Deadeye Dick

[hnumpah]

http://www.cagle.com/working/070425/plante.gif

Oh, and let's not forget...

Iraq has WMDs...

And Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda.

[The_Professor]

Kinga rehashing old wounds, isn't it?

The Congress is about to bring an army home. Over time the legends of what happened will grow. They were able to convince the army that it was defeated in Viet Nam, when it wasn't; but that was the hollow army, not the nearly invincible Legions we have today.

We started this. We brought Saddam down. We disbanded the Iraqi Army, so that there was no central authority other than our own. This was done deliberately. Now we are pulling out, blaming the Iraqis for their problems. If this were part of a new policy of minding our own business, restoring the Republic and allowing the world to take care of itself, it might be comprehensible, but it is not: the very people who wanted to intervene in Bosnia, who put our troops into Somalia and then did not support them and eventually ran (telling Bin Laden what he had suspected all along) will be in charge of this withdrawal and of the army they bring home. They are still interventionists albeit rather stingy and politically sensitive interventionists. They are still the people who ask, seriously, what is the good of this splendid army if you can't use it to go Do Good all over the world.

Bush meant well, but history will never forgive him for starting a war with no idea of what to do next. This was compounded by sending in an incompetent proconsul (who subsequently got the Medal of Freedom).

And Republicans and Democrats are now playing political games. Both seem to consider the soldiers as pawns.

The Republicans, whom I voted for including President Bush, miscalculated, misjudged, etc. etc. etc. and so will go down in history not favorably, shall we say. That being said, Democrats are guilty as well, let us not forget. Many voted for the Iraqi incursion, including our next President, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Kinda hypocritical to vote for the incursion and then turn tail and run, all the while acting like the Republicans are the only "evil" ones...

[hnumpah]

Kinda hypocritical to vote for the incursion and then turn tail and run, all the while acting like the Republicans are the only "evil" ones...

It may be for them, but remember - I was against the war before it started. A lot of us were, because we were able to see through the bushit leading up to it. Another thing to remember is that many of those who were for the war were misled by that same bushit. Remember WMDs, Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda, chemical weapons factories in trailers, mushroom clouds over the US, ad nauseum? A lot of folks fell for that crap. Some of the more gullible still believe it.

[BT]

If the dem congress has their way johnny will come marching home anyday.

Be happy!

[hnumpah]

Hard to be happy when I see the mess my country has made of Iraq under the leadership of this administration. We're going to be paying for this for a long time to come.

And yes, there's enough blame to go around, from the administration relying on false and misleading intelligence to lead the country to war, to the Congress' abdicating it's responsibility to verify the facts and rein in the executive branch.

Even at this late date, though, it's good to see Congress seems to finally be growing a pair.

[BT]

Even at this late date, though, it's good to see Congress seems to finally be growing a pair.

Yes it will be interesting to watch congress turn rhetoric into action.

[The_Professor]

Does Congress even know how to anymore? 

[sirs]

Another thing to remember is that many of those who were for the war were misled by that same bushit. Remember WMDs,

Yea, the ones all the intel organizations said he had

Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda,

Yea, the ones that have been chonicled, both direct & indirect (read; NOT operational)

chemical weapons factories in trailers,

Yea, the ones our intel had deduced were the case, not to mention the shells found with residual chemical traces

mushroom clouds over the US,

Well, that'd be a li.....an incorrect application of what was being said

A lot of folks fell for that crap. Some of the more gullible still believe it.

Funny how believing common sense, supported by overwhelming intel is "falling for that crap".  Well, whatever.  I guess it's easy to debunk such a proliferation of intel by simply claiming it crap, and more on.  So much easier that way

[sirs]

Even at this late date, though, it's good to see Congress seems to finally be growing a pair.

Yes it will be interesting to watch congress turn rhetoric into action.

Well, if their current course of rhetoric --> action, is along the lines if what Murtha was stating, it'd be sad to see rather rationally minded folks like H supporting such a completely egregious use of impeachement, simply to try to influence Bush to do what they want.  Congress has a specific function and responsibility, as it relates to war, they can defund it, if that's "the will of the people"   Then again, for some, ends justify the means for some.     

