...maybe the NYT is practicing reverse psychology?

How the folks at the NRO managed to learn how to use a computer is beyond me when I read stuff like this.

I got as far as the bit where Frank J. Gaffney Jr. said:

"What are we to make of the fact that two of the Democratic party’s most knowledgeable critics of President Bush’s campaign to stabilize and democratize post-Saddam Iraq, Michael O’Hanlon and Robert Pollack, have publicly rejected the defeatists and called for a sustained U.S. effort there into 2008?If you're going to read the so-frequently wrong NRO piece commenting on O'Hanlon and Pollack..."

And then my head exploded. Are they on crack? These guys are war cheerleaders, and Glenn Greenwald has the proof:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/30/brookings/index.html

If you're looking for news and commentary that's head and shoulders better that NRO, I'd recommend the Weekly World News, but it looks like they're closing their doors.

Seriously guys... the NRO has been wrong about everything. Nobody should take them seriously. Just like nobody should still take this incarnation of so-called conservatism seriously.

Glenn Greenwald??!!

John,

Instead of disgussing the messangers and who/what you label them as, maybe you would like to disguss the messages and the points.

I don't care who any of the media are. Do they make sense? Is what they say factual? Etc.

Simply categorizing them is a weak non-argument.

If they are cheerleaders for war, why are you a cheerleader for the failure and abandonment of the Iraqi people to the most vile and viscous people on earth?

The motives of the US are not relevant. The outcome is. Why do you want Iraqis dead, oppressed and destroyed? Why don't you want the war to conclude fast and positively - whether you supported the US or the war or not?

Yes. It's true. I do want all Iraqis either dead or at the very least oppressed.

What I'm saying is that as "experts", these guys haven't had one single prediction come true. This should indicate that it is unwise to listen to what they have to say.

The reason you do though, is that they are telling you what you want to hear.

The first step towards getting Iraq on the road to recovery is acknowledging exactly what the problems are, and making those who made the mess take responsibility. That means a lot of these guys... Bush included... should be standing in the unemployment line.

John,

Bush is out. He's in the last of his two terms.

The war is already under new management from top generals to secdef, etc. The post-war has been handled atrociously. Who is denying that? But they are trying new things and if even the NYT is grudgingly admitting that things are going at least a bit better, it just sounds like wishful, hateful thinking to dismiss it out of hand as you do.

Why is it that the left attacks every piece of positive new and accuses us of only listening to what we want to hear. A little hypocritical if you ask me.

This is very encouraging news, although not that surprising to those who made an effort to ignore the non-stop lunacy from those who hunger for failure.
As was pointed out in the article, learning from mistakes is a fundamental part of any military campaign, primarily because they almost never go as planned.
And yes, Bush could have done better, but he faced a difficult task dealing with the war and a chunk of the moonbat public who hated him more than they wanted success.

"If they are cheerleaders for war, why are you a cheerleader for the failure and abandonment of the Iraqi people to the most vile and viscous people on earth?"

So you are suggesting that "abandoning" the Iraqis would bad because that would leave them at the hands of... Iraqis?

ookaaay....

The only people who still support this war are the authoritarian cultists (ie:Loyal Bushies like you).

It sucks to be so colossally wrong, doesn't it?

I'm personally conflicted about Iraq. Every reason for the start of the war has been a lie. The occupation of Iraq was horribly managed and the new government as unstable as you can get (gotta love the August vacation right before the major report is due).

Everything about this war has been a greed-filled debacle. But can we with good conscience move out of Iraq, potentially allowing a mass scale civil war to erupt. And that's the irony: the greedy fuckers who got us into this war with fear and intimidation are keeping us in this war with sympathy and compassion. Get us in the war with WMD, keep us in the war to establish a democracy.

I disagree with the anti-war ideologues. I supported and continue to strongly support the Iraq war, for its original reason - to bring a democratic mode into the ME. This is the only tactic that will defeat Islamic fascism. I haven't heard any valid suggestions of any other tactic of dealing with islamic fascism.

I disagree that it was 'all about greed'. Greed for what? Don't come up with the silly meme of 'oil'; Hussein had to sell his oil and the US most certainly didn't need to go to war for it. I also disagree that Iraq is a current mess. I think you, who consider that it is a mess, are ignorant of history, ignorant of the differences between political structures.

The transformation from a repressive dictatorship, run within tribalism, to a democracy, is moving along. They have a constitution, a rule of law, and the tribes, kept and maintained by Hussein as adversarial tribes in order to dominate the population by splintering them - are having to come to terms with each other. That's a first.

You are ignoring that one doesn't move from one political structure to another without a violent rupture (tribalism to democracy). You are also ignoring that the insurgents in Iraq have been funded and manned by the other tribal dictatorships in the area - Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia. None of these nations want democracy in the ME.

You are ignoring that Hussein kept Iraq under a militant dictatorship, with the population heavily rural, splintered into adversarial tribes and uneducated - and only the cities serviced with industrial infrastructures.

You are ignoring the basic causes of islamic fascism - which is tribalism within a massive population.

So- I think a great deal has been accomplished. Oh - and so what if the iraq gov't takes August off? Our own House certainly does so.

"for its original reason - to bring a democratic mode"

Do please check out Bushes speeches before the invasion. Compare the prevalence of fear mongering (WMD, terrorists, etc) to democratic ideals. Please don't rewrite history; learn from it.

As to oil . . . it was never about net profit. The tax payers payed for it, but somehow Haliburton's stock doubled, oil companies are making record profits. You could argue that this would have happened even without the war, but come on.

