American campaign in Iraq is in serious trouble.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Without a war budget and no responsibility for spending, we all are in trouble
over this invasion and occupation.
---------------------------------
By DAVID STOUT

Published: September 15, 2004

WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 — Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said today that the Bush administration's request to divert more than $3 billion from reconstruction work in Iraq to security measures was a sign that the American campaign in Iraq is in serious trouble.

"Although we recognize these funds must not be spent unwisely," the committee chairman, Senator Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, said, "the slow pace of reconstruction spending means that we are failing to fully take advantage of one of our most potent tools to influence the direction of Iraq."

Mr. Lugar expressed his concerns as two State Department officials came before the committee seeking permission to divert more than $3.4 billion in reconstruction funds to security efforts. The request came a day after one of the bloodiest days in Iraq in recent months.

The $3.4 billion is part of an $18 billion package approved by Congress last year for public works projects like water and electrical facilities. The $18 billion in turn is part of an $87 billion package that Congress passed for the American-led effort in Afghanistan as well as Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/international/middleeast/15CND-REBU.html?hp

[catcalls]

This thread title would qualify for understatement of the year. And when you talk about the tragedies occurring in Iraq, a good starting point would be <a href="http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/091404.html">a devastating flip-flop by George W. Bush.</a>

[Rohirrim]

This thread title would qualify for understatement of the year. And when you talk about the tragedies occurring in Iraq, a good starting point would be <a href="http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/091404.html">a devastating flip-flop by George W. Bush.</a>

I would have entitled that article, "Chickenhawks Play Army."

[bendog]

It's all over but the dying. And in the end, it is probable that leaving Saddam there would have created less Iraqi deaths. And, leaving him there was not the only option to outright invasion. I think this is more akin to chinckenhawks do nationbuilding. But, the end result, was to make a democracy in the ME that would be a beacon to the entire arab/muslim world

[Rohirrim]

It's all over but the dying. And in the end, it is probable that leaving Saddam there would have created less Iraqi deaths. And, leaving him there was not the only option to outright invasion. I think this is more akin to chinckenhawks do nationbuilding. But, the end result, was to make a democracy in the ME that would be a beacon to the entire arab/muslim world

I hate to break it to you, and I'm not being a pessimist, just a realist - that "end result" ain't gonna happen. Scowcroft wrote a paper about this exact scenario in 1990 to the Congress explaining why Bush I did not order an invasion of Iraq. It's amazing how "on point" that paper has turned out to be. You may not know this, but one of the directions of Bush I to his staff was to keep Cheney/Rummy/Wolfowitz at "arm's length" from policy decisions. I guess now we know why. I never liked Bush I, but he was pretty sharp - for an old spook.

[bendog]

The end result will be a civil war. We promised Sistani democracy, but we didn't mean 1person(man) 1 vote. Sadr doesn't want in. The kurds want kurdistan. The sunnis have kicked our asses out of falalalaala. If my post implied that the end result would be otherwise, I misstated.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I see Bush supporters don't have much to say about this latest report on Iraq.
Guess it doesn't matter we are pouring 100s of billions of dollars into a bottomless pit?

------------
U.S. Intelligence Shows Pessimism on Iraq's Future
By DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: September 16, 2004

WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 - A classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq, government officials said Wednesday.

The estimate outlines three possibilities for Iraq through the end of 2005, with the worst case being developments that could lead to civil war, the officials said. The most favorable outcome described is an Iraq whose stability would remain tenuous in political, economic and security terms.

"There's a significant amount of pessimism," said one government official who has read the document, which runs about 50 pages. The officials declined to discuss the key judgments - concise, carefully written statements of intelligence analysts' conclusions - included in the document.

The intelligence estimate, the first on Iraq since October 2002, was prepared by the National Intelligence Council and was approved by the National Foreign Intelligence Board under John E. McLaughlin, the acting director of central intelligence. Such estimates can be requested by the White House or Congress, but this one was initiated by the intelligence council under George J. Tenet, who stepped down as director of central intelligence on July 9, the government officials said.