[Lanya]

   It doesn't appear that the President even really thought about other options.
via Dan Froomkin in Washinton Post:
[....]
 Presidential counselor Dan Bartlett was immediately out with a response on NBC’s Today Show: “This president weighed all the various proposals, weighed all the various consequences before he did make a decision,” he said. “He understands as a president the most solemn responsibility he has is when he sends people into harm’s way that he try everything possible from a diplomatic standpoint, and that’s what he did. . . . I’ve seen meetings, I’ve listened to the president, both in conversations with other world leaders like Tony Blair as well as internally, where the president did wrestle with those very questions.”

    But author and editor James Fallows writes that Bartlett is lying: “To be precise about it, no account of the Administration’s deliberations, by anyone other than Bartlett just now, offers even the slightest evidence that this claim is true. Innumerable accounts offer ample evidence that it is false. I have asked this direct question to many interviewees who were in a position to know: was there ever such a meeting or discussion? The answer was always, No. The followup challenge to Bartlett should be: show us a memo, show us a policy paper, show us a scheduled meeting, show us notes taken at the time to substantiate the idea that the Administration ever seriously considered what the nation would gain or lose by invading Iraq, and what the alternatives might be. What the Administration actually considered, according to all known evidence, is how it would invade Iraq, and when.”
[........]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/04/30/BL2007043000729.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[Plane]

   It doesn't appear that the President even really thought about other options.
via Dan Froomkin in Washinton Post:
[....]
 Presidential counselor Dan Bartlett was immediately out with a response on NBC’s Today Show: “This president weighed all the various proposals, weighed all the various consequences before he did make a decision,” he said. “He understands as a president the most solemn responsibility he has is when he sends people into harm’s way that he try everything possible from a diplomatic standpoint, and that’s what he did. . . . I’ve seen meetings, I’ve listened to the president, both in conversations with other world leaders like Tony Blair as well as internally, where the president did wrestle with those very questions.”

    But author and editor James Fallows writes that Bartlett is lying: “To be precise about it, no account of the Administration’s deliberations, by anyone other than Bartlett just now, offers even the slightest evidence that this claim is true. Innumerable accounts offer ample evidence that it is false. I have asked this direct question to many interviewees who were in a position to know: was there ever such a meeting or discussion? The answer was always, No. The followup challenge to Bartlett should be: show us a memo, show us a policy paper, show us a scheduled meeting, show us notes taken at the time to substantiate the idea that the Administration ever seriously considered what the nation would gain or lose by invading Iraq, and what the alternatives might be. What the Administration actually considered, according to all known evidence, is how it would invade Iraq, and when.”
[........]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/04/30/BL2007043000729.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

What are the possible other options?

[Lanya]

Plane:
<<What are the possible other options?>>

"....try everything possible from a diplomatic standpoint..."

[sirs]

Plane:<<What are the possible other options?>>

"....try everything possible from a diplomatic standpoint..."

Try IT WAS

[Plane]

Plane:
<<What are the possible other options?>>

"....try everything possible from a diplomatic standpoint..."

That was indeed done , in my estimation.

What was left undone in your estimation?

Diplomacy works not at all for someone who has nothing to offer and nothing to threaten . If Saddam could have been made to beleive that the US might actually do what it wound up doing perhaps he would have been more co-operative .

But How ?

[sirs]

"....try everything possible from a diplomatic standpoint..."

That was indeed done , in my estimation.  What was left undone in your estimation?

Diplomacy works not at all for someone who has nothing to offer and nothing to threaten . If Saddam could have been made to beleive that the US might actually do what it wound up doing perhaps he would have been more co-operative .  But How ?

Perhaps it's Lanya's position that everything to be done is everything excluding military intervention, that it not even be an option, which takes us back to your excellent above noted question.........How do you facilitate co-operative behavior out of an oppressive Dictator?