As to your last point, eradicating dangerous tribalism. We have not done that in the last. All this war has done is created a tiny one town green zone, while inflaming new waves of fanaticism all around the country, all around the middle east, and worst of all, has crippled the U.S. army to such a point that they cannot fight the legitimate threats (Iran, North Korea).

Again, I'm not putting a blanket statement on the war. It has done some good. But the motivation, the execution, the aftermath make it so hard to defend it. Now all that matters if we are cowardly enough to leave this war and leave the Iraqis to their own devices.

What everyone seems to be missing is the fact that the Dem's are playing the war for political advantage only!
It's pure partisan gamesmanship that has NOTHING to do with what's right or wrong except in the context of the complete lack of morality being displayed by these self righteous cretins!
The left HATES Bush because he's a Republican/ The Son of GHWBush/ Born Again Baptist SoCon..... to them that negates all reality or need to engage in real understanding of issues.
That's why the term Leftard is so appropriate!!

Hey, John, NRO had an online presence long before the idiots at KOS, DU and Glenn Greenwald with his sock puppet staked a site on the internet.

Roland, that Saddam got taken out on a "lie", so what, are you proposing the Iraqis give a damn how he and homicidal sons got axed and off of their backs. Think they want him back! The "greed-filled debacle" was pre-invasion, surely you are referring to France's arm sales and the billions garnered with the "Oil for Food" gig that went on for a decade. Guess you hadn't noticed that greed.

Best line from the eloquent history scholar, VDH..."In a wider sense, the war is as most wars: an evolution from blunders to wisdom, the side that makes the fewest and learns from them the most eventually winning." Too complex for the moonbat pea brains whose knowledege and expectations of warfare come from video games.

^
Ahh, from non sequiturs to schoolyard insults. Thank you for not addressing a single of my points.

ET, I must disagree that reason given for Iraq war to bring democracy to Iraq, to prevent future terrorism. Ostensibly, yes that points to Bush doctrine of democratization (how evil of him!), but pre-emption was the doctrine used, and containement the doctrine abandoned.

US administration quite clearly said they were going after WMDs by invading Iraq. You can't turn the clock back on that one. The Democrats had Bush by the short and curlies, but still managed to lose to him. That is why they are so angry and that is why they hate him.

The US is responsible for the mess in Iraq right now, but they weren't responsible for the mess before (no they didn't "arm" Iraq as idiot moonbats love to mythmake). So, they cannot just pack up and leave now, they must finish the job, the mandate that came out of WMD search. If they go now, AQ will make Baghdad their "capital" (yes they have stated that), and untold suffering will come down on Iraqi people, worse than ever before.

Too bad the Chomskyites of the world live in blakck and white reality, where if you are against Bush, then that must be good. It's said to see people who don't know they're being played.

BTW, I've read some of Chomsky's essays. They are pathetic, they wouldn't pass as a first year undergraduate poli sci paper. No foundation for what he says, just spurious accusations that form the foundation of his arguments. Quite an awful read too.

So, ET, US went into Iraq publicly saying they were doing so for WMDs. That's not their mission today, nor does it have to be; to argue other reasons that are relevant today but not used in 03 is revisionism, plain and simple.

richard deschain - I suggest that you ought to also learn from history.

I repeat - the war was to bring democracy to the ME. You can not only check out Bush's speeches, but also, check out Islamic fascism and its cause - singular - which is tribalism. Islamic fascism, ie, Al Qaeda, was attacking the West. That had to be stopped, don't you agree? How can you stop it? Only by enabling democracy in the ME. That's what the war was all about - and fear mongering statements about islamic fascism within the ME and spreading into the west was accurate.

No, the war wasn't about oil. So - why mention it? Penny has some further information for you.
Read what she says.

Actually, tribalism is decreasing in the ME. The Iraqi tribes are starting to agree to work together rather than as adversaries. It will take time; you don't deconstruct a political system that operated by the kinship infrastructure of thousands of years in three years. It will take time, but they already have a constitution and rule of law - and are working together, rather than having one tribe militarily and politically dominate the others.

No, there aren't 'new waves of fanaticism' in Iraq. kindly get your facts straight. And don't forget - that the other nations still trapped within military dictatorships, don't want a democracy in their midst. They are the ones working within Iraq as insurgents.

No, at present, there's no need for the US to move into Iran and N. Korea and I'm stunned, stunned, that you seem to think that the US military should move into these countries.

Really? You now say that the war has done 'some good'? How about informing us what you think this is, since all of your verbiage is how bad it's been.

Cowardly to leave? The Iraqi people will have to, at some time, take full charge. They don't want the US to leave yet - and for the reason that you seem to ignore- the fact that Iran, Saudi Arabia, syria etc, are promoting and assisting the insurgents in iraq.

@ET

Please don't lie. Here is the 2002 state of the union speech by Bush (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html).

Please go through it and see the reasons he stated for the upcoming invasion. You'll see he does not mention democracy a single time. A lot of talk about nerve gas, WMD, etc etc.

Your other points are equally flawed, but the simple point that you can't even admit the fact that America used fear and intimidation rather than the more imperial goals of spreading democracy, makes me very tired of having to dig out sources to refute them.

shamrock - I disagree that the US only went in for WMD (which he had, otherwise he couldn't have gassed the Kurds); it went in for democracy.

The US is absolutely not responsible for the 'mess' of Iraq now. What is responsible? Thousands of years of tribalism, a refusal to modernize and enable a middle class to take economic and political power, with this refusal kept in power by a military tribal dictatorship.

