The Ongoing Iraq Intel Fraud

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

By Robert Parry

Almost five years and perhaps half a million deaths too late, it’s finally the accepted wisdom in Washington that the intelligence that George W. Bush used to justify invading Iraq was garbage. But the pattern of twisting the truth about Iraq continues unabated and the President is still rarely called on it.

Bush has never stopped making statements about the Iraq War that are untrue, illogical or irrelevant. Yet, the Washington press corps remains almost as lax today about holding Bush accountable as it was in 2002 and 2003.

So, when Bush mocks Democratic “politicians in Washington” who supposedly seek to substitute their judgments for those of experienced commanders on the ground, the national news media stays silent on Bush’s hypocrisy. It’s almost never mentioned that he was the Washington politician in December who overruled the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the two top generals in Iraq on the escalation of the war.

Bush not only rejected the advice of the Joint Chiefs and his field generals, John Abizaid and George Casey, but then replaced Abizaid and Casey with new commanders who were compliant to Bush’s wishes. Though the removals fell within Bush’s Commander-in-Chief powers, it can’t be said he was respecting the judgments of the combat generals.

Nevertheless, Bush sees no risk when he attributes to congressional Democrats the notion that commanders should “take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C.,” as Bush said in a speech on May 1.

Nor does the national news media question Bush’s sincerity when he asserts, as he did on May 2, that “the question is, who ought to make that [military] decision? The Congress or the commanders? And as you know, my position is clear – I’m a commander guy.”

But Bush is not “a commander guy,” at least not when the commanders disagree with him. In that same May 2 speech, Bush took both sides of the issue and got away with it. He claimed to respect the judgments of his commanders and then explained how he repudiated his commanders.

Bush said last year’s polls showed many Americans responding “we don’t approve of what’s happening in Iraq. That was what the poll said last fall and winter, you know. And had they polled me, I’d have said the same thing. I didn’t approve of what was happening in Iraq. And so we put a new strategy in that was fundamentally different.”

In other words, politicians in Washington – Bush and his neoconservative advisers – imposed their opinions about Iraq on the judgments of the on-the-ground commanders and the Joint Chiefs who thought the “surge” of more U.S. troops would prove counterproductive by reducing pressure on Iraqi authorities to take the lead.

After switching out Abizaid and Casey with new commanders, Admiral William Fallon and General David Petraeus, Bush then settled back comfortably into the fiction that he was just following the guidance of the commanders on the ground; the Democrats were the ones guilty of bucking the military’s advice by seeking a phased withdrawal.

Explaining why he vetoed a congressional war appropriation bill that included a timeline for withdrawal, Bush said, “That didn’t make any sense to me, to impose the will of politicians over the recommendations of our military commanders in the field.”

(In another indicator of feckless Washington behavior, two key “surge” proponents in the White House – political appointees Dr. J.D. Crouch II and Meghan O’Sullivan – are resigning even before their new policy is fully implemented. Another “surge” architect, retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, was among five retired generals who rejected the new “war czar” position for overseeing the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.)

Full article here: http://www.consortiumnews.com/

http://www.bartcop.com/pilot-impeach.jpg

[Rohirrim]

Nice sand sculpture. :thumbsup:

[patteeu]

Of all the things one might criticize the President for, that's got to be one of the dumbest.

Bush gave the Rumsfeld doctrine, of which Casey and Abizaid were adherents, nearly 4 years to work. Personally, I would have been patient enough to give it (and Rumsfeld) some more time, but I can't complain if the President reached the conclusion that the political climate required a fresh perspective to avoid a fatal loss of resolve on the part of the American people.

The question we should ask ourselves is which is less admirable behavior: (a) The President who gave Rumsfeld, Casey, and Abizaid years to implement their strategy and finally decided to survey the intellectual assets of the military for another option, or (b) the democrat critics who railed against Rumsfeld, Casey, and Abizaid's "stay the course" literally for years only to use the opposition of Casey and Abizaid to the surge in an insincere way when the President finally decided to signficantly change the course?

