twaddle....tell me - what's secret? If YOU know about it, and I know about....and the rest of the world knows about it...it isn't much of a secret now is it? When the Bush administration's policies have been legally challenged the Supreme Court has ruled. When they ruled in favor of the administration's policies it meant that no matter how unpopular the policies were - they were NOT illegal. When the Supreme Court ruled against the policies and said that they were illegal the policies were changed so that they were legal. That may not be the politically correct stance - but it's an accurate summation nonetheless. Other issues are due to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court rules on the issues then we will all - including the administration - will know what is and is not legal. The Supreme Court is the ultimate judicial authority here. The rest of us can speculate, bemoan, whine, gripe, and acuse to our hearts content as to what we think is and is not legal but it will be the Supreme Court that has the final say.

[Wndrtch]

I've heard he's coming out with a book. I've also read where he's seeking revenge for being tossed under the bus during the Abu Gharaib hearings. He was exonerated, but he also wasn't recommended for that 4th star by the administration and was basically forced to resign.

In spite of all of that, I agree with his assessment. It's backed up by many other retired generals and military analysts. His isn't the lone voice in the wilderness, he's joining a growing clamor from military personnel.


I did hear about this. Too bad these comments now, don't jive with his past Congressional testimony to the contrary. If he really felt that way, then why didn't he say so when he had the chance, when we could have made more out of any change?

So the question is, did he lie to Congress?

By the way, he also said that the media and the Congress were also responsible for the death of soldiers, do to their continued rhetoric and cut & run trash-talk.[hr]

All thats fine and dandy, Trish.

What Mr. Bush has not done though, is own up that he lead his country to a preemptive invasion of a non threatening nation based on fabricated lies, going against the world view and the UN in the process, and he has yet to come up with why he really did so. When pressed on details, he tends to imply that his adminstration is stupid and wrongly read the intelligence on the ground, rather than that the intelligence itself was being doctored. In short, he lied to his own countrymen, as well as to the rest of the world and continues to perpetuate that lie. And he has started another process, convincing his nation that the new terrorist on the horizon is now Iran. Perhaps he wants to start another preemptive war before his time is up.

He is accepting faults in the execution of the Iraq war, but not the legality of it or the reason why that war was necessary, and you are presenting that as some sort of evidence of his innocense.

And we are not even listing illegal detension of foreigners, torture, rendition and along with whatever the administration is also doing in spying on its own people and attempting to subvert his judiciary and the secrecy in the ways his administration seems to work do things under the carpet so no one else notices, and all the rest that only sugarcoats the whole episode and paints Mr. Bush rather colorfully.



Cheers and have a good one. :)



Well, Tony, if Bush led the country to war on lies and doctored intelligence, then he did so on the same lies and doctored intelligence which led Clinton to attack Iraq on 3 separate occasions during his administration. They're the same lies and doctored intelligence that Congress saw, other world leaders saw, and have been seeing for the last 16 years. They're the same lies and doctored intelligence that Hussein's own military believed.

As to being against "world" view that's an overstatement. As for the UN - now that's a joke. Why did he go against the UN? Simple...because it was France, Germany, and Russia who kept the US from getting UN approval. And why did they keep the US from getting UN approval? Well as time has certainly proven, it wasn't for any great love of the Iraqi people, nor was it an anti-war position, or some sort of morally superior perspective, nor was it in any way altruistic. They stood in the way because an attack against Iraq would screw THEM over. They were protecting their own lying, cheating, backstabbing selves.

You want to hang a liar label around Bush' neck? Be my guest. But don't stop with Bush - take the same label to all those other lying world leaders before Bush's presidency and during. You want to accuse Bush of crimes against the Iraqi people? Go right ahead. When you finish with him take a detour through Germany, France, and Russia to round up those Iraqi oppressors as well.

As to all that other twaddle....tell me - what's secret? If YOU know about it, and I know about....and the rest of the world knows about it...it isn't much of a secret now is it? When the Bush administration's policies have been legally challenged the Supreme Court has ruled. When they ruled in favor of the administration's policies it meant that no matter how unpopular the policies were - they were NOT illegal. When the Supreme Court ruled against the policies and said that they were illegal the policies were changed so that they were legal. That may not be the politically correct stance - but it's an accurate summation nonetheless. Other issues are due to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court rules on the issues then we will all - including the administration - will know what is and is not legal. The Supreme Court is the ultimate judicial authority here. The rest of us can speculate, bemoan, whine, gripe, and acuse to our hearts content as to what we think is and is not legal but it will be the Supreme Court that has the final say.


It's amazing how short the memory is...

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."



Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H7777&dbname=2002_record

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."



President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."



Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."


(and this one's my personal favorite!)
President Clinton
Oval Office Address to the American People
December 16, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."

But hey, drink enough Kool-aid and history is only three weeks long.

[PatrickHenry]

But hey, drink enough Kool-aid and history is only three weeks long.