You cannot move from a two-class structure, ie, and a tribal two-class system (with one tribe dominant in power and the other tribes as the powerless lower class) - into a modern state, which empowers a middle class - within the space of a few months or even years. There is no way that it can be done; it has to go through a traumatic period when the old ideology (tribalism) tries to maintain power, fighting against the new ideology of a mobile and free middle class.

What is interesting - and expected - is how islamic fascism is turning against its own people, Muslims. That's what ought to have been the case - but the military dictatorships 'externalized' this fascism and turned it into attacks against the West. It ought to be an internal fight in the Islamic nations, between tribalism and democracy. Islamic fascism, of course, favors tribalism.

But notice how Islamic fascism is now internalizing and also, how it is moving out of ideology and into pure agendas of power and greed. Their hostage taking is all about money; their threats are all about money and power. Al Qaeda fascism is, just like the Marxist rebels in S. America - moving out of ideology and into pure economic and political power agendas.

That's a great accomplishment of the West's striking back - to turn that ideology back into its home turf - and then, cut it from the utopian idealism and denegrate it to pure local greed.

roland - spreading democracy is not an imperial goal. Imperialism is an agenda of control of the political and economic agendas of another nation; democracy is the opposite.

WMD in the hands of a dictator are the antithesis of democracy. Again, I'll maintain my point. The Iraq war was about the spreading of democracy into the ME. This was done, first, in Afghanistan, which was freed from the repressive Taliban - and moved into democracy. And then, Iraq.

To enable democracy you must first remove the dictatorship. That's as far as you can go; you can't 'make' the people choose democracy. But, a free people will want freedom - and both Afghanistan and Iraq chose democracy.

Now - what's your point? Are you against democracy in the ME? Or is your sole focus only that Bush didn't also tell you that, apart from removing a dictatorship in Afghanistan and Iraq, dictatorships that operated within tribalism, he was also going to 'install democracy'? As I said, you can't 'install democracy'. All you can do, is remove repression and free the people.

Why remove repression? Because the lack of democracy in the ME is the root cause of Islamic fascism - ie, Al Qaeda. Period.

Spending blood and treasure to give Iraqis the opportunity to create a democracy is greed? Are you nuts?

For starters read Saddam's Bomb and get a clue. He would have done what was necessary to develop nuclear weapons as soon as sanctions ended.

BTW, it's not the greedy fuckers who are the problem. It's the stupid fuckers, i.e. those who think liberating millions is evil.

Again ET,

let me make myself perfectly clear. Before the invasion, the major tone of the Bush administration was that the purpose of a war was to remove a dangerous dictator sitting atop a heap of WMD and organizing terrorists camps.

Only after the invasion did the Bush administration change their tone once their original lies came out in the open. Basically every reason they stated originally for the war was false, so naturally they changed their reason to one no one could object to: spreading democracy.

That is my point. Not that democracy isn't bad. Not that Saddam was not a fucking son of a bitch deserving toppling (but not the humiliating death under the new democratic government). My point was simply that the war was started for reason radically different than those offered to continue it today.

Why is everyone in such a hurry for the US to get out of Iraq. The war has gone on for too long etc. Things take time. After 30 years of time to prepare, the native chiefs and opposition parties are still not ready to give natives the protection of the Charter. They need time to prepare. I would bet that the liberals and natives have never, in the past 30 years, given any thought to the fact they were exempted from the Charter. Shame on PMSH to bring this up.

ET, US went into Iraq for many reasons, but PUBLICLY they used WMD as their justification, more specifically the fact the Hussein had defied UN resolutions and was seeking to reconstitute his WMDs. Colin Powell wasn't talking to the UN about democracy, he was talking about WMDs.

Hussein indeed had WMDs. The question is what did he do with them. Move them? Destroy them? I agree that wasn't the real reason they went ahead. Bush took a huge risk which kinda blew up in his face. That is water under the bridge right now, especially given he won subsequent presidential election, much to chagrin of Democrats.

But, without doubt, Bush administration publicly stated they were going in to disarm Hussein, because UN wouldn't back up their own resolutions. I don't know why you feel you must deny (disagree about) this. It hurts your credibility. Yes, there were side issues involved, too, and regardless, the job must be finished; anyway they are making good progress there, like Afghanistan, and only a Chomsky idiot would argue pullout at this time.

You can disagree all you want, that won't change history. That's all I'm saying.

"What everyone seems to be missing is the fact that the Dem's are playing the war for political advantage only!"

Well, that certainly is the latest rightwing talking point anyway.

Certainly Bush & Co aren't playing politics now are they? Seriously... where do you get your drugs, because I have no plans this Saturday, and would love to be as high as you are right now.

"Spending blood and treasure to give Iraqis the opportunity to create a democracy is greed? Are you nuts?"

Well, spending blood that belongs to citizens you don't really care about is easy for the chickenhawk crowd.

I don't know if you know this, but in capturing Iraq, American corporations have made billions. And who owns the bulk of shares in these corporations? DING DING DING! You guessed it... loyal GOP supporters.

All they needed to do is shift the expense of the war to middle class taxpayers, as their boys in DC have done over the past few years with tax cuts for the rich, and they end up coming out in the black.

And all it costs is the lives of a few poor kids who they wouldn't rub elbows with anyway.

America is just another one of the bad guys right now.

ET, you should use facts and hypertext links to make your (weak) arguments more credible. I recommend the online encyclopedia "Wikipedia":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

American corporations have made billions. And who owns the bulk of shares in these corporations? DING DING DING! You guessed it... loyal GOP supporters.

Put up some proof liberal. And stop projecting. It males you look venal.

