Skip to main content

View Diary: [UPDATED] Just Admit You Fucked Up (252 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  pls don't confuse DLC policy on regime change (none)
    with repug/neo-con policy on regime change.

    here's some bullet points from www.dlc.org.  

    No effective post-war planning. Biden cited pre-war Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings as predicting "many of the problems we now face: the sorry state of Iraq's infrastructure, the likelihood of postwar looting and resistance, the impossibility that Iraq's oil revenue would pay for reconstruction, the need for 5,000 international police to train the Iraqis, and the folly of relying on exiles with no constituencies in Iraq."

    No true effective international coalition. A broader coalition was imperative, said Biden, "not because we needed a single foreign soldier to win the war, but because we needed them to secure the peace and to increase the legitimacy of our occupation. Because Iraq posed no imminent threat to our security, we could have taken the time to do it right."

    Insufficient troop levels. "Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki was ridiculed for suggesting that it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq," Biden said. "He looks prescient today. The failure to heed such warnings made it difficult to secure post-Saddam Iraq and produced a power vacuum that was filled by militias, insurgents and criminals."

    Failure to train Iraqis. "Many of us warned the administration that it would take years, not months, to train Iraqis to provide for their own security," Biden said. "Only about 10 percent of the police and army now operating in Iraq have been fully trained. Virtually none are adequately equipped. While many have acted with incredible bravery, others have abandoned their posts, and some have even taken up arms against us."

    blame them for supporting the war, but don't mis-represent their position on the war.

    (OPTIMISM IS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE! THE HEALTHY ATMOSPHERE STINKS! LONG LIVE TROTSKY!)

    by BiminiCat on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 01:36:00 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  So what? (none)
      What possible use was regime change in a country that didn't pose a threat to the US?

      Those who do not learn from history are stupid. --darrelplant

      by darrelplant on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 02:43:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ask the iraqis (none)
        i couldn't tell you.

        (OPTIMISM IS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE! THE HEALTHY ATMOSPHERE STINKS! LONG LIVE TROTSKY!)

        by BiminiCat on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 03:13:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Imperative (none)
          Which ones? The tens of thousands of civilians we killed? The significantly higher number of wounded and homeless Iraqis? The ones who don't have clean water? The ones who are facing a civil war? Or the ones who are joining the insurgents? Couldn't we have done the same thing maybe after we'd caught bin Laden?

          You keep pretending that the war was fought to "liberate" the Iraqis when that's just a delusion of the administration. You've got so much wrapped up in your little fantasy that you can't even admit that the war was predicated on WMD, that Iraq was a threat to the US (remember the killer drones?), or that you were either a sucker for believing in those lies or a willing dupe for buying into the secondary justification for the war.

          What use to the war on terror was regime change in Iraq if it didn't pose a threat to the US?

          Those who do not learn from history are stupid. --darrelplant

          by darrelplant on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 03:59:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  just because this admin (none)
            didn't fight this war to liberate iraqis doesn't mean a war could not have been fought to liberate iraqis.

            and paul hackett seems to think they're grateful we got rid of their brutal dictator.  it's your right to disagree.  

            (OPTIMISM IS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE! THE HEALTHY ATMOSPHERE STINKS! LONG LIVE TROTSKY!)

            by BiminiCat on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 04:03:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No Answer Man (none)
              You just can't honestly answer a question, can you? You know that you're wrong, and like most little people pretending to be tough, you can't admit to a mistake, so you change the subject.

              I have no doubt getting rid of Saddam was a good thing or that most Iraqis are glad to see the back of him, as Hackett says. That has nothing to do with the question you just can't answer.

              What wasn't a good idea was doing invading Iraq in the middle of the attempt to track down al-Qaeda. But you're so wrapped up in your "glorious liberation" crap that you can't see that there had to be some sort of priority involved.

              It sort of reminds me of the doctor who left in the middle of surgery to get money from the ATM. Sure, it's a good thing to have the cash, but ideally he'd have waited until after the patient was closed up and off anaesthesia. The man had screwed-up priorities.

              People who supported the war because of the WMD issue need to come clean and talk about how the administration lied their ass off to go into Iraq. Anyone who supported the Iraq war for some other reason, over the attempt to roll up al-Qaeda, are guilty of political malpractice.

              Those who do not learn from history are stupid. --darrelplant

              by darrelplant on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 04:28:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  i can answer those questions (none)
                george w. bush is to blame for invading Iraq in the middle of the attempt to track down al-Qaeda.

                it's odd.  when people disagree with you, you make all these erroneous assumptions about what it is you think they think.

                tell me.  what makes you think i'm wrapped up in glorious liberation crap?  i don't have a flag on my front lawn.  hell.  i don't even have one of those hypocritical "support our troops" magnets on my SUV.  hell.  i don't even have an SUV.

                all i have is a slightly different opinion than yours.   i don't blame democrats for invading Iraq in the middle of the attempt to track down al-Qaeda.

                (OPTIMISM IS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE! THE HEALTHY ATMOSPHERE STINKS! LONG LIVE TROTSKY!)

                by BiminiCat on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 04:42:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  After the fact (none)
      As usual.  The DLC and folks like Biden, Lieberman and Bayh are all about ass-covering.

      Now, it's all "They fucked it up!  They fucked it up!"

      What a bunch of lying sacks of shit they are.

      Anyone in Washington who claims they didn't know that Bush/Cheney were going to take out Saddam during their first term -- long before 9-11 -- are liars.  The Neocons had been laying out this strategy going back to 1992.  Read a little.

      Now the Bidens and Bayhs of the world want to claim that Bush and Company fucked it up.

      Bullshit.

      It was a disaster long before it began, regardless of what went down after it started.

      The DLC and their ilk in the Senate are the second biggest bunch of liars in Washington.

      They knew the score long before Bush took office.  And post-9/11, they jumped on the bandwagon because they believed they were being "politically astute."  

      Classic DLC finger-in-the-wind poll-sniffing.

      Asswipes.

    •  it's different propaganda from the same sources (none)
      You might want to re-examine those regime change assumptions.  It turns out most of the "solid" sources about Saddam's evil 21st century regime were the same sources we had for WMDs and every other convenient lie: including CIA and MI5 spies, most of whom run Iraq now - Chalabi, Allawi, and Jaafari.  The thing most Iraqis wanted was an end to sanctions, so they could go back to living their lives.

      Did you notice that to find evidence to convict Saddam Hussein, the current tribunals are going back to crimes from 1982 - just before Rumsfeld started supporting him?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site