Cakewalks and nonesuch

Please give DHinMi, DemFromCT, Theoria, Trapper John and Tom Schaller a hand for their great coverage this week as business kept me away from blogging. I don't know what I'd do without them.

Also, here's a few quotes that have added salience these days:

Dick Cheney (NBC Meet The Press, March 16, 2003)

Cheney: The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but that they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that. [...]

Russert: The army's top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.

Cheney: I disagree. We need, obviously, a large force and we've deployed a large force. To prevail, from a military standpoint, to achieve our objectives, we will need a significant presence there until such time as we can turn things over to the Iraqis themselves. But to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don't think is accurate. I think that's an overstatement.

Kenneth Adelman (Washington Post, February 13, 2002)

I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps.

Richard Perle (Knight Ridder, March 29, 2003)

Richard Perle, an influential former Pentagon official who is close to Rumsfeld, reportedly gave a briefing to Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs 10 days ago in which he predicted that the war would last no longer than three weeks. "And there is a good chance that it will be less than that," he said.

David Frum (National Review, February 24, 2003)

But there is good news: If the preparations for the Iraq round of the war on terror have gone very, very slowly, the Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts. The sooner the fighting begins in Iraq, the nearer we are to its imminent end. Which means, in other words, that this "rush to war" should really be seen as the ultimate "rush to peace."

So let's see... wrong, wrong, wrong and, um, yeah -- wrong.

•  well

  drudge finally reports the story...citing
  this link
  http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040410/D81RN6D80.html

  i didn't think it would happen.
  

  by JoelK in AZ on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 10:31:11 PM PDT

  •  Add to the mix of neocons

    the voices of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry claiming that they were'nt "voting for war" but "voting for peace" because they were only authorizing further negotiations.

    Just as with the neocons, either profoundly dishonest, and deliberately so, or merely so incredibly wrong that condemnation for deep incompetence and stupidity is appropriate.

    News flash: they all suck.

    by Copernicus on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 09:53:02 AM PDT

•  well...

  As far as these particular quotes go, they're talking about the war to depose Saddam.  That took about three weeks.  It's the whole "what next" part they forgot to mention.

  by Brian Ulrich on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 10:32:53 PM PDT

  •  yeah

    i was about to say the same thing.

    i believe the "deposing saddam" part was a
    cake-walk.  and honestly we had a window of
    time where we could have won the "hearts and
    minds" of the people not just in iraq but
    in the region (despite much public denial i'm
    sure).  

    we have squandered that opportunity...despite
    many many warnings... and now it seems the
    situation is going to hell in a handbasket
    without any clear solutions.
    

    by JoelK in AZ on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 10:34:53 PM PDT

    •  not quite

      The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but that they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

      It seems to me that Cheney was quite plainly speaking about the postwar period.

      'welcomed as liberators' we weren't.

      Anybody know the Arabic phrase for "don't let the door hit you on your way out"?

      by agrajag on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 11:01:32 PM PDT

    •  seeds of defeat in "cake-walk" itself

      i believe the "deposing saddam" part was a cake-walk.  and honestly we had a window of time where we could have won the "hearts and minds" of the people not just in iraq but in the region

      I disagree.

      I think the root of our failure to win the hearts of the Iraqi Arabs is to be found in very term "cake-walk" itself.   The original "cake-walk" was a sort of goofy exaggerated strut first perfected by African slaves in the American south.  And, although it soon became an art form in itself, it  was originally developed as a parody of the prideful way of walking displayed by their white masters on public occasions.

      So if we see the "cake-walk" as a symbol of the hatred that our national persona (or at least part of it) can excite in a captive people then perhaps we can understand why our easy triumph over an Arab nation, and our presiding over the chaos that followed, contained the seeds of our miserable failure to win the hearts of the Arabs in Iraq or elsewhere.   The very fact of the "cake-walk" victory just hurt Arab pride too badly for them ever to accept it. 

      And I don't think this attitude is so alien to the American character. Deep in our hearts most of us understand it perfectly well.

      by Fred in Vermont on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 05:12:07 AM PDT

    •  Missing the big picture:

      I think many of us are smarter than many of them in Washington.  To me it was always obvious that every single Arab nation has a huge systemic problem and that is you cannot run an economy on one product, oil.  We hear about the Arab street, which are all the billions of Arabs who are not part of a royal family or have who not been educated in the US and/or Europe.  They are terribly poor people who have nothing, especially nothing like we have.