Roland - UN inspectors were denied access to verify Saddam's compliance with forbidden WMD's, he threw them out, forgot that? The UN passed how many resolutions in the US's favor leading up to the invasion, forgot that? By a overwhelming majority of bi-partisan support, Congress agreed with Bush to invade Iraq, forgot that too? Congress shared Bush's intel, had it's own well connected resources, and agreed with the mission.

You cherry pick pieces to support your narrative, but, I could drive an 18 wheeler threw your omissions.

Google is your friend.

The United States did not invade Iraq in 2003 with the stated goal of establishing democracy. The stated goal was to eliminate WMDs and what was viewed as a threat to U.S. security. That being said, there was a very powerful movement behind the scenes with the express goal of establishing a democracy in Iraq. It is likely that this was the true goal of the U.S. administration. The reason? Create a model for other countries and improve regional security and stability.

Influential lobbyists such as the American Enterprise Institute were very vocal in the years prior to the war in their belief that the Middle East needed to be democratized and modernized. Paul Wolfowitz was one of the most vocal advocates of this process, often citing Turkey as a model for what could be achieved. They felt that the existance of modern, democratic countries in the ME would help improve security and eliminate the region as a powder-keg of violence.

And all it costs is the lives of a few poor kids who they wouldn't rub elbows with anyway.

I think you mean you wouldn't rub elbows with them. And I wouldn't blame you. They're older, better educated and they have something you'll never have.

@ET:

Well, we've made headway. Your not actively denying the fact fear and intimidation (WMD, nerve gas, Al Qaeda camps) were used as reasons to start the war and only afterwards were the lofty goals of spreading a democracy instituted.

Now we can debate weather the goal of establishing a democracy is actually working (having kindly skipped the step of weather it is morally right for a country to impose its political system on another country though force and overthrow of government).

And let's be a little civil. I know it's fun to come up with zany biters at the end of every comment, but it gets boring really quickly.

Posted by: Roland Deschain at July 31, 2007 4:18 PM

"Only after the invasion did the Bush administration change their tone once their original lies came out in the open. Basically every reason they stated originally for the war was false, so naturally they changed their reason to one no one could object to: spreading democracy."

www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraqi_freedom.htm
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html

Take a close look at the dates.

“As to oil . . . it was never about net profit. The tax payers payed for it, but somehow Haliburton's stock doubled, oil companies are making record profits. You could argue that this would have happened even without the war, but come on.”
Actually Halliburton’s stock has risen from $10.37in March of 2003 to close at $36 45 today. That’s triple not double. However, one must put that in perspective. Petroleo Brasil went from $7.58 to $66 over the same time frame. PetroChina went from $20.86 to $140. A n iron and steel company based in South America, Gerdau, went from $1.56 to $25. Halliburton has been an OK buy but there have been countless better performers over the same period. If anything, one could speculate that their involvement in the Iraq conflict has actually hurt the stock price but that would destroy the argument that CheneyBushMcHitler manipulated it for their own gain and we couldn’t have that, now could we.

Belisarus,

Your comment is very close to the mark but I must demur, very slightly.

Here is a link to President Bush's speech on the eve of the war.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

I've reproduced the last four paragraphs below. It's obvious to me he's talking about establishing a democracy. I'm sure others can find more explicit pre-war references.

If they didn't go to Iraq to establish a democracy after deposing the regime why did they stay? And all this talk by liberals about mis-handling the occupation is so much nonsense. There was never any attempt to occupy. It was incompatible with the ultimate goal. The objective was always to nurture a democracy- an exceedingly difficult but laudable and worthwhile goal.
---
As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace.

That is the future we choose. Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent. And tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility.

Good night, and may God continue to bless America.

Terry, if the tag "Liberal" didn't mean automatically that I support the Liberal Party, I'd be wearing a tee shirt with Liberal Pride in big black letters.

Personally I think it's a good thing to have an open mind, and make decisions based on things like logic and reason, verses orthodoxy.

As for proof... ho, ho my friend. You can't throw a rock without hitting a website citing the corruption and incompetence that has filtered millions into the pockets of anyone with their hand out... save the Iraqis who need it.

A good start is a Channel 4 documentary called "Iraq's Missing Billions". You can watch it here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3904382605215032226

Then there is this rather biggish story:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

And then of course there is this:

And of course this:

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=10110

And finally this... you have to loooooove those no-bid contracts!

http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzearn245304985jul24,0,5271487.story?coll=ny-business-print

You may now pretend that nothing is wrong, and that clearly the war would be going better if it wasn't for all us lousy libruls.

I think that establishing democracy was the primary goal, but couldn't be sold to either the American people or the UN successfully.

Thanks for the link, Terry. My read is that Pres. Bush is expressing a democratic Iraq as an additional benefit to the removal of Hussein, not the primary goal.

Terry, Terry, Terry. Do you want to know who the soldiers really are? Here's a story from the Christian Science Monitor:

"While American GIs come from all over the country, certain generalizations can be made about those who serve and those who are killed in the line of duty, according to experts who study military demographics and sociology.

"It's small town America and the inner city," says Charles Moskos, a sociologist at Northwestern University in Chicago specializing in the military.

Those lost in this war also tend to come from communities with a slightly lower-than-average annual household income: $39,366 versus $41,994 for the country as a whole, a $2,628 difference.

"It tends to underrepresent both the top and the bottom of the socioeconomic structure," says David Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organizations at the University of Maryland in College Park.
At least 433 children have lost a parent and 284 spouses have lost a partner in Iraq.