As described by the officials, the pessimistic tone of the new estimate stands in contrast to recent statements by Bush administration officials, including comments on Wednesday by Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, who asserted that progress was being made.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/politics/16intel.html?8br

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Scowcroft wrote a paper about this exact scenario in 1990 to the Congress explaining why Bush I did not order an invasion of Iraq. It's amazing how "on point" that paper has turned out to be.

I remember that paper.

It's too bad Dim Son failed to heed Poppy's advice because he was too busy obeying those grandiose/paranoid voices in his head he mistook for Jesus.

I see Bush supporters don't have much to say about this latest report on Iraq.

They're waiting to get their talking points from O'Liely and Annthrax Coulter.

And 'Forgerygate' means never having to actually look at Iraq or any other disaster wrought by the monkey.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/ugly-chimp.jpg

[watermock]

What is there to say?

Terrorists are trying to disrupt the impending elections. If anyone cares to remember, I predicted an insurgency from day one. These scum lop off heads and are the remainder of an uncivilized, agressive political movement dating back to the bastard Mohammed himself.

[bendog]

Well, mock if muslims can't accept a representative republic, it was pretty damn stupid idea to try to nation build in that ****e-hole country.

[watermock]

Well, mock if muslims can't accept a representative republic, it was pretty damn stupid idea to try to nation build in that ****e-hole country.

Hmmm. I would of turned it to glass. Twice. That's the problem with "humanitarian" war. Someone needs to tell the Army their job is to kill the enemy, not hand them a bottle and clean the crap out of their diapers.

I don't remember such favors done to relatives in Hamburg and Dresden. :redbutt: Call me a Nazi, I don't really care. Stupid crazyman took advantage of them. I know what I believe in, and it isn't Facism, so just save it. I know that the Germans at least fought hard and were not cowards.

These cowards in Iraq run like cockroaches when the kitchen light comes on. Time to get out the Orkin man.

[bendog]

Mock the REASON for the war was to nationbuild a democracy to usher in a beam of light to the muslim world. The tougher the military gets, the more towards defeat goes the mission.

The plan now is just to win in Nov and get the hell out of Dodge as quickly as possible, which will leave a less stable, and more dangerous Iraq, than that which existed with Saddam

At the time, Annan had underlined the lack of legitimacy for a war without U.N. approval, saying: "If the United States and others were to go outside the Security Council and take unilateral action they would not be in conformity with the Charter."

On Wednesday, after being asked three times whether the lack of council approval for the war meant it was illegal, he said: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view it was illegal."

On Thursday, British Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt said her government disagreed with Annan. Britain was a leading supporter of the U.S.-led invasion and argued that three earlier U.N. resolutions provided the legal basis for toppling the government of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

"There have always been different views on that matter and ... of course I respect his views on this matter and I regret that we disagree with them," Hewitt told BBC radio.

"The important thing now is that we and the U.N. and the international community continue working with the Iraqi people so that they can achieve what they all want, which is a safe, secure, democratic Iraq."

Annan also said that the wave of violence engulfing Iraq puts in doubt the national elections scheduled for January.

There could not be "credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now," he told the BBC.

On Tuesday, Annan's top envoy to Iraq, Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, said the security situation will be the overriding factor in determining how many U.N. international staffers can return to Iraq. There is now a ceiling of 35 U.N. staff in the country.

Qazi spoke Tuesday at a Security Council meeting called to discuss Annan's latest report on Iraq, which warned that violence could make it more difficult to create the conditions for successful elections. Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi has said he is determined to hold the election by Jan. 31.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (news - web sites), John Danforth, all but ruled out any delay beyond the Jan. 31 deadline for elections in Iraq's interim constitution.

"Let there be no doubt: we are committed to this timetable," he told council members Tuesday

[enjolras]

I see Bush supporters don't have much to say about this latest report on Iraq.
Guess it doesn't matter we are pouring 100s of billions of dollars into a bottomless pit?