      What they need to do is to put their heads together and try to expand their economic thinking way beyond oil.  How stupid it is to think that it come from the barrel of a gun.

      Look at what Israel has done.  Arabs aren't genetically inferior to the Israelis they just are aimless and see nothing good in their future, so it's natural to hate those who live differently.  We need a president who will be able to think on his or her feet and put it to

      Unfortunately and stupidly, those who pull Bush's strings just foolishly assumed the Arabs would be singing "God Bless America", hear and understand the benefits of capitalism coming out of our mouths and be anxious to have Rodeo Drive and Manhattan shopping come to rejuvenate their squalor.  

      Viet Nam is similar to Iraq because there too we tried to shove the ideals of capitalism down the throats of people who worry about their next meal, who know less about economics than Republicans and those they blindfold and preach, with Abrams tanks, to those who either don't trust us or hate us.  The only difference is there hasn't been a draft for the war in Iraq, at least not yet.

      I don't know why our politicians, especially the Republicans, didn't see this coming.  I did and wrote lots about it.  I am sure most of you did too, especially making Iraq, which is Afghanistan with oil and highways, fertile for al Qaeda.  How stupid it was not to just send in 10 times the number of inspectors to flood the country, so that even if there was stuff hidden, sooner or later it would have come out.

      This is what happens when you make an imbecile the president.  Now, absolutely nobody has to take responsibility for the things the Administration screwed up.  You can't blame Bush because everyone knows he's a moron.  Therefore, everyone else making decisions is making them without presidential responsibility.  In other words, there is know president.
      

      by cpa1 on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 08:03:41 AM PDT

  •  Partly

    They are talking about the "war". The shooting never stopped. We never "liberated" Iraq (Iraq cannot be free while under foreign occupation and rule).

    Equating Saddam with the "war" is just as stupid and short-sighted as thinking the fighting would be over in a few short weeks.

    by kos on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 10:42:09 PM PDT

    •  Remember?

      It seems a very long time ago, but do you all remember when Saddam Hussein was captured and every Democratic candidate, especially Dean, was asked, essentially, "Why are you bothering to run for president?"

      Since every member of the Bush administration has shown him/herself to be a liar and propagandist, why should I care what they "meant" by these statements?  I know one thing they all definitely meant to do and that was convince Americans that invading Iraq would be a quick and low cost method of responding to the attacks of 9/11.

      by James Earl on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 11:12:30 PM PDT

      •  this might be a dumb question

        --but is there anything that would conceivably prevent Bush from being the Repub nominee for President this year?  I'm assuming he has the primary votes locked up, but what if he were to do an LBJ and take himself out of it?  Could that happen, or is it merely a fevered dream I had?

        by cinnamondog on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 06:44:24 AM PDT

        •  I was wondering the same thing

          Would it be a fun game to guess who the heir apparent would be?  I'll go first:

          Rick Santorum

          by BigOkie on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 07:19:09 AM PDT

          •  I think

            it'd be Ah-nold.  That pesky born-in-the-USA issue can be addressed through some kind of Executive Order, I'm sure.  

            Imagine the possibilities.  Terminator Goes To Iraq; Terminator In A Holy War; The Terminator's Crusade Against Evil.  A box-office blockbuster series for sure.  

            by cinnamondog on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 07:35:23 AM PDT

            •  Most Excellent Guess

              Damn, I can't top that one!

              by BigOkie on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 07:51:46 AM PDT

              •  Check this out--

                I'm not saying that the governor of Cali is behind it, but ...

                http://www.petitiononline.com/Declinom/petition.html

                by cinnamondog on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 09:49:28 AM PDT

        •  It's a dream

          That could be a nightmare.  There is only one Republican who could replace Bush, if for any reason he saw fit to withdraw, and that is John McCain.  McCain would probably win in a head to head with Kerry.

          by James Earl on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 11:23:06 AM PDT

    •  fair

      fair point...I guess I'm sensitive to the idea that the people we are fighting now are not part of Saddam's regime and do not want to bring him back, though some in the Sunni triangle would like a Saddam Lite