"The bottom gets cut out because of low educational levels, lower mental aptitude scores, poor health, or criminal records," says Dr. Segal. "The top pretty much excludes itself."

Did you notice that last line. It's the kicker. Here's the full story:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0512/p01s04-usmi.html

Now we can debate weather the goal of establishing a democracy is actually working (having kindly skipped the step of weather it is morally right for a country to impose its political system on another country though force and overthrow of government).

Of course you can't impose a democracy. No one is trying to. But you are forgetting that when given the chance roughly 11 million voted and many risked their lives to do so.

The issue in Iraq is whether you stand back and allow foreign terrorists (al Qaeda) and less than 1% of the population deprive the rest of the benefits of living in a democracy and under the rule of law.

In my view the answer is obvious.

Terry Gain says "Put up some proof liberal."

- 3w.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=124
- 3w.alternet.org/waroniraq/41083
- 3w.commondreams.org/views04/0206-09.htm

"The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected.

Bush, 26 Feb 2003

John

I work for a living. I've seen too many spin jobs on the CBC to take at face value anything you leftists say. I don't have time to fact check links to unreliable agenda driven sources.

As a matter of practicality I distrust everyone who is opposed to the liberation of oppressed people and who gleefully revels in every challenge and setback in their emancipation. Such people IMHO are morally depraved.

So, if you have the names of prominent Republicans who own shares in companies that have paid a higher ROI on their enterprises in Iraq than otherwise then post them. Or withdraw your allegation.

American corporations have made billions. And who owns the bulk of shares in these corporations? DING DING DING! You guessed it... loyal GOP supporters.

And I don't doubt that thee is a lot of corruption. You need look no further than Pelosi and Feinstein voting on contracts for their husband's businesses. And given the dangers involved I can't get too exercised by no bid contracts. I'm more concerned with the "no conservative hires" policy at the CBC.

Terry,

Ah yes... those villains at the CBC, what with all those facts that don't support your view of the world...

Re prominent Republicans who own shares in companies in Iraq... hmmmmm will this do?

"Cheney's Halliburton stock options rose 3,281% last year, senator finds"

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_stock_options_rose_3281_last_1011.html

And as to money going missing... it's kind of a big deal, and you might read about it if you frequented something other than rightwing circle-jerk blogs, or Fox News.

Jesus. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

John

You are taking crazy pills. Cheney gave $ 11 million to charity last year.

Time for a flashback to what the world would have looked like if it had been run by crazy liberals 62 years ago'

------

Well, what is it now Monty.”

“Winston I’ve just received this report and it’s very disturbing”

“The Krauts are ready for us?”

“No, not that, perhaps they are, but this report is more disturbing. It states that 70% of our boys going ashore are below the average age”

“Come on dear Monty, you want to go ashore with old men?”

“And further Winston, they’re not as well educated as the average Airman, not by a long shot”.

“You think the better educated should join the infantry? “

“Well not at all Winston, but in greater numbers. I simply can’t go ashore with these numbers.

“How’s that?”

“They’re not representative.”

“Good grief, I think I need a drink."

And by the way John, aside from Rex Murphy, what on air conservatives does this unprincipled organization employ -with public funds yet.

John wrote "who owns the bulk of shares in these corporations? DING DING DING! You guessed it... loyal GOP supporters."

Nice myth too bad it doesn't pass the smell test. Look around and you will find as many people with money support the Dems as support the Reps. Anyone remember John (Heinz) Kerry?. Certainly the vocal rich tend to be on the left side of the political spectrum.

As for Halliburton soon after 9/11 I heard that Michael Moore owned considerably more shares in Halliburton than Dick Cheney.

I don't think that GWB invaded Iraq to instill democracy any more than I think he went into Iraq to find WMD's or secure an oil supply. GWB had to take the fight offshore because if the US was hit again.... He needed to get the Islamists fighting to preserve Islamic lands not engaging in Islamic conquest.

Johnny, everyone thought that he did.
Even impeached rapists!

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

“The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons…And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal…One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

- EX-President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

- EX-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power... We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country "
- EX-Vice-President Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have made it clear that it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone...And if entrusted with the presidency, my resolve will never waver."

- EX-Vice-President Al Gore, May 23, 2000

Joe, that was probably the most insightful thing I've read on this whole thread...that Bush was taking the war to them. That has the ring of common sense to it.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

Since Bush's position on whether Saddam had WMD was indistinguishable from that of most of the VIPs in the Democratic Party, no intellectually honest person can claim that "Bush lied about WMD" unless he also believes that the majority of the US government on both sides of the aisle, along with intelligence agencies and leaders from many other nations, also lied about Hussein's WMD.

At worst, those who are knowledgable about the situation and who aren't blind partisans can say that Bush's allegation that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was in error. But to be truthful, we can't even definitively say that's the case yet. I tell you that because there are a variety of theories about what happened to the weapons of mass destruction. Some people believe that the WMD have been; shipped to Lebanon or Syria, destroyed at some point, hidden and not yet found, carried away in the looting, given to terrorists, not built for years by scientists afraid to tell Saddam the truth, or some combination thereof. At this point, it's difficult to rule any of those possibilities out. But as David Kay pointed out in his interim report, Saddam at the very least intended to procure WMD,

"Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to either restart CW production or make available chemical weapons."

So we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Hussein once had and used weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, at the time of the invasion, Saddam either had WMD or planned to acquire them. So all this quibbling over WMD is in a very important sense, irrelevant. Worst case scenario, it's like we stopped a serial killer before he could kill again as opposed to actually catching him with a body in the basement. In any case, sensible people who are concerned about what an anti-American tyrant like Saddam might have done with his WMD should be happy that the "Butcher of Baghdad" is now permanently out of business.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/wmd.php

richfisher

Thank you for your posts. Most, if not all prominent Democrats, including the ultra liberal Kennedy, believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. If you were to quote them all your post would run a dozen pages.