The so-called "surge" strategy is an example of the President listening to his commanders. He concluded that the previous strategy needed to be revised so after determining to remain committed to the goal, he surveyed his commanders for their ideas on how to pursue that objective. The current strategy is the fruit of that effort. Democrats aren't upset with the strategy, they're upset with the goal.

[Rohirrim]

Of all the things one might criticize the President for, that's got to be one of the dumbest.

Bush gave the Rumsfeld doctrine, of which Casey and Abizaid were adherents, nearly 4 years to work. Personally, I would have been patient enough to give it (and Rumsfeld) some more time, but I can't complain if the President reached the conclusion that the political climate required a fresh perspective to avoid a fatal loss of resolve on the part of the American people.

The question we should ask ourselves is which is less admirable behavior: (a) The President who gave Rumsfeld, Casey, and Abizaid years to implement their strategy and finally decided to survey the intellectual assets of the military for another option, or (b) the democrat critics who railed against Rumsfeld, Casey, and Abizaid's "stay the course" literally for years only to use the opposition of Casey and Abizaid to the surge in an insincere way when the President finally decided to signficantly change the course?

The so-called "surge" strategy is an example of the President listening to his commanders. He concluded that the previous strategy needed to be revised so after determining to remain committed to the goal, he surveyed his commanders for their ideas on how to pursue that objective. The current strategy is the fruit of that effort. Democrats aren't upset with the strategy, they're upset with the goal.

"I don't think our troops should be used for what's called nation building."
- George W. Bush, 2000

"I'm not so sure the role of the United States is going around the world saying this is the way its gotta be."
- George W. Bush, 2000

"We will be changing the regime of Iraq for the good of the iraqi people."
- George W. Bush, 2003

[patteeu]

"I don't think our troops should be used for what's called nation building."
- George W. Bush, 2000

"I'm not so sure the role of the United States is going around the world saying this is the way its gotta be."
- George W. Bush, 2000

"We will be changing the regime of Iraq for the good of the iraqi people."
- George W. Bush, 2003

?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Democrats aren't upset with the strategy, they're upset with the goal.
ROFL!

[Bronco Bob]

Could have sworn I had a post on this thread. Is someone going around deleting my posts?

[TailgateNut]

Of all the things one might criticize the President for, that's got to be one of the dumbest.

Personally, I would have been patient enough to give it (and Rumsfeld) some more time.


...and you have the audacity to call someone else dumb?!?

[Rigs11]

Democrats aren't upset with the strategy, they're upset with the goal.

That is by far the dumbest thing you have ever said.Stand up, turn off the computer, go stand in front of a mirror, and kick your own ass...

[epicSocialism4tw]

LABF is back.

Is it time to ramp up volunteer contribution for the upcoming elections?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.shanghaidaily.com/NewsImage/2007/2007-05/2007-05-05/20070505_314861_02.jpg
Golden State Warriors' Baron Davis drives between Dallas Mavericks' DeSagana Diop (left), Dirk Nowitzki (second left) and Devin Harris (right) during Game 6 of their playoffs in Oakland, California, on Thursday. The hosts won 111-86 to advance.

[Blueflame]

Of all the things one might criticize the President for, that's got to be one of the dumbest.

Bush gave the Rumsfeld doctrine, of which Casey and Abizaid were adherents, nearly 4 years to work. Personally, I would have been patient enough to give it (and Rumsfeld) some more time, but I can't complain if the President reached the conclusion that the political climate required a fresh perspective to avoid a fatal loss of resolve on the part of the American people.

The question we should ask ourselves is which is less admirable behavior: (a) The President who gave Rumsfeld, Casey, and Abizaid years to implement their strategy and finally decided to survey the intellectual assets of the military for another option, or (b) the democrat critics who railed against Rumsfeld, Casey, and Abizaid's "stay the course" literally for years only to use the opposition of Casey and Abizaid to the surge in an insincere way when the President finally decided to signficantly change the course?