Now that we are there.. do we have any other choice?

[bendog]

We're leaving, regardless of who is elected. Neither candidate has the cajones to say it, though.

ntel Officials Have Bleak View for Iraq

Thu Sep 16, 4:04 AM ET
Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!

By KATHERINE PFLEGER SHRADER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The National Intelligence Council presented President Bush (news - web sites) this summer with several pessimistic scenarios regarding the security situation in Iraq (news - web sites), including the possibility of a civil war there before the end of 2005.

Photo
AP Photo

AP Photo Photo
AP Photo
Slideshow Slideshow: Iraq


Special Coverages
Latest headlines:
· Group Offers Bush Bleak Iraq Assessment
AP - 3 minutes ago
· 2 Americans, 1 Briton Kidnapped in Iraq
AP - 7 minutes ago
· U.S. Intelligence Offers Gloomy Outlook for Iraq
Reuters - 11 minutes ago
Special Coverage



In a highly classified National Intelligence Estimate, the council looked at the political, economic and security situation in the war-torn country and determined that — at best — stability in Iraq would be tenuous, a U.S. official said late Wednesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

At worst, the official said, were "trend lines that would point to a civil war." The official said it "would be fair" to call the document "pessimistic."

The intelligence estimate, which was prepared for Bush, considered the window of time between July and the end of 2005. But the official noted that the document draws on intelligence community assessments from January 2003, before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the subsequent deteriorating security situation there.

This latest assessment was performed by the National Intelligence Council, a group of senior intelligence officials that provides long-term strategic thinking for the entire U.S. intelligence community.

Acting CIA (news - web sites) Director John McLaughlin and the leaders of the other intelligence agencies approved the intelligence document, which runs about 50 pages.

The estimate appears to differ from the public comments of Bush and his senior aides who speak more optimistically about the prospects for a peaceful and free Iraq. "We're making progress on the ground," Bush said at his Texas ranch late last month.

A CIA spokesman declined to comment Wednesday night.

The document was first reported by The New York Times on its Web site Wednesday night.

It is the first formal assessment of Iraq since the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on the threat posed by fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

A scathing review of that estimate released this summer by the Senate Intelligence Committee found widespread intelligence failures that led to faulty assumptions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

[watermock]

"In a highly classified National Intelligence Estimate, the council looked at the political, economic and security situation in the war-torn country and determined that — at best — stability in Iraq would be tenuous, a U.S. official said late Wednesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity."

Sounds extremely highly classified to me. How amusing.

With heads on spits along the road I don't think it's a reach to admit it's a highly tenuous situation.

[Rohirrim]

And now some more bad news out of Iraq: It appears that Kurds have been pouring into Kirkuk from all over the place in time for the expected elections. They were kicked out of the area by Saddam, but now they are moving back in by the thousands to make sure they control the Kirkuk oil fields (6% of the world's supply) and that they can produce a "bloc" vote for representation. Turkey has already said they will not put up with an autonomous Kurdish region or the control of Kirkuk oil fields by Kurds.

Looks like Georgie has opened a can of worms. Too bad he didn't ask his father before he jumped into this one. I'm afraid his "higher father" is giving him bad advice - of course, we can't imagine what His agenda might be.

[watermock]

Mock the REASON for the war was to nationbuild a democracy to usher in a beam of light to the muslim world. The tougher the military gets, the more towards defeat goes the mission.

Absolutely untrue. The reason the cease fire violations were finally enforced was because of incredible corruption that was feeding Saddam Billions.

I understand you don't want to have an uprising, but these are terrorists, not civilians, a total misconseption. The FACT IS you have to beat your enemy down, something we didn't accomplish as they ran off, and used the Billions of terrorist funds salted away for an insurgency. If anything, we should of moved earlier. No war has ever been won with appeasement, altho it's still a popular misconception.

