How do you feel about Iraq?

[SuperJerk 0]

Has anyone proposed the idea to divide Iraq up into separate countries according to ethnic group?

 

It would probably involve more of an investment there than we're already making, but it'd be better than the current model of trying to unite them just so they can have a full-blown Civil War the second we leave.

 

I still think leaving Iraq's a bad idea, but what we're doing now has no chance of working. These people have no desire to get along with each other. Why continue to force them into being a united democracy?

 

That would probably be the solution in an ideal world, but wouldn't get much support from the Middle East as a whole. Turkey (one of our biggest allies) will never approve of a separate Kurdish state in Northern Iraq, because Turkey's own Kurdish population would want to separate from Turkey as well. Iran would probably absorb or effectively control any sort of Iraqi Shiite state, which wouldn't be in our interests, either.

 

I fear doing just what we thought was in our interests is what got us in this mess in the first place. The only way peace can ever happen is by finding a solution where everyone (not just the west) benefits. Iraq itself is a western invention created purely for the convenience of World War I era world leaders.

[snuffbox 0]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14959937/

[SuperJerk 0]

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama (AP) -- President Bush counterpunched at Democrats on Thursday, saying their criticism of the war in Iraq has turned their party into one of "cut-and-run" obstructionists.

 

At a GOP fundraiser, Bush accused Democrats of using a new intelligence estimate that ties the war in Iraq to rising extremism to win votes in November.

 

The National Intelligence Estimate -- compiled by leading analysts across 16 U.S. spy agencies -- concluded that Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for jihadists, who are growing in number and geographic reach. If the trend continues, the analysts found, risks to U.S. interests at home and abroad will rise.

 

The greatest danger to America is not the U.S. military presence in Iraq, but rather a premature withdrawal of U.S. forces from the war-torn nation, Bush said.

 

With 40 days left before the Nov. 7 elections, Bush is pushing back against Democrats who point to setbacks in Iraq, a resurgence of violence in Afghanistan -- and now the new report -- as evidence that the nation needs a change in political leadership.

 

The stakes in the war -- and the election -- are high, Bush said.

 

"Five years after 9-11, Democrats offer nothing but criticism, and obstruction and endless second guessing," Bush said. He said the Democratic Party -- the party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman -- has become the "party of cut-and-run."

 

If Democrats really believe the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has made America less safe, then they should make that case to the American people, Bush said.

 

"Saddam Hussein's regime was a serious threat," Bush said, adding that had he not been removed from power, the former Iraqi leader would still be killing innocent people, pursuing weapons of mass destruction and firing at U.S. pilots.

 

"Americans, Iraqis and the world are safer because Saddam is not in power."

 

The National Intelligence Estimate, first leaked to newspapers last weekend, has given both political parties new ammunition leading up to the elections, which will determine whether Republicans retain control of Congress.

 

For Democrats, the report furthers their argument that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 has fanned anti-U.S. sentiments in the Muslim world and left America vulnerable to attacks.

 

For the GOP, the report provides more evidence that Iraq is central to the war on terrorism and can't be abandoned without giving jihadists a crucial victory.

 

A separate intelligence assessment focused solely on Iraq may be coming soon. At least two House Democrats -- Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and Rep. Jane Harman of California -- have questioned whether that report has been shelved until after the November 7 elections.

 

"No, they don't have one on the shelf," White House press secretary Tony Snow said Thursday, adding that John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, just started it a month ago. "You don't pull an all-nighter," Snow said. "It's not like a college term paper that you slap together."

 

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, accused the administration of foot-dragging, and said revelations in the NIE underscore the urgency of getting the facts on Iraq.

 

"With Iraq on the brink of a full-scale civil war, preparation of this intelligence assessment of Iraq cannot be delayed any longer," Kennedy said. "With more than 140,000 Americans under fire every hour of every day in Iraq, it's wrong to slow-roll this assessment."

 

Bush spoke at a political fundraiser in Birmingham that is raising $2.5 million for the Alabama GOP and Gov. Bob Riley, who is being challenged by Democratic Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley.