The so-called "surge" strategy is an example of the President listening to his commanders. He concluded that the previous strategy needed to be revised so after determining to remain committed to the goal, he surveyed his commanders for their ideas on how to pursue that objective. The current strategy is the fruit of that effort. Democrats aren't upset with the strategy, they're upset with the goal.

On the contrary, Democrats are upset with the continuation of a flawed, failed "strategery"....

[patteeu]

On the contrary, Democrats are upset with the continuation of a flawed, failed "strategery"....

There was a major change in strategy when Rumsfeld/Abizaid/Casey were removed and replaced by Gates/Petraeus, but did democrats embrace this new strategy? No. Instead they used the words of the architects of the previously embattled "stay the course" strategy as criticisms of the new strategy. WTF?

The only strategy the majority of democrats seem to find appealing is the strategy of capitulation. I think this is more fairly characterized as a disagreement over goals than strategies.

What's do you think our goal should be in Iraq, blueflame? And what strategy do you advocate for pursuing that goal?

[Rohirrim]

There was a major change in strategy when Rumsfeld/Abizaid/Casey were removed and replaced by Gates/Petraeus, but did democrats embrace this new strategy? No. Instead they used the words of the architects of the previously embattled "stay the course" strategy as criticisms of the new strategy. WTF?

The only strategy the majority of democrats seem to find appealing is the strategy of capitulation. I think this is more fairly characterized as a disagreement over goals than strategies.

What's do you think our goal should be in Iraq, blueflame? And what strategy do you advocate for pursuing that goal?

Capitulation to whom?

[patteeu]

Capitulation to whom?

To the islamists (al Qaeda et al) who are setting off car bombs in Iraq and ambushing US troops in an effort to drive us out.

[Rohirrim]

To the islamists (al Qaeda et al) who are setting off car bombs in Iraq and ambushing US troops in an effort to drive us out.

They're not the only ones doing that. In fact, it's likely they are not responsible for the majority of bombings in Iraq. There are many different factions among the Sunnis. You may remember that last week, one Sunni contingent killed an Al Queda leader in a shoot out. Reportedly, the Shiites have numerous death squads as well, not even counting Sadr's militias who are probably carrying out a separate agenda. All of these factions are responsible for attacks against the U.S., innocent civilians and each other.

So, let's forget the idea of who the Dems are trying to capitulate to. Let's say Dubya leads us to glorious victory. When he sits down to sign the peace treaty, who's going to be on the other side of the table?

[Spider]

To the islamists (al Qaeda et al) who are setting off car bombs in Iraq and ambushing US troops in an effort to drive us out.

do you even understand what is going on in Iraq ?
Medication maybe ?

[Blueflame]

There was a major change in strategy when Rumsfeld/Abizaid/Casey were removed and replaced by Gates/Petraeus, but did democrats embrace this new strategy? No. Instead they used the words of the architects of the previously embattled "stay the course" strategy as criticisms of the new strategy. WTF?

The only strategy the majority of democrats seem to find appealing is the strategy of capitulation. I think this is more fairly characterized as a disagreement over goals than strategies.

What's do you think our goal should be in Iraq, blueflame? And what strategy do you advocate for pursuing that goal?

The sad fact is that we can't win in Iraq. As evil a tyrant as Saddam was, his government did provide stability to the region... as opposed to a civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites for control of the inevitable Islamic theocracy that Iraq will become.

Our goal? Getting American soldiers safely back home and letting the Iraqis fight it out to shape their own government. They do not want a "democracy"... complete with a Bushco puppet leader. They want us gone... I think we should go. Actually, I think we should never have gone there in the first place, Bush lies notwithstanding.

[patteeu]

They're not the only ones doing that. In fact, it's likely they are not responsible for the majority of bombings in Iraq. There are many different factions among the Sunnis. You may remember that last week, one Sunni contingent killed an Al Queda leader in a shoot out. Reportedly, the Shiites have numerous death squads as well, not even counting Sadr's militias who are probably carrying out a separate agenda. All of these factions are responsible for attacks against the U.S., innocent civilians and each other.