Were the Nazi's appeased by Chamberlain? Did we appease the Japanese to the peace table? Were the North Korean's appeased? Were the Viet Cong appeased? Were the Soviets appeased when they grabbed control of half of Europe? Were the Iranians appeased by Carter? Were the Taliban appeased by Clinton? Were the Syrians appeased in Lebanon? Has the PLO been appeased in the Gaza strip? Was Khadafi appeased in Lybia? Has Al Queda been appeased in the Sudan? Were the Sandanistas appeased in Nicaragua? Did appeasement work in Mogudishu? Did appeasement work for the World Trade Center? Did appeasement work in Bosnia?

You can't name me one damn time appeasement hasn't resulted in disaster.

Just name when the policies of the pathetic UN of appeasement has had just one success! Your going to listen to that piece of crap Annan who is one step above Al Queda?

[bendog]

It's amazing. I can see why people wouldn't vote for Kerry, or Nader for that matter. I'm not sure I can take the plunge. But how could anyone in their right mind vote for JR after he concocted this damn mess? Regardless of issue or partisanship, there are 400 orphans from this war, and not a reason for it or damn postive to show for the sacrafice.

[watermock]

And now some more bad news out of Iraq: It appears that Kurds have been pouring into Kirkuk from all over the place in time for the expected elections. They were kicked out of the area by Saddam, but now they are moving back in by the thousands to make sure they control the Kirkuk oil fields (6% of the world's supply) and that they can produce a "bloc" vote for representation. Turkey has already said they will not put up with an autonomous Kurdish region or the control of Kirkuk oil fields by Kurds.

Looks like Georgie has opened a can of worms. Too bad he didn't ask his father before he jumped into this one. I'm afraid his "higher father" is giving him bad advice - of course, we can't imagine what His agenda might be.

Screw Turkey. They are repressive and let us prepare for the intervention then turned into cowards, forcing an entire division to move 5 thousand miles thru Egypt, delaying out best Division by 45 days. They can blow me.

The Kurds don't want to invade Turkey where they have been opressed. The fact of the matter is Kirkuk is predominantly Kurdish, or at least it was before Saddam gassed them by the thousands.

[watermock]

It's amazing. I can see why people wouldn't vote for Kerry, or Nader for that matter. I'm not sure I can take the plunge. But how could anyone in their right mind vote for JR after he concocted this damn mess? Regardless of issue or partisanship, there are 400 orphans from this war, and not a reason for it or damn postive to show for the sacrafice.

Concocted? He was in direct violation of the cease fire resolution. Just for your information, the first Gulf war was never resolved. What part of appeasement by the UN don't you understand. France, Germany and Russia along with Syria were making Billions for terrorism. Saddam was paying families of suicide bombers 25K.

His two demonic sons were rapists and mass murderers.

[bendog]

BEFORE invasion, BLix checke out EVERY site/scientist we gave him and found no womd program dangerious to the US. This war is simply about nation building, and we've lost the war. It's all over but the dying. And the end result in Iraq will be more dangerous to us than Saddam.

[watermock]

BEFORE invasion, BLix checke out EVERY site/scientist we gave him and found no womd program dangerious to the US. This war is simply about nation building, and we've lost the war. It's all over but the dying. And the end result in Iraq will be more dangerous to us than Saddam.

Totally False. It was Blix incompetence more than anything that led to the invasion. Blix totally changed is story, and promptly retired to slam a totally misleading book down the throats of Europe. What are you on?

The Saddam Regime threw Blix around like a rag doll. What are you on?

You don't remember him talking about the violations of the UN Cease Fire?

[bendog]

If blix was incompetnet, JR would've found womd. Blix had free access to any site he wanted to go to, and he went to every site the US told him we suspected BEFORE invasion. The best case for JR is that he was incompetent, but in fact he didn't give the real reason for the war. Gary Hart had an interesting Hardball a couple of weeks ago.

This war will end in defeat, if it hasn't already, because the American public wasn't told the real reason, and won't support 10 years of nation building, and the Iraqis won't put up with it even if we would support it.