Eeyore,

Joe's heart is in the right place but he's wrong. Bush clearly believed Saddam had WMD. If not he would have been nuanced rather than unequivocal in his assertions to that efffect.

No President would announce a policy based on a falsehood he would know would be revealed -particularly when he could justify his decision on other grounds.

It's quite exciting that we are currently receiving some good news from more than a couple of sources in Iraq.Some is even getting through cracks in the MSM's partisan shield now.

Time will tell if it is enough though.

What I really want to address is my disgust(but not surprise)that this thread is being overrun with leftist footsoldiers who cannot even admit the possibility some good news for a tortured nation exists.Instead,they flood this site with distractions,trying to squelch any possible positives being explored and appreciated,rehashing over and over again these tired old anti-Bush,anti-right talking points that are now years old.

But worst of all,their disruptive strategy works well here because too many gullible conservatives are so unsure of their own position that they jump at any challenge to it,even nonexistent ones.To even respond gives these social abherations a validity they have not earned.Try showing some backbone and let their insincere,partisan ramblings twist in the wind....where they belong.

And yes,having made a habit of learning about human behavior,I have no doubt the vast majority of these lowlifes actually wish for chaos to continue in Iraq,just so they can say their side was right all along.

The sick f*cks.

"Yes. It's true. I do want all Iraqis either dead or at the very least oppressed."

This pretty well sums up my position as well, John.

Hugh Hewitt interviewed perhaps the most experienced reporter on the Iraq File - the NYT's John Burns (Pulitzer prize-winner BTW) yesterday.

(3W.townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=a01180d0-86c6-4085-8fb4-41d1a9b0bb8d)

Burns says that the military aspect of the war is indeed going much better. However, at the highest political levels the Iraqi government is sectarianly fractured as bad as it has ever been. Offsetting that are signs that those at lower levels are fatiguing of the squabbling and starting to cooperate.

A worthwhile listen of the informed opinion someone who is most assuredly NOT a fan of GWB and company.

"Time for a flashback to what the world would have looked like if it had been run by crazy liberals 62 years ago'"

Er... in the United States, FDR was a liberal. He's the dude who brought in the new deal - something the GOP haaaaated. In fact, there was a conspiracy by the very wealthy in America to overthrow him, and bring in a fascist dictatorship, and great grandpa Bush was part of it. Of course... this story is by the leftwing nutbars at the BBC, so you probably won't believe it either:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document.shtml

Wrong again John. FDR was a liberal but not a crazy liberal. FDR, Truman and JFK wouldn't recognize, or agree with, today's liberals.

But you're right about the BBC. I likely wouldn't believe anything put out by the BBC. BTW did they cover the fact Joe Kennedy was a Nazi sympathizer?

Terry,

The so called "crazy" liberals make up about .01% of those who think conservatives who support this war have gone completely retarded.

As has been pointed out time and time and time again... this war, the way it was waged, and all that followed was one of the most remarkable failures of any president in American history.

You don't need to be a hippie to see this.

Re the BBC doc... no... they didn't mention Joe Kennedy, because while he was a Nazi sympathizer, he wasn't actually part of a plot to overthrow a democratically elected government.

The fact that you don't believe the BBC or the CBC is interesting, because it proves the point that conservatives consider news biased when it doesn't support their views.

Facts just aren't the friend of conservatives I'm afraid.

Yes, FDR was a liberal who opened up and ran internment camps for various groups and ran intensive intelligence operations in the U.S. and abroad without the permission of judges. FDR also attacked Nazi Germany after being attacked by the Japanese.

Hahaha!
Let's be honest, they can run...

But they really can't hide:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4fb_1185840855

John,

I've read all of your posts and the counter arguments to them ... and I'm shaking my head.

What is your point? Any monkey can wiki his/her/it's way around and find references to support just about any point of view imaginable ... then toss them out as "proof". That's all that you are doing. It's the most cowardly of intellectual approaches because you are simply attempting to lay out roadblocks, then stagger backwards and toss out more when they get knocked down. Or worse yet , you seem to confuse your own "opinion" with fact.

So, I suggest the following: That you state a narrow hypothesis, and stick to it, and argue it using sources that include CONTEXT.

I believe you've got some good points to make ... but you aren't making them. Your intellectual exercise so far has been that of a pitbull biting at a crowd ... a crowd of neo-cons as you see it.

I don't usually engage with your type ... because it's clear you are out to disrupt, not make points then anchor them in fact or solid arguement. And, you are obviously a child of the internet, who thinks that a "stat" void of context is worth something ... but fluff is just fluff after all!

The BBC and CBC are hopelessly biased. You can look it up. The BBC, at lease, audited themselves and can to the same conclusion. As for Fox News, I find many liberal voices on it. If you actually watched it you would recognize that. Cripes, Bill O'Reilly was slamming Free Republic tonight. Anyway, Fox has many more liberals on it than CBC has conservatives. So, who is the more diverse?

I sincerely believe history will be very kind to President Bush for having the audacity to democratize Iraq. To this day I still don't understand how anyone can possibly not support that goal.

The "war for oil" argument is pure nonsense. Why would anyone pay $100,000,000,000 to buy oil when all the Americans had to do was lift the sanctions? The only people who believe that nonsense are those who believe carbon trading on the global markets will reduce global warmening.