So, let's forget the idea of who the Dems are trying to capitulate to. Let's say Dubya leads us to glorious victory. When he sits down to sign the peace treaty, who's going to be on the other side of the table?

I don't think we *should* forget who the dems are trying to capitulate to. I reject your conclusion that the majority of bombings in Iraq are caused by someone other than the islamist element of the insurgency. I can't prove my assumption, but you can't prove yours either. But regardless of what percentage of killings the islamists are responsible for, it is their top goal to create enough violence to drive us out. If we are, in fact, driven out by this violence, we are capitulating to them regardless of the presence of other sources of violence.

As for who will sign the peace treaty, the President has already made it clear that this isn't the kind of war in which we can expect a peace treaty and a signing ceremony.

[patteeu]

The sad fact is that we can't win in Iraq. As evil a tyrant as Saddam was, his government did provide stability to the region... as opposed to a civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites for control of the inevitable Islamic theocracy that Iraq will become.

Our goal? Getting American soldiers safely back home and letting the Iraqis fight it out to shape their own government. They do not want a "democracy"... complete with a Bushco puppet leader. They want us gone... I think we should go. Actually, I think we should never have gone there in the first place, Bush lies notwithstanding.

So it's not "on the contrary" at all. Thanks for your honesty. You (and other democrats/democrat sympathizers) disagree with the goal not the strategy.

[Blueflame]

So it's not "on the contrary" at all. Thanks for your honesty. You (and other democrats/democrat sympathizers) disagree with the goal not the strategy.

What strategy? Throwing more troops... some of them reportedly ill-equipped, not thoroughly trained, and/or not fully rehabilitated from injuries received in past deployments into the fray? Look, that is still not going to stop the Shiites and Sunnis from fighting over which faction will install their Islamic theocracy. A continued, larger American presence may postpone some of that infighting, but it's not going to forestall it; the religious conflict is inevitable. And any American injuries or deaths that occur while our troops are "babysitting" the new "Iraqi democracy" are an outrage, imho. The stated "goal" is not achievable... and a permanent American troop presence in Iraq just means more resentment against America and the deaths/injuries of more troops.

[Willynowei]

I don't think we *should* forget who the dems are trying to capitulate to. I reject your conclusion that the majority of bombings in Iraq are caused by someone other than the islamist element of the insurgency. I can't prove my assumption, but you can't prove yours either. But regardless of what percentage of killings the islamists are responsible for, it is their top goal to create enough violence to drive us out. If we are, in fact, driven out by this violence, we are capitulating to them regardless of the presence of other sources of violence.

As for who will sign the peace treaty, the President has already made it clear that this isn't the kind of war in which we can expect a peace treaty and a signing ceremony.


wow.

[Rohirrim]

Having lived through Vietnam, it's very weird to watch it happen all over again, to listen to the same old arguments, to see the same old flag waving zeolatry, to hear the denial. I guess that old saying is true, "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Having lived through Vietnam, it's very weird to watch it happen all over again, to listen to the same old arguments, to see the same old flag waving zeolatry, to hear the denial. I guess that old saying is true, "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Bingo.

It is weird.

It's like those "love it or leave it" bumper sticker-having rednecks (and their offspring) haven't evolved or learned anything new since the 60s. :kiddingme

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Quote of the Day

"Iraq is worse than Vietnam in so many ways. We knew what we were getting into in Vietnam. We didn't in Iraq."

- Andrew Krepinevich Jr., Vietnam scholar

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042801167.html

http://www.bartcop.com/sand-iraq-hourglas.jpg

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I don't think we *should* forget who the dems are trying to capitulate to. I reject your conclusion that the majority of bombings in Iraq are caused by someone other than the islamist element of the insurgency. I can't prove my assumption, but you can't prove yours either. But regardless of what percentage of killings the islamists are responsible for, it is their top goal to create enough violence to drive us out. If we are, in fact, driven out by this violence, we are capitulating to them regardless of the presence of other sources of violence.