I still haven't found a reason to vote for BushII, except he ins't Kerry, but the same holds true for Kerry. amazing.

[Rohirrim]

Blix may have been incompetent, but David Kay wasn't - and he found the same "non-evidence" that Blix found. When will you accept the fact that the Iraq invasion was a foregone conclusion when Bush and his neocons got elected (or selected by Scalia, if you prefer)? This is Bush's "decisiveness" at work - although there are some who would call it "bullheadedness", or maybe even "fanatacism?"

Earth to the Bush puppies: Cheney/Bush used 9/11 to invade Iraq. Had 9/11 not happened, they would have "used" something else.

[watermock]

If blix was incompetnet, JR would've found womd.

They were dumped into the river, the missles were sent to Syria and there have been shipments to Al Queda in the Sudan.

Blix had free access to any site he wanted to go to, and he went to every site the US told him we suspected BEFORE invasion.

You can't be serious. They blocked UN inspectors at every turn.

The best case for JR is that he was incompetent, but in fact he didn't give the real reason for the war. Gary Hart had an interesting Hardball a couple of weeks ago.

Gary Hart on Softball. How amusing. What part of violating terms of the cease fire is beyond you?

This war will end in defeat, if it hasn't already, because the American public wasn't told the real reason, and won't support 10 years of nation building, and the Iraqis won't put up with it even if we would support it.

Will it really? I don't think the solders think so.

I still haven't found a reason to vote for BushII, except he ins't Kerry, but the same holds true for Kerry. amazing.

That's totally irrelevant. Vote for whoever you want.

[catcalls]

Meanwhile, it would appear that pronouncements (including my own) of Bush's imminent reelection <a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/0,,SB109526872487418642,00.html">may have been premature.</a>

[bendog]

Saddam dumped the womd in a river. Jesus mock, you're .....

never mind , TJ (-:

[watermock]

Yes he did. The chemicals he damwell did. Who do you think was down there? His buddies the Shiites?

Oh, but Saddam wouldn't do that, he only set hundreds of oil wells on fire. What are you on?

Explain to me why he wouldn't do that when he had allready created canals to dry up their source of food, or why he invaded Kuwait, or why he started the war against Iran.

And your going to tell me he didn't dump chemicals in the river? Want to tell me why not?

[watermock]

You want to play more games about what a soldiers obligation is to his country with out a clue?

I'm not going to play this game. It's 7 years. Got it yet?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

And more on the Bush administration's futile attempt at nation building in Iraq.

-------------------------------
Senators slam administration on Iraq
By Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY

Senators from both parties accused the Bush administration Wednesday of incompetence in its efforts to rebuild Iraq (news - web sites) and said the United States could lose the war unless it improves security and gets more money into the Iraqi economy.

Among those harshly criticizing the White House at a hearing were the two top Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: Chairman Richard Lugar of Indiana and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

Of the $18.4 billion Congress approved last year for Iraqi reconstruction, only $1.1 billion has been spent because of violence and other problems. Hagel called that record "beyond pitiful and embarrassing; it is now in the zone of dangerous."

Even Lugar, who is not usually given to strong rhetoric, said the failure to inject funds into the Iraqi economy quickly was "exasperating for anybody looking at this from any vantage point."

The hearing was called to discuss a new administration plan to reallocate $3.5 billion in reconstruction funds, primarily to Iraqi police and military training.

Hagel told two State Department officials they had "inherited a mess" from a year of Pentagon (news - web sites)-supervised government in Iraq and expressed doubt that the United States was winning the war. "It's not a pretty picture," he said.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20040916/ts_usatoday/senatorsslamadministrationoniraq&e=2

[bendog]

I think it's beyond dispute that JR was "predisposed" to invade Iraq, but I think prior to 9-11, JR's agenda was simply the tax cut and to put another scalia or two on the bench. Whether he would have had the attention span necessary to hold down spending to make the tax cut sustainable, I don't know. I thought so when I voted for him.