Terry Gain

You make the assumption that any leader is going to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Wrong. GWB used WMD's as leverage in a hype war to get the world to agree to getting the battle off US territory. He felt quite safe in using WMD's as a rallying point because everyone knew that Saddam had them since in times past he had used them. Just ask the Kurds. GWB couldn't find the remaining WMD's because Saddam was able to ship them to Syria and/or bury them in the desert. Bad George he didn't succeed in his "stated" goal, however the battle is now back in the ME and the anti-war crowd can now hector in safety.

john - what I find fascinating about your posts is that you insist that your opinion, and it's only your opinion, is the only truth. You berate anyone who disagrees, you insult anyone who disagrees with your opinions.

But, john, these are only your opinions. The fact that you dislike the USA and Bush - that's your opinion. Feel free to have that opinion.

That doesn't mean that I must or ought to agree with you. I don't. I happen to hold a different opinion - that this war was the right thing to do, and is the catalyst for opening up the ME to democracy - which is the only tactic to confront and defeat islamic fascism.

By the way, I note that you don't say a word about how to deal with Islamic fascism. Not one word. Why not?
You don't say a word about how to deal with military dictatorships in the ME. Why not?
You don't say a word about how to deal with the lack of a middle class in the ME. Why not?

In other words - you show absolutely no interest in the basic causes of Islamic fascism, no interest in enabling the world to defeat Islamic fascism and enable a strong and democratic ME. Why not? What's your problem?

I'm aware that you wish all the Iraqi people either dead or oppressed - therefore, is it your claim that the US freeing them from Hussein is preventing such a situation?
You are obviously not interested in freeing the Iraqi people from Hussein's murderous regime and oppression. And you aren't interested in stopping Islamic fascism. Why not?

Your only interest seems to be to rant and rave about how 'bad' Bush and the USA are. Why?

Good point Paul. In fact I'll take it a step further. How do we even know there is such a place as "Iraq"? I've never been there, and I bet nobody else here has either.

I mean, sure... I can cite sources like BBC and CNN, and Channel 4 and CBC but for all we know... they don't exist either.

Seriously though... my points have been quite focused, though I will give you the pit bull dig.

Just to recap...

These so-called experts have been proven to be wrong every time they speak about this war, therefore it is insane to take their latest editorial seriously.

The NRO in supporting them, and all of the other failed policies is just as foolish. Even the magazine's founder, old what's-his-face, Buckley has distanced himself from their current stance.

And finally I have made a number of points re the horrific mismanagement of this war. And then I pointed out how you don't read about that in the "rightwing blog circle jerks", or Fox News.

Believe you me... I don't care for your "type" either. I find the stupidity and ignorance here to be stunning. I do come here to disrupt, this is true, but only to get you to pull your heads out of each other's assholes if only for a second to see that there is something horribly wrong, and that it's not the fault of a few thousand hippies in New York and San Francisco.

ET: I have to disagree with you on one point only, and that is the stated aim of attacking Iraq.

As I've come to understand it, from all sources concerned, there was a whole list of stated reasons for taking out the Iraq regime. Most of the reasons were articulated by the Clinton administration, and "democracy" was rarely one.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1520819/posts

The reason that "democracy" was not given as a stated reason, (as I understand it), is because stating so would've sparked a furor in the ME and the UN. I think it was an unstated goal (part of the pre-Bush neocon doctrine), but not the original or primary one. I tend to agree with the neocon doctrine by the way.

But, the main ideological goal, as I see it, was Pre-emption, and that is why the UN and EU and utopian left opposed the war so viciously ... there is no concept more anti-UN than unilateral pre-emption. That is where WDM came in, and that is why of all the written reasons for war, WMD kept coming up again and again. WMD were the anchor for pre-emption, and rightly so. The "democracy" ideal was there, but it was more or less silent and became a reality later.

Historically, there is hardly a war ever fought that doesn't go through an evolution in goals. This is so because the realities on the ground shift and because there is also an opponent who influences those realities. Nobody goes into war to lose as a goal, yet there is usually a loser.

My personal opinion is that the Iraq War ended with the arrival of USA troops in Tikrit. After that it became a bloody and botched occupation; and that's where "democracy" comes in. The occupation has a goal, and that goal is stablizing Iraq into a some sort of a democracy. The War has long been over because it's goal was the destruction of the Baathist regime.

Re opinion... true, but most Canadians and now the majority of Americans basically agree that this war was a horrible idea.

This discussion wasn't about Islamic Fascism, or democracy in the Middle East, which is why I didn't mention it, but in a nutshell, here's my answer...

The US had good reason, and should have gone into Afghanistan, BUT focused on nation-building there.

The US certainly should have used small military operations to pursue Al Quada, but should also have joined the International Criminal Court, and pursued Bin Laden & Co through international partnerships. This has helped to stomp out other kinds of terrorism in the past, but this isn't how the GOP rolls. They have an irrational hatred of the UN, even though they are just as big an asshole as anyone else in that organization.

The US did more to alienate moderate Muslims with missteps again and again. This was - as they say - a battle for the hearts and minds, and through such rank and obvious hypocrisy, they blew it.

The US should addresss it's policy of supporting dictators who help them against their enemies. This is ultimately the source of many of their problems. They helped overthrow a democratically elected government in Iran, and replace it with the Shaw... who in turn was overthrown by radical Islamists. Brilliant fucking move that was.

And Afghanistan... they actually funded and trained Bin Laden to fight the Soviets. Yet another brilliant fucking move.

And Saddam was a partner before he was an enemy.