 

Before the fundraiser, Bush stopped in nearby Hoover, Ala., to visit the Hoover Public Safety Center where local officials briefed him on the city's use of vehicles that run on alternative fuels.

 

"You know the price of gasoline has been dropping and that's good news for the American consumers. It's good news for the small business owners, good news for the farmers," Bush said at a pumping station that supplies fuel made of 85 percent ethanol produced from corn. "But it's very important for us to remember that we still have an issue when it comes to dependence on foreign oil. And one way to become less dependent on foreign oil is for us to develop new ways to power our automobiles right here in America."

 

Later in the day, Bush was making his second visit to Ohio this week to help Republican lawmakers in tough re-election battles. He was to attend a fundraiser in New Albany, Ohio, that will raise $650,000 for the Ohio GOP and Rep. Deborah Pryce. On Monday, Bush was in Cincinnati for a private fundraiser for Sen. Mike DeWine.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/28/bush.ap/index.html

 

This is infuriating. He lumps all criticism of his war policies together into one big pile called "cut and run", then completely ignores that what he's doing just isn't working.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I liked when John Kerry said the GOP policies were "lie and die" to counter all this "cut and run" BS.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

I liked when John Kerry said the GOP policies were "lie and die" to counter all this "cut and run" BS.

Your point?

[Art Sandusky 0]

That it should be used more since it's actually rather accurate.

[SuperJerk 0]

Woodward: Card, first lady wanted Bush to fire Rumsfeld

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card twice sought to persuade President Bush to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the second time with the support of first lady Laura Bush, Bob Woodward writes in a new book on the Bush administration's Iraq war policy.

 

Card on Friday did not dispute that he had talked about a Rumsfeld resignation with the president but said it was his job to discuss a wide range of possible replacements, including his own. He denied talking to Mrs. Bush about the subject.

 

The Washington Post assistant managing editor's third book on the Bush administration, "State of Denial," comes out next week. Some details have already appeared, however, including on the newspaper's Web site.

 

White House spokesman Tony Snow shrugged off the book as "cotton candy. It kind of melts on contact."

 

"We've read this book before. This tends to repeat what we've seen in a number of other books that have been out this year where people are ventilating old disputes over troop levels," Snow said Friday.

 

Woodward writes that Card sought and failed in November 2004, right after Bush won a second term, and again a year later, to persuade the president to fire Rumsfeld.

 

In an interview with The Associated Press, Card rejected any suggestion that he led a campaign to dump Rumsfeld but said he did discuss with the president Rumsfeld's role in Bush's second term.

 

After re-election, he and the president "talked about every Cabinet post and senior White House position," Card said.

 

He said he kept a notebook listing all top jobs and possible replacements. "It's the chief of staff's job to give the lay of the land, have the president consider a lot of different options," Card said.

 

As to whether the first lady had any particular views about Rumsfeld, "Mrs. Bush and I never discussed it," Card said.

 

Dorrance Smith, the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, responded to a request for comment by referring a reporter to Card's comments on the matter.

 

As for the war, Woodward writes that White House and Pentagon officials voiced concern about the conduct of the fighting in reports and internal memos and that a secret intelligence report circulated last May predicted violence would continue for the rest of 2006 and increase in 2007.

 

At the same time, Bush, Rumsfeld and other senior officials insisted publicly the situation was going well, Woodward writes, according to the Post.

 

Snow insisted that the president "was not, in fact, painting a rose-colored picture. He has been saying that it's a tough war, it's a long war, it's a war that's going to outlive his presidency."

 

The White House spokesman did confirm one detail in Woodward's forthcoming book -- that Henry Kissinger has been advising Bush about Iraq.

 

"The president has a lot of people in, and he listens to them. And Dr. Kissinger was one of them," Snow said. He said Bush listens to Kissinger's advice even when the two men disagree.

 

In an interview scheduled to air Sunday night on CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," Woodward says Kissinger, who served in the Nixon and Ford administrations, has been telling Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney that in Iraq, "victory is the only meaningful exit strategy."