[watermock]

Your absolutely wrong once again.

Saddam tried to kill George H and Little G took it personal. I am surprised you don't understand this.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/respons-daoud.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Looks like Georgie has opened a can of worms. Too bad he didn't ask his father before he jumped into this one. I'm afraid his "higher father" is giving him bad advice - of course, we can't imagine what His agenda might be.

Yep.

Too bad he failed to heed Poppy's warnings because he was too busy listening to those grandiose/paranoid voices in his head he mistook for Jesus.

Intel Officials Have Bleak View for Iraq

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040916/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq&cid=542&ncid=716

The document lays out a second scenario in which increased extremism and fragmentation in Iraqi society impede efforts to build a central government and adversely affect efforts to democratize the country.

In a third, worst-case scenario, the intelligence council contemplated "trend lines that would point to a civil war," the official said. The potential conflict could be among the country's three main populations the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

It "would be fair" to call the document "pessimistic," the official added

Things just keeps getting worse and worse, and the media and the wall-to-wall GOP echo chamber keep telling us what a great job the "war president" is doing.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

CNN Poll: Was the war illegal? Yes votes are out in front

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/16/iran.annan.ap/index.html

Do you agree with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan that the decision to go to war in Iraq was illegal?

Yes 69% 13848 votes

No 31% 6244 votes

Total: 20092 votes

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.democracylost.com/chickenhawk.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"War On Terror" Has Cost More Civilian Lives Than Terrorism

In three shocking years since September 11 more civilians have died as a result of the war on terror, than terrorists have killed in the past 35 years.

A conservative tabulation of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq, and adding UN, Red Cross and other NGO workers, humanitarian aid organizations' staff, journalists, government officials, including ministers, and particularly Iraqi police and police recruits, puts the number at more than 30,000.

This compares with figures from recent studies which demonstrate the total number of deaths caused by terrorism since 1968 is 22,000.

The U.S. has expended around 1,200 lives in the so-called war on terror, with the bulk of the fatalities occurring in Iraq. Last week the number of U.S. service personnel to die in Iraq sailed past the 1,000 mark.

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=01da1231768a48f8

I guess this is somehow a good thing when you use republican "fuzzy math."

[enjolras]

Saddam tried to kill George H and Little G took it personal. I am surprised you don't understand this.

If you truly beleive that, and you vote for Bush, then you are an incredible moron. If Bush "took it personal" then Bush should have challenged Saddam to a fist fight. To sacrifice 1000 lives because he 'took it personal' is an affront to everything important to our civilization. Bush, for better or worse, is responsible for 1000 families who've lost loves ones... if he did it for ANY reason other than the belief that Iraq represented a serious, concrete, and dire threat to this nation then he should not only be voted out of office, but those families should all get a shot at him personally.

You state lunatic ideas about the whereabouts of these weapons.. you have an incredibly poor source (DEBKA), and intuition.. but nothing more to back it up. Don't bring it if you can't show at least SOME evidence to back it up. All you have is weak crap that's not worth the bandwidth it consumes. The facts, as we know them right now, are that Bush claimed (in no uncertain terms) that Iraq had weapons.. not only that, but we knew where they where. Despite the large amount of dissension among the actual intelligence analysts in his own administration. He made those claims, and we haven't found a damn trace of anything.

I'd get fired for that, and Bush should to. It's impassioned hatred of America around the world and this war has not only made Iraq a fertile ground for terrorism, but will inspire a whole new crop of terrorists to come inflict some pain on us. You love to spout about how appeasement isn't the answer, and I agree it isn't. But throughout history there is another thing that never works... unilateral action. Sacrificing our alliances and frienships around the world for Iraq was stupid and shortsighted. Bush, in 4 years, has effectively undone 100 years of diplomacy. Incredible in it's own right, but dangerous as hell. It isn't effective foreign policy..it's stupidity and we have our president to blame.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Quote:
Saddam tried to kill George H and Little G took it personal. I am surprised you don't understand this.