As for who will sign the peace treaty, the President has already made it clear that this isn't the kind of war in which we can expect a peace treaty and a signing ceremony.Geeeezus!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/hourglass-money.jpg

[patteeu]

Having lived through Vietnam, it's very weird to watch it happen all over again, to listen to the same old arguments, to see the same old flag waving zeolatry, to hear the denial. I guess that old saying is true, "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Having lived through Vietnam and having seen the truly anti-American radicals of the time drum up resistance to the war by lying about the motives of the US and mischaracterizing the enemy and seeing the movement eventually cause Congress to defund it, I'd like to see us not repeat that history.

[Rohirrim]

Having lived through Vietnam and having seen the truly anti-American radicals of the time drum up resistance to the war by lying about the motives of the US and mischaracterizing the enemy and seeing the movement eventually cause Congress to defund it, I'd like to see us not repeat that history.

Even one of the chief architects of that war, Robert MacNamara, disagrees with you on every one of those points. The majority of the most highly respected historians and jounalists, including the late Robert Halberstam, also disagree with that take. In fact, I would say that your take is in such a minority that it can only be considered a fringe opinion, like something a Hannity or O'Reilly would come up with, totally devoid of historical fact.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Having lived through Vietnam and having seen the truly anti-American radicals of the time drum up resistance to the war by lying about the motives of the US and mischaracterizing the enemy and seeing the movement eventually cause Congress to defund it, I'd like to see us not repeat that history.

Resistance to the war was the morally correct position insofar as the war was immoral and wrong.

Your shameless, dishonest attempt to broad brush opponents of the Vietnam war as "anti-American radicals" (and thus to intentionally confuse opposition to one's government or its policies with lack of patriotism and/or hatred of one's country) is the same patently absurd tactic employed by the architects of the current war and most supporters/minions of the current administration.

As I said, you simply do not evolve or learn from past mistakes... tsk tsk

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

In fact, I would say that your take is in such a minority that it can only be considered a fringe opinion, like something a Hannity or O'Reilly would come up with, totally devoid of historical fact.

:~ohyah!:

The foregoing sentence should be used as a disclaimer to accompany all of patteeu's takes.

[clarkster]

Resistance to the war was the morally correct position insofar as the war was immoral and wrong.

Your shameless, dishonest attempt to broad brush opponents of the Vietnam war as "anti-American radicals" (and thus to intentionally confuse opposition to one's government or its policies with lack of patriotism and/or hatred of one's country) is the same patently absurd tactic employed by the architects of the current war and most supporters/minions of the current administration.

As I said, you simply do not evolve or learn from past mistakes... tsk tsk

again i ask, name a war that wasnt considered by some to be immoral or wrong?

and again i state, if you let journalists or historians dictate what you stand for, youll fall for anything.

[TailgateNut]

Having lived through Vietnam and having seen the truly anti-American radicals of the time drum up resistance to the war by lying about the motives of the US and mischaracterizing the enemy and seeing the movement eventually cause Congress to defund it, I'd like to see us not repeat that history.


"Anti American Radicals"???

Have you heard the saying about ....."opening your mouth and erasing all doubt"......

[Rohirrim]

again i ask, name a war that wasnt considered by some to be immoral or wrong?

and again i state, if you let journalists or historians dictate what you stand for, youll fall for anything.

I think you are much more likely to "fall" for something if you're ignorant of history.

[Spider]

again i ask, name a war that wasnt considered by some to be immoral or wrong?

and again i state, if you let journalists or historians dictate what you stand for, youll fall for anything.

um just a shot in the dark here , but War is wrong no matter who starts it .... you have to defend yourself is one thing , but over all war is wrong , I dont care if it is Japan and China going at it .....still wrong

[Blueflame]

An editorial cartoonist's view of the "new strategy"...

[Rohirrim]

An editorial cartoonist's view of the "new strategy"...

Ain't that the truth.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

again i ask, name a war that wasnt considered by some to be immoral or wrong?

Nice deflection.

My point was that your boy patteeu was WAY off the mark with his broad brush characterization of Americans who felt the Vietnam war was immoral or wrong as "anti-American radicals."