 

As for accounts in the book of administration infighting, Snow said, "Quite often in a book like this you're going to see people who are on the losing side of arguments be especially outspoken about their opinions that nobody listened to."

 

"As a matter of fact, the average Washington memoir ought to be subtitled 'If only they listened to me,'" said the White House spokesman.

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/29/boo...d.ap/index.html

[SuperJerk 0]

from this morning's paper:

 

Kansas City Star, The (MO)

October 3, 2006

Section: Photo

Page: 1

 

 

Al-Qaida warning included Ashcroft, Rumsfeld

 

The State Department confirms they saw important briefing, just like Condoleezza Rice.

JONATHAN S. LANDAY, WARREN P. STROBEL and JOHN WALCOTT

 

The State Department confirms they saw important briefing, just like Condoleezza Rice.

 

WASHINGTON Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former Attorney General John Ashcroft received the same CIA briefing about al-Qaida that was given to the White House in July 2001.

 

The State Department's disclosure Monday that the pair was briefed within a week after then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was told on July 10, 2001, about an imminent al-Qaida strike on an American target, raised new questions about what the Bush administration did in response, and about why so many officials have said they never received or don't remember the warning.

 

One official who helped to prepare the briefing, which included a computer-generated visual presentation, described it as a "10 on a scale of 1 to 10" that "connected the dots" in earlier intelligence reports to present a stark warning that al-Qaida, which had already killed Americans in Yemen, Saudi Arabia and East Africa, was poised to strike again.

 

Former CIA Director George Tenet gave the independent Sept. 11, 2001, commission the same briefing on Jan. 28, 2004, but the commission made no mention of the warning in its 428-page final report. According to three former senior intelligence officials, Tenet testified to commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste and to Philip Zelikow, the panel's executive director and the principal author of its report. Zelikow is now Rice's top adviser.

 

A new book by Bob Woodward of The Washington Post says that Rice failed to take the July 2001 warning seriously when it was delivered at a White House meeting by Tenet, Cofer Black, then the agency's chief of top counterterrorism, and a third CIA official whose identity is protected.

 

Rice's deputy, Stephen Hadley, who became national security adviser after she became secretary of state, and Rice's top counterterrorism aide, Richard Clarke, also were present.

 

Woodward wrote that Tenet and Black considered the briefing the "starkest warning they had given the White House" on the threat posed by Osama bin Laden's terrorist network. But, he wrote, the pair felt as if Rice gave them "the brush-off."

 

Speaking to reporters late Sunday on the way to the Middle East, Rice said she had no recollection of what she called "the supposed meeting."

 

"What I m quite certain of, is that it was not a meeting in which I was told that there was an impending attack and I refused to respond," she said.

 

Ashcroft, who resigned as attorney general on Nov. 9, 2004, told the Associated Press on Monday that it was "disappointing" that he never received the briefing, either.

 

But on Monday evening, Rice spokesman Sean McCormack issued a statement confirming that she d received the CIA briefing "on or around July 10" and had asked that it be given to Ashcroft and Rumsfeld.

 

"The information presented in this meeting was not new, rather it was a good summary from the threat reporting from the previous several weeks," McCormack said. "After this meeting, Dr. Rice asked that this same information be briefed to Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General Ashcroft. That briefing took place by July 17." The State Department said Monday that the briefing took place for Rumsfeld and Ashcroft by July 17.

 

Lt. Cmdr. Joe Carpenter, a Pentagon spokesman, said he had no information "about what may or may not have been briefed" to Rumsfeld at Rice's request.

 

David Ayres, who was Ashcroft's chief of staff at the Justice Department, said the former attorney general also has no recollection of a July 17, 2001, terrorist threat briefing. Later, Ayres said that Ashcroft could recall only a July 5 briefing on threats to U.S. interests abroad.

 

He said Ashcroft doesn't remember any briefing that summer that indicated that al-Qaida was planning to attack within the United States.