And yet, the WMD inspectors said there was nothin there.

The pols, except for BushCo warmongers, never proposed an invasion and occupation to bring about "regime change."

But they didn't have the courage to stand up against the BushCo onslaught of lies.

And look where that got us...

Do you drink KoolAid, Wndrtch?

[Labrocca]

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

GREAT QUOTE! Notice the date...pre-Bush.

Now criticism of the war is imho a perfectly good reason to dislike Bush. However if one wants their views respected they should use truth to back it up. The left has used lies in order to attack the administration. It's been twisting the truth for it's own needs.

I don't trust books written to attack Bush. These books are money machines for the authors and publishers.

Trish has laid out an incredible amount of evidence to show that Bush was not the liar in this war. If he has a role it's the fool. Listening to the Clinton-era intelligence and following the policy of Albright. If you want to fault Bush for anything..it's mishandling of the war. A perfectly good reason to dislike Bush imho. However for the Democrats to walk away from this and point fingers stinks of hypocrisy and partisanship.

[ECW]

Now criticism of the war is imho a perfectly good reason to dislike Bush. However if one wants their views respected they should use truth to back it up. The left has used lies in order to attack the administration. It's been twisting the truth for it's own needs.

You can state that the left has used lies to attack Bush but you are going to have to do a little homework and come up with something a bit more recent than 1998.

I don't trust books written to attack Bush. These books are money machines for the authors and publishers.

The assertion that books make money does not translate into that authors are then liars. A book is a very funny thing in one respect: once it is published it can be held in your hands, dissected word for word and truth thereby determined. Most people are not going to stack up a bunch of lies, throw it out there as the truth and hope no one checks up on it. Even Al Franken got taken apart for the mistakes he made in his books that were about the lies that other people told. I trust a book a lot more than I trust an Internet blog. You have time to check out the material for its veracity.

Trish has laid out an incredible amount of evidence to show that Bush was not the liar in this war. If he has a role it's the fool. Listening to the Clinton-era intelligence and following the policy of Albright. If you want to fault Bush for anything..it's mishandling of the war. A perfectly good reason to dislike Bush imho. However for the Democrats to walk away from this and point fingers stinks of hypocrisy and partisanship.

Trish posted a bunch of stuff but what Trish did not post are the lies that Bush told to suit his ideology which ignored the contrary evidence that a normal person would have taken pause over. But then we are not talking about a normal person. We are talking about the most partisan president in our nation's history. We are talking about the most secretive president in our nation's history. And we are talking about the worst president in our nation's history.

I posted this in another thread but it fits to post here (lest anyone accuse me of spamming). I can provide more details if you want but you'll see where we are going once you get partway thrue the list. Presenting the lies of George Walker Bush and his minions (an incomplete listing...):

*The war would be paid for with oil revenue
*It would cost 1$ billion
*We would be welcomed as liberators
*We would close down the horrors of Saddam's regime
*Iraq would be a beacon of freedom and democracy
*Reconstruction will come from oil revenues
*Benchmarks are not a good thing
*Saddam was constructing nukes
*Saddam had trailers that were involved with mobile biological weapons production
*AQ was working with Saddam to orchestrate 9/11
*AQ operated in Iraq before the war
*OBL would be found and brought to justice
*Mission Accomplished meant major combat operations in Iraq have ended.
*Disbanding Saddam's military and civil authority would speed recovery of Iraqi society
*We do not torture
*We do not spy on Americans
*American troops have all the equipment they need to fight in Iraq
*No one has to buy body armor before they go into the war zone
*Returning troops are well cared for and their health care is our primary concern
*Privatizing soldiers' health care has not negatively affected their health
*This is not a civil war
*The Surge will bring the war to a speedier end
*When the Iraqis stand up we will stand down
and my favorite...
*Stay The Course. We've never been stay the course.

You can point your fingers at Russia, France, General Sanchez, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary, and anyone else you want. I know a liar when I see one and George Bush is that liar.

[Pogo]

Bush and Clinton had the same information from the same sources and drew the same conclusions from that information. Bush spoke out and acted upon the intelligence that was available to him, yet he is accused of lying while the Clinton administration is acknowledged as doing what it was being paid to do when it acted on that same information.

Whether or not we should have gone to war in Iraq is moot. It's already a done deal. However, the reasons we went to war were not invented by Bush, Jr. nor were they based on lies - we went to war based on escalation of the same reasons which were based on the same information used by previous administrations for taking action against Iraq.

You're wrong here, Trish, Jr. *did* lie. He intentionally exaggerated the certainty of Iraq having a WMD capability that posed a military threat to the US.

The Bush administration involved itself in the Intelligence gathering and analysis by way of the Office of Special Plans, so it really wasn't the exact same information. They cherrypicked what they felt bolstered there case and left out what didn't, coming up with an Intelligence estimate that was intentionally misleading. That's lying, plain and simple.