Ro correctly pointed out that patteeu's POV is embraced only by a nutty, fringe minority.

Interesting that you would have this nutjob's back here...

[Bronco_Beerslug]

again i ask, name a war that wasnt considered by some to be immoral or wrong?
and again i state, if you let journalists or historians dictate what you stand for, youll fall for anything.Bush would be proud!

[patteeu]

Even one of the chief architects of that war, Robert MacNamara, disagrees with you on every one of those points. The majority of the most highly respected historians and jounalists, including the late Robert Halberstam, also disagree with that take. In fact, I would say that your take is in such a minority that it can only be considered a fringe opinion, like something a Hannity or O'Reilly would come up with, totally devoid of historical fact.

Link? I'd like to see what Robert MacNamara said about "every one of those points." MacNamara having second thoughts about whether the war was worth fighting isn't at all the same thing.

[patteeu]

Resistance to the war was the morally correct position insofar as the war was immoral and wrong.

Your shameless, dishonest attempt to broad brush opponents of the Vietnam war as "anti-American radicals" (and thus to intentionally confuse opposition to one's government or its policies with lack of patriotism and/or hatred of one's country) is the same patently absurd tactic employed by the architects of the current war and most supporters/minions of the current administration.

As I said, you simply do not evolve or learn from past mistakes... tsk tsk

I didn't broad brush opponents of the Vietnam war at all. Most opponents were followers and many of the more active opponents were motivated by the desire to not be drafted into the war (as evidenced by the collapse of the anti-war protests once the draft was ended). It's many of the instigators of the anti-war movement who I'm branding as anti-American. Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda are a couple of examples of the people I'm talking about. I don't expect you to recognize these people as the traitors to America's freedom-based ideology that they were because, frankly, of all the people who post here, you're my top candidate as someone cut from the same mold.

[patteeu]

"Anti American Radicals"???

Have you heard the saying about ....."opening your mouth and erasing all doubt"......

Don't worry, I'm sure you are just a follower in the current anti-war movement. As such, you aren't one of the people I'm talking about.

[bendog]

Oh for God's sakes. We now know that McNamera and LBJ cooked up the Gulf of Tonkin incident. They knew the accounts were unreliable, but Johnson was up for election and was weak on the "cumminsim" question. He either had to cut bait, because the North was kicking Diem's ass, or find an excuse to expand the war.

The irony is Goldwater was labled an extremist for saying "do whatever it takes to win or get out."

A moral war? Korea, but it could have been avoided.

Gulf war I. ditto.

WWI and WWII no ducking those.

civil war .... both sides had pure, and impure, motives.

spanish american and mexican wars .... hey we were expanding. Immoral, but events dictated by times.

revolutionary war, I'd go with "ok"

[Bronco Bob]

Oh for God's sakes. We now know that McNamera and LBJ cooked up the Gulf of Tonkin incident. They knew the accounts were unreliable, but Johnson was up for election and was weak on the "cumminsim" question. He either had to cut bait, because the North was kicking Diem's ass, or find an excuse to expand the war.

The irony is Goldwater was labled an extremist for saying "do whatever it takes to win or get out."

A moral war? Korea, but it could have been avoided.

Gulf war I. ditto.

WWI and WWII no ducking those.

civil war .... both sides had pure, and impure, motives.

spanish american and mexican wars .... hey we were expanding. Immoral, but events dictated by times.

revolutionary war, I'd go with "ok"


I would dispute that WW1 was a moral war. Neither side was justified in
that war and the US would have been better off staying out of it altogether.
What good came out of WW1 or the US being in it?

[Rohirrim]

I would dispute that WW1 was a moral war. Neither side was justified in
that war and the US would have been better off staying out of it altogether.
What good came out of WW1 or the US being in it?

The Treaty of Versailles? Ha!

[Bronco Bob]

The Treaty of Versailles? Ha!

Which should now be called "The Treaty that so pissed off the Germans that they elected Hitler as their Chancellor."