 

The CIA briefing didn't provide the exact timing or nature of a possible attack, nor did it predict whether it was likely to take place in the United States or overseas, said three former senior intelligence officials.

 

They spoke on condition of anonymity because the report remains highly classified.

 

The briefing "didn't say within the United States," said one former senior intelligence official. "It said on the United States, which could mean a ship, an embassy or inside the United States."

 

In the briefing, Tenet warned in very strong terms that intelligence from a variety of sources indicated that bin Laden's terrorist network was planning an attack on a U.S. target in the near future, said one of the officials.

 

"The briefing was intended to connect the dots contained in other intelligence reports and paint a very clear picture of the threat posed by bin Laden," said the official, who described the tone of the report as "scary."

 

It isn't clear what action the administration took in response.

 

Nor is it clear why the 9/11 commission never reported the briefing, which the intelligence officials said Tenet outlined to Ben-Veniste and Zelikow in secret testimony at CIA headquarters.

 

The three former senior intelligence officials, however, said Tenet raised the matter with the panel himself, displayed slides from the presentation and offered to testify on the matter in public.

 

Ben-Veniste confirmed to McClatchy Newspapers that Tenet outlined for the 9/11 commission the July 10 briefing to Rice in secret testimony in January 2004. Zelikow didn't respond to e-mail and telephone queries from McClatchy Newspapers.

 

Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism chief, Ben-Veniste and the former senior intelligence officials all challenged some aspects of Woodward's account of the briefing given to Rice, including assertions that she failed to react to the warning.

 

Clarke told McClatchy Newspapers that Rice focused on the possible threat to President Bush at a summit in Genoa, Italy, and promised to schedule a White House meeting on al-Qaida. That meeting took place on Sept. 4, 2001.

 

McClatchy correspondents Matt Stearns and Drew Brown contributed to this report.

 

credit: The Kansas City Star, Oct. 3rd, 2006

 

Rice-Tenet meeting cited in book confirmed

Secretary of state said she did not recall CIA briefing 2 months before 9/11

The Associated Press

 

 

Updated: 10:40 a.m. CT Oct 3, 2006

JEDDAH, Saudi Arabia - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice did receive a CIA briefing about terror threats just about two months before the Sept. 11 attacks, but the information was not new, her chief spokesman said.

 

In doing so, Sean McCormack confirmed a meeting — on July 10, 2001 — that his boss had said repeatedly she could not specifically recall. She had said earlier that there were virtually daily meetings at the time.

 

A new book by reporter Bob Woodward of Watergate fame describes the White House meeting as an emergency wakeup call that Rice had brushed off. Rice was President Bush’s national security adviser at the time and was promoted to the top diplomatic job last year.

 

Although spokesmen for the State Department and the National Security Council indicated Sunday that such a meeting had taken place, Rice was still saying Monday that she was not sure about it. She said she would have remembered the sort of forceful warning the book claims was conveyed there.

 

Summary of threat reporting

“We can confirm that a meeting took place on or around July 10, 2001,” McCormack said late Monday.

 

“The information presented in this meeting was not new, rather it was a good summary from the threat reporting from the previous several weeks,” he added.

 

Woodward’s book “State of Denial” recounts the meeting among then-CIA Director George Tenet, Rice and the CIA’s top counterterror officer. The book said the session stood out in the minds of the CIA officials as the “starkest warning they had given the White House” on al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and his network.

 

McCormack said that after the meting, Rice had asked that the same material be given to Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft.

 

 

Materials from this meeting were made available to the independent Sept. 11 Commission, and Tenet was asked about the session when interviewed by the commission, McCormack said.

 

The meeting is not part of the commission report, but was referred to obliquely in a report by the commission’s predecessor, a joint congressional panel that investigated the 9/11 attacks. That report said that “senior U.S. government officials were advised by the intelligence community on June 28 and July 10, 2001, that the attacks were expected, among other things, to ’have dramatic consequences on governments or cause major casualties’ and that ’attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.”’