If you truly beleive that, and you vote for Bush, then you are an incredible moron.

No kidding--especially when you consider that Poppy warned against invading and occupying Iraq in the first place. (Not that we didn't already know that anyone who votes for bush is a moron anyway...:))

And I'll be damned if everything Poppy warned against didn't come true for junior.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Far graver than Vietnam

Military: Iraq has turned into an unprecedented disaster

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1305360,00.html

'Bring them on!" President Bush challenged the early Iraqi insurgency in July of last year. Since then, 812 American soldiers have been killed and 6,290 wounded, according to the Pentagon. Almost every day, in campaign speeches, Bush speaks with bravado about how he is "winning" in Iraq. "Our strategy is succeeding," he boasted to the National Guard convention on Tuesday.

But, according to the US military's leading strategists and prominent retired generals, Bush's war is already lost. Retired general William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, told me: "Bush hasn't found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it's worse, he's lost on that front. That he's going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It's lost." He adds: "Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving Bin Laden's ends."

Republicans chant: "Oh, I love the job Bush is doing with the war on terra..."

http://www.bartcop.com/sad-pathetic.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Quotes

"Bush's decision to respond to the 9/11 attacks by attacking Saddam is universally
regarded as "a catastrophe". In two years of reporting, "I have sat through
arguments among soldiers and scholars about whether the invasion of Iraq should
be considered the worst strategic error in American history -- or only the worst since
Vietnam ... About the conduct and effect of the war in Iraq one view prevails: it has
increased the threats America faces, and has reduced the military, financial, and
diplomatic tools with which we can respond."

--James Fallows, in The Atlantic Monthly

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html/index.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This Is Bush's Vietnam

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/17/opinion/17herbert.html

Since we learned nothing from Vietnam, we are doomed to repeat its agony, this time in horrifying slow-motion in Iraq.

Three more marines were killed yesterday in Iraq. Kidnappings are commonplace. The insurgency is growing and becoming more sophisticated, which means more deadly. Ordinary Iraqis are becoming ever more enraged at the U.S.

When David Brinkley, appalled by the carnage in Vietnam, asked Lyndon Johnson why he didn't just bring the troops home, Johnson replied, "I'm not going to be the first American president to lose a war."

George W. Bush is now trapped as tightly in Iraq as Johnson was in Vietnam. The war is going badly. The president's own intelligence estimates are pessimistic. There is no plan to actually win the war in Iraq, and no willingness to concede defeat. I wonder who the last man or woman will be to die for this colossal mistake.

http://www.bartcop.com/energizerpresident.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Quotes

"I see no exit. We've been down that road before. It's called Vietnamisation. The idea that we're going to have an Iraqi force trained to defeat an enemy we can't defeat stretches the imagination. They will be tainted by their very association with the foreign occupier...I see no ray of light on the horizon at all. The worst case has become true."

--Jeffrey Record, professor of strategy at the Air War College

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1305360,00.html

http://www.bartcop.com/idiot-dumb.jpg
"Those pointy-headed elitists - what do they know?"

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The last deception

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/21/opinion/21krugman.html

It's Ayad Allawi week. President Bush, starting with his address at the U.N. today, will try to present Mr. Allawi - a former Baathist who the BBC reports was chosen as prime minister because he was "equally mistrusted by everyone" - as the leader of a sovereign nation on the path to democracy. If the media play along, Mr. Bush may be able to keep the Iraq disaster under wraps for a few more weeks.

It may well work. In June, when the United States formally transferred sovereignty to Mr. Allawi's government, the media acted as if this empty gesture marked the end of the war. Even though American casualties continued to rise, stories about Iraq dropped off the evening news and the front pages. This gave the public the impression that things were improving and helped Mr. Bush recover in the polls.