But yet... here they are again... about to sell 20 billion dollars to the Saudis.

So there you go... I'm not suggesting that this should be written into policy, but the bottom line is, use your fucking head, and try and think of what the possible consequences could be from your actions.

You may now proceed to rip this apart, but you know... I don't really care, because you guys are hopeless, and really... like it or not... the shit wind is blowing in your direction.

Final thought... if America was a character in a movie, it would be Walter from The Big Lewbowski.

And withdrawing prematurely from Iraq would be an invitation to genocide and removal of any prospect of Middle Eastern democracy for a hundred years. Is anyone here on this board actually considering siding with the defeatists? God, we live in interesting times.

Despite the past record of NRO (which is actually pretty good), how can anyone say that the conditions in Iraq would improve with an American withdrawal? Impossible.

John writes about how the GOP has "an irrational hatred of the UN, even though they are just as big an asshole as anyone else in that organization."

That is quite a profound statement. I believe it was the U.N. which allowed the Oil for Food program to flourish. It is the U.N. which does nothing about Darfur. It is the U.N. which has been hijacked and is virulently anti-Israel. I would say that the GOP's hatred of the U.N. is quite rational.

Johnny:

"These so-called experts have been proven to be wrong every time they speak about this war, therefore it is insane to take their latest editorial seriously."

This is not a fact, it's an opinion.

"The NRO in supporting them, and all of the other failed policies is (are) just as foolish. Even the magazine's founder, old what's-his-face, Buckley has distanced himself from their current stance."

A half-fact, so what? No point to this.

"And finally I have made a number of points re the horrific mismanagement of this war. And then I pointed out how you don't read about that in the "rightwing blog circle jerks", or Fox News."

Actually, FOX is critical of the handling, especially O'Reilly.

"Believe you me... I don't care for your "type" either. I find the stupidity and ignorance here to be stunning. I do come here to disrupt, this is true, but only to get you to pull your heads out of each other's assholes if only for a second to see that there is something horribly wrong, and that it's not the fault of a few thousand hippies in New York and San Francisco."

With that, I'll go back to debating with adults.

Have a nice day!

Doesn't anyone here think that GWB and his advisors asked the Israeli's about dealing with Islamic terrorism? Israel has been living in the midst of this 'hot' zone since 1948 and what has their policy been? If the Islamist hits you - you hit back twice as hard. When you strike an Islamist they tend to fight amongst themselves because the strike creates a power vacuum. Islam being a political religion the dictator is strong only by the will of Allah. If the dictator is shown to be weak power hungry factions create strife amongst the Islamists trying to prove that the will of Allah is that they take power. My ideal would be the conversion of all Islamists to Christianity but secular states do not share my goal and I don't believe in conversion by military conquest so the best control of Islamists the secular state can come up with to....

Roland Duchain: "As to oil . . . it was never about net profit. The tax payers payed for it, but somehow Haliburton's stock doubled, oil companies are making record profits. You could argue that this would have happened even without the war, but come on."

Roland, my friend, China and India are adding more new cars each year than exist in Canada. Let's try some simple arithmetic, shall we?

30 million new cars per year. Let's assume an absurdly low usage of 1 gallon per week. 30M x 1 x 52 = 156M gallons of gas incremental demand. Since it takes roughly 1 barrel of oil to produce 28 gallons of gasoline, that's 60M additonal barrels of oil that are needed, each and every year, until Chinese/Indonesian/Malaysian/etc. new demand peters out. Meanwhile, North Sea and Russian oil are peaking, and sources such as Saudi Arabia and Venezeula are becoming more reluctant to send oil to North America.

Now, I have no links to the US government, Haliburton, or Lindsay Lohan (sob). But when oil was $15/barrel, I loaded up my RRSP, my wife's, our kids' RESP, and our kids' trust accounts with oil funds. Depending on when I bought them, they have increased by a factor of three to five. I'm sorry that you seem to think this is the result of some conspiracy; to me, it's just the natural reaction of a huge new source of demand in the market.

Please feel free to contact me directly if you would like further financial advice.

paul - agreed, but claiming that one wants to enable a situation where democracy can arise would never be accepted by the world chatterers as a valid reason to invade and depose even a vicious dictatorship. I still maintain that it was the primary reason.

I agree with you that the war itself is over; what has been released by the regime deposition is a battle between tribalism and modernization. That's internal - but it's also helped by the fact that neighbouring tribal states such as Iran etc, don't want a modern state, ie, a democracy, in their area.

John - your view that most people agree with you doesn't validate your opinion. It remains an opinion.

Surely you are joking with your suggestion of using the International Criminal Court to go after Bin Laden. That's not their mandate and what competence do they, a UN set, have to do anything?

I don't think that the GOP rejection of the UN is based on 'irrational hatred' but on cold hard facticity. The UN has shown the world that it is completely and totally incompetent and corrupt. It is unable to decide on a mission or undertake it with any proficiency and competence. That includes the Oil-For-Fraud, Somalia, Ethiopia, Darfur and Bosnia.

How did the US alienate moderate Muslims? I don't see any evidence of that; it remains, as with all your conclusions - your opinion.

My view of your opinions is equivalent to your view of our opinions.

KevinB, time to take profits, if you haven't done so already. A good investor always recognizes speculative gain and protects themselves by taking their profits. Good investors buy near the bottom and sell near the top. Dumbies do the opposite or get burned trying to time the market perfectly, which is impossible.

I made my money with solid dividend producing common stocks. Those I can hold through any period, because they are broad based and high quality. The same cannot be said for oil companies who are not great long-run businesses.