 

Ashcroft ‘disappointed’

Meanwhile, Ashcroft said Monday that he should have been notified of any such report dealing with a pending attack on the United States. “It just occurred to me how disappointing it was that they didn’t come to me with this type of information,” he said in an interview with The Associated Press.

 

“The FBI is responsible for domestic terrorism,” Ashcroft said. He said both Tenet and Black should have been aware that he had pressed for a more aggressive policy in going after bin Laden and his followers in the United States and should have briefed him as well. Rice knew of this advocacy, he suggested.

 

According to the Sept. 11 Commission, Ashcroft was briefed on July 5, 2001, “warning that a significant terrorist attack was imminent.” The report noted that the briefing addressed only threats outside the United States.

credit: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15116366/

 

And Finally...

 

JEDDAH, Saudi Arabia (CNN) -- In July 2001, then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice did have a meeting with CIA Director George Tenet about the threat posed by al Qaeda, but the information presented to her was not new, her spokesman said Monday.

 

A new book by Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward says Tenet and Cofer Black, then the U.S. counterterrorism chief, demanded a snap meeting with Rice to warn her of a growing al Qaeda threat to U.S. interests and possibly the U.S. homeland. The meeting took place July 10, 2001, two months before al Qaeda suicide hijackers attacked New York and Washington, killing nearly 3,000 people.

 

According to Woodward's book, "State of Denial," Tenet and Black left the meeting with the sense that Rice had given them "the brush-off." And the meeting was never reported to the independent commission that investigated the attacks, Woodward writes.

 

Rice, now secretary of state, told reporters traveling with her Sunday that she did not remember any "so-called emergency meeting" and said any meeting records had been turned over to the 9/11 commission.

 

"What I am quite certain of, however, is that I would remember if I was told, as this account apparently says, that there was about to be an attack in the United States," she said. "And the idea that I would somehow have ignored that I find incomprehensible, especially given that in July when we were getting a very steady stream of quite alarmist reports of potential attacks."

 

But State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters Monday that Rice did meet with Tenet on July 10, and the records were made available to the commission.

 

McCormack said the information was a summary of threat reporting from previous weeks, and Rice asked that then-Attorney General John Ashcroft be notified of the information.

 

Bush remains committed

Last week, Democrats seized on the book's assertions that the Pentagon has a secret report that predicts that the violence in Iraq will increase in 2007 and charges that the White House has not be forthright about the level of attacks in Iraq.

 

Despite the increasing challenges in Iraq, Woodward says Bush is still committed to the war.

 

"He's an optimist. He's a leader in a time of a really difficult war, a war of choice, a war he decided on," Woodward told CNN's Larry King on Monday. "And it's Bush's war, no question about it. And it's gone south, and it's become more and more violent and more and more difficult."

 

Woodward also reported in his new book that then-White House Chief of Staff Andy Card encouraged President Bush to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after the 2004 elections and suggested that former Secretary of State James Baker III be named as his replacement.

 

When asked Sunday about the report that Card pushed for his resignation, Rumsfeld said he wasn't surprised, according to The Associated Press.

 

"It's the task of the chief of staff of the White House -- and having been one, I know that -- to raise all kinds of questions with the president and think through different ways of approaching things," Rumsfeld told the AP. "So it wouldn't surprise me a bit if that subject had come up."

 

When asked if he would resign, according to the AP, Rumsfeld simply said "no."

 

White House counselor Dan Bartlett on Sunday also said the president has no plans to replace Rumsfeld.

 

"The president has all the confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld, believes he's the right man to do the job, as he is doing," Bartlett told CNN.

 

The controversy surrounding the Woodward book is another distraction as the Republicans head into midterm election five weeks away, but Bartlett did not think the revelations in the book would influence the elections' outcomes.

 

"I think the midterm election's it going to be influenced by future choices, not past recollections or debates about issues that are old," Barlett told CBS Sunday. "It's going to be about how you're going to fight and win the war on terror, and there's a fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to the war."

 

credit: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/03/woo...rice/index.html

 

To summarize:

Article 1 has Rice saying she didn't remember being at the meeting.