Now Mr. Bush hopes that by pretending that Mr. Allawi is a real leader of a real government, he can conceal the fact that he has led America into a major strategic defeat.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

"I think we will need more troops than we currently have," Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. troops in the region, said Wednesday.

No kidding!!!!!!!

---------------------------------
The gruesome hostage drama played out as fighting raged on in Iraq. At least 20 people — including three U.S. soldiers — were killed and more than 100 wounded on Wednesday.

Suicide attackers struck key diplomatic and commercial centers of the capital, and American tanks and troops searching for weapons stormed into the slum of Sadr City, a stronghold of Shiite militants — only to come under a barrage of mortar and automatic weapons fire. The violence underscored the inability of U.S. and Iraqi forces to bring security to even the most vital areas of the capital.

Fighting in Sadr City flared anew on Thursday, with U.S. warplanes firing on insurgents, killing at least one person and injuring 12, many of them children, hospital officials said Thursday.

U.S. warplanes and helicopters roared overhead and residents said loud explosions could be heard for hours. Militia fighters returned fire with machine guns, they said.

An American Bradley fighting vehicle was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade and caught fire, according to a U.S. military report that could not be confirmed. It was not clear if there were any casualties.

In the northeastern city of Mosul, gunmen killed a senior official of Iraq's North Oil Co. on Thursday, officials said. Sana Toma Sulaiman, the deputy director of the company's oil products department in the Nineveh province, was shot dead as he headed to work in a taxi in Mosul, said Hazim Jallawi, a spokesman for the Nineveh governor's office.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040923/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Quotes

"We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace."

--Dubya

You've got to be kidding me! This from the same mindless monkey who couldn't wait to rush America into a needless war with Iraq?

http://www.bartcop.com/second-hell.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Iraq: How bad can things get?

Bush: "I have not yet begun to f*ck up..."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3675538.stm

Just how bad are things in Iraq? Since just last week it has seen hundreds of deaths,
suicide bombings, beheadings, yet more people kidnapped. When I visited Basra exactly
one year ago it was safe enough to stay in town on our own. This time, we wouldn't dream of doing that. The chances of being kidnapped are too great...

The problem is that very few people are actively supporting the fight against the militants. A vicious campaign of intimidation doesn't help matters. Last month, five cleaning ladies at a British base were murdered on their way to work. Two local translators disappeared. Their severed heads were found outside the front gate. But perhaps the most worrying development of the August fighting was that none of Basra's 25,000 police officers came to the aid of the British soldiers. Some even helped the gunmen."

"Everything is coming up roses (for me and my Carlyle/Halliborton cronies, that is.")
http://www.bartcop.com/chimp-special02.jpg

[orinjkrush]

fuque the turks. establish a kurdish state. break iraq into four different parts. create mooselimb anarchy. but march on Tehran. and Damascus. we will be safe for a thousand years.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If it's Iraq, things only get worse

Account from an eyewitness

The only real defence is to remain inconspicuous. My driver’s car, for instance, has blacked-out windows. We leave the hotel at different times every day and make sure to vary our routes. If we are visiting someone at home or in an office, we drive around the streets first to make sure no one is lying in wait. Some areas of the country and even Baghdad are completely off limits, like the towns of Fallujah and Ramadi, certain militant Sunni Muslim mosques and notorious neighbourhoods. Most interviews are limited to 15 minutes before we are back on the road. I last had to employ these techniques when I lived in Beirut 20 years ago and abducting Westerners was fashionable. But, with a few exceptions, most of those abductions were conducted in order to get ransoms. Many hostages were held for years but most were eventually freed. In Lebanon kidnapping was business, not personal. Here your life expectancy in the hands of al-Zarkawi’s group is probably a few days at best. In the chaos of post-Saddam Iraq there are few certainties. But now, on my sixth visit to Baghdad
since the war, one simple rule seems valid: things only get worse."

That should be Bush's campaign slogan: Things only get worse

How can America seriously consider giving this monster four more years to kill and destroy?

http://www.antiwar.com/spectator/spec395.html