Article 2 confirms Rice as being at the meeting.

Article 3 has Rice disputing what was said at the meeting which she doesn't actually remember going to.

[SuperJerk 0]

Here's how Congress feels about Iraq, apparently...

 

War plans: Congress OKs $20 mil for victory parties

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The military's top generals have warned Iraq is on the cusp of a civil war and that U.S. troops must remain in large numbers until at least next spring. But if the winds suddenly blow a different direction, Congress is ready to celebrate with a $20 million victory party.

 

Lawmakers included language in this year's defense spending bill, approved last week, allowing them to spend the money. The money for "commemoration of success" in Iraq and Afghanistan was originally tucked into last year's defense measure, but went unspent amid an uptick in violence in both countries that forced the Pentagon to extend tours of duty for thousands of troops.

 

Republicans have yet to claim responsibility for the provision. Democrats say it was likely added by the Senate's majority Republicans, and less than five weeks from congressional elections are pointing to it as another example of where the GOP has gone astray handling the war in Iraq.

 

"If the Bush administration is planning victory celebrations, Americans deserve to know what their plan is to get us to a victory in Iraq," said Rebecca Kirszner, spokeswoman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.

 

Carolyn Weyforth, spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, said, "Republicans are confident we will be victorious in the ongoing war in terror, and we look forward to a time when those funds can be used to honor the men and women who have risked and given their lives."

 

Under the language, the president could "designate a day of celebration" to honor troops serving in the two wars. The president also could call on the nation "to observe that day with appropriate ceremonies and activities" and issue awards to troops who have served honorably.

 

The Pentagon could spend up to $20 million of its $532 billion budget in 2007 for the commemoration, minus any private contributions it might receive for such an event.

 

The money will be available for the 2007 budget year, which began October 1.

 

Some 140,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq, with a drawdown not expected until at least early next year.

 

About 20,000 more are in Afghanistan. Last year, Bush administration and Pentagon officials had hoped thousands of troops could be brought home before the November 7 elections.

 

Proclaiming victory in the Iraq war has already proven to be tricky business.

 

President Bush was slammed by critics for delivering his "Mission Accomplished" speech in May 2003 aboard an aircraft carrier. While troops had successfully stormed Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad, the fight over control in the nation against a violent insurgency had just begun.

 

Vice President Dick Cheney also was ridiculed for suggesting last year that the insurgency was in its "final throes."

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/04/con...q.ap/index.html

[SuperJerk 0]

Baker: No 'magic bullet' for Iraq

 

HOUSTON, Texas (Reuters) -- Former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker has warned not to expect a special Iraq panel he co-chairs to come up with a "magic bullet" to solve deepening problems in that country.

 

He said the bipartisan Iraq Study Group appointed by the U.S. Congress to look at alternatives to current policy in Iraq had not decided what to recommend, but he suggested there was no easy way out of the violent conflict.

 

"I will say one other thing -- there's no magic bullet for the situation in Iraq. It is very, very difficult," Baker said on Tuesday in a speech to the World Affairs Council of Houston.

 

"So anybody who thinks that somehow we're going to come up with something that is going to totally solve the problem is engaging in wishful thinking," he said.

 

Baker, who was secretary of state and chief of staff under former President George H.W. Bush and has long ties to the Bush family, suggested last week in media interviews the current Bush administration's insistence on "staying the course" in Iraq was not the only policy alternative.

 

A Los Angeles Times report said the study group may recommend a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq or discussions with Syria or Iran to help stop the fighting in Iraq.

 

Baker said the study group had made no decisions.

 

"We've taken nothing off the table and we've put nothing on the table. The report hasn't even been written," he said.

 

Baker said the group, which is co-chaired by former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton and includes prominent Republicans and Democrats, would not issue a report until after the November 7 congressional elections.

 

"We will report after the election in order to try and take our report out of domestic politics," he said.

 

In the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Baker warned President George W. Bush against attacking the country without the backing of a large international coalition like the one Baker helped assemble for the Gulf War in 1991.

 

But he said in an interview on ABC's "This Week" that an immediate withdrawal from Iraq would lead to "the biggest civil war you've ever seen."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/18/ira...reut/index.html

[snuffbox 0]

I think Bush just talking to old Baker & Kissinger is a step in the right direction.

[EricMM 0]

Man.

 

There are no magic bullets for ANYTHING anymore. Gas prices, Iraq...

 

And here I was hoping, too.

[SuperJerk 0]

Arlen Specter resents that remark.

[snuffbox 0]

Not a good October.

 

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061021/D8KTASOO0.html

[SuperJerk 0]

Joe Biden's Iraq Plan

[Atticus Chaos 0]

I was just thinking the other day that the failure in Iraq has other consequences as well: American military strength has been shown to be a paper tiger. This may have severe ramifications in the future. China knows America is not the super power it claims to be and I'm willing to bet Kim Jong took that risk with the nukes because he now believes America's bark is worse than it's bite. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out on the world stage in years to come.

[snuffbox 0]

The US military is NOT a paper tiger. It is not the fault of our people in the service that the leadership in this country received it's collective military knowledge from old John Wayne movies. These troops (for the most part) are intelligent, physically capable, and extremely courageous...but they not superhuman enough to conquer a foreign civil war with less than 200,000 American forces present. To really handle something like this would require an increase to 250-500,000 troops, which in turn would multiply US casualties 10-20x. That is the number-one reason why this Administration can not admit to a civil war there...to do so would require the above, and would be even bigger trouble for our leaders and their toadies.

 

Just like in Vietnam, the opposition is allowed to control the action. Our American forces are neutered and forced to make due with coninuously failing policies while the civil war is able to fester & rage and Iranians filter into the country just as the North Vietnamese did.

 

If the day does come when we are involved in something of a World War Three, we should have no fear in the abilities of our soldiers, only fear that such an event may occur under leadership as inept and cowardly as that which we currently have.

[EricMM 0]

That Bush STILL will not admit that Iraq is a civil war is telling. We were supposed to be greeted as liberators not CAUSE a civil war.

 

Cause a civil war. We created a hotbed of Iraqi insurgency. This is what Bush cannot admit to.

[snuffbox 0]

It will always stun me to think that people, educated American people, will stand behind tragedies like this for no other reason than Political Party affiliation.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

If the day does come when we are involved in something of a World War Three, we should have no fear in the abilities of our soldiers, only fear that such an event may occur under leadership as inept and cowardly as that which we currently have.

 

While the military might of the US is still considerable, it has been exposed as weak and falliable on the world stage. Iraq has now changed how the rest of the world has percieved the US.

 

Before Iraq, the threat of US intervention may have kept Kim Jong and others from stepping out of line. But now the clinks in the armour have been found, I'd wager the rest of the world is no longer as threatened by America as they once were, because they've seen the army fail spectacularly in the middle east. Bad leadership or not, the US has been exposed.

 

Yes, the US still have considerable military capacity, but now everyone knows it wasn't as strong as previously thought.

[2GOLD 0]

But the World already KNEW we suck in a war based around politics and when we are a peace keeper force. America is at its best when we are "go in, dominate your ass, toss a couple of bucks on the nightstand and leave" approach to war.

 

Iraq doesn't really prove anything other than what we all already knew. We absolutely suck as a police force.

[EricMM 0]

You're mistaken on one point:

 

Ask Saddam how toothless the American military is.

 

He was hiding in a fucking hole, man.

 

We can do some things better than others.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Anyone who thinks that this clusterfuck is an indication of American military might, they're sorely mistaken. As 2GOLD said, we're better when we aren't setting out on pre-emptive invasions and trying to pretend that business can remain normal at home. Any nation outside of China would be royally fucked up if they messed with us, and I say China is an exception based on their sheer numbers. We're at least 10-15 years ahead of every other military in the world.

 

So yeah, don't look at the current conflict and say that we're weak, because if we truly were we'd have even more countries trying to step to us.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

It will always stun me to think that people, educated American people, will stand behind tragedies like this for no other reason than Political Party affiliation.

Well when the philosophy behind those kinds of people is really just a house of cards you can't afford to concede a single point.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Anyone who thinks that this clusterfuck is an indication of American military might, they're sorely mistaken. As 2GOLD said, we're better when we aren't setting out on pre-emptive invasions and trying to pretend that business can remain normal at home. Any nation outside of China would be royally fucked up if they messed with us, and I say China is an exception based on their sheer numbers. We're at least 10-15 years ahead of every other military in the world.

 

So yeah, don't look at the current conflict and say that we're weak, because if we truly were we'd have even more countries trying to step to us.

credit where it is due... you're absolutely right.

 

The problem is not military strength, it's the tasks being assigned to the military. First, as a peacekeeping force the job is not to fuck shit up but to stop things from being fucked up, if you'll allow me to put it in simple terms. Second, we're using weak sauce rules of engagement... for what I've read our troops basically must be fired upon before they can fire back. If we took the gloves off, our military might would be fine. But that may not be the best course of action, wholesale.

[Art Sandusky 0]

It really doesn't help that we aren't engaging an obvious enemy in uniforms either.

[EricMM 0]

This, like terrorism everywhere is not 100% (I might even say 50%) a "military" situation.

 

Terrorists are criminals, not soldiers. I am sure that when entire cities are captured the military has something to do. But when its about finding and arresting insurgents, that is an intelligence issue. Someone in a Humvee with a rifle will not be TOO useful in that (this) situation.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Obviously, the army has the strength and numbers to get the upper hand in most situations, but brute force can only get you so far. And now it's been proven that military intelligence of the US is a completely useless. That doesn't really help matters. "Yeah, we have guys that have big guns and tanks and cause a ton of damage initially but we have no real tactics or laid out plans". Did the rest of the world know this already? Maybe, but we've eliminated all trace of doubt now.

 

I think the US will find it more difficult to get it's voice heard on an international stage in the future. Not just because of the blood bath Iraq degenerated into, but because, frankly, an army that proclaimed itself to be the greatest in world found itself outmatched by a bunch of guys who had some petrol bombs and a thing for blowing themselves up.

 

I'm not saying you'll suddenly get countries like China invading the U.S because they think the army is weak. But if you think for one minute the reputation of the miltary hasn't been damaged by the disaster in Iraq, you're seriously mistaken.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I don't think you get it. You just said it's a bunch of guys with petrol bombs and suicide vests. How the fuck can any military planning counter that? Such tactics have fucked up more armies than ours throughout history. Hell, it was how the US was able to fight Britain during the Revolution.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Anyone who thinks that this clusterfuck is an indication of American military might, they're sorely mistaken. As 2GOLD said, we're better when we aren't setting out on pre-emptive invasions and trying to pretend that business can remain normal at home. Any nation outside of China would be royally fucked up if they messed with us, and I say China is an exception based on their sheer numbers. We're at least 10-15 years ahead of every other military in the world.

 

So yeah, don't look at the current conflict and say that we're weak, because if we truly were we'd have even more countries trying to step to us.

credit where it is due... you're absolutely right.

 

The problem is not military strength, it's the tasks being assigned to the military. First, as a peacekeeping force the job is not to fuck shit up but to stop things from being fucked up, if you'll allow me to put it in simple terms. Second, we're using weak sauce rules of engagement... for what I've read our troops basically must be fired upon before they can fire back. If we took the gloves off, our military might would be fine. But that may not be the best course of action, wholesale.

 

So what are the soldiers supposed to do? Shoot first with no provocation? Is that how we are supposed to bring Iraqis into the fold? That sounds like a recipe for a political disaster since NO ONE will understand when troops make the mistake of shooting someone who doesn't deserve it.

 

So how do you adapt when the enemy is in the mists of people who look just like them? Sounds like a job for police to work out to me. Then we can put troops back in Afghanistan and get the job done that we WANTED done. If that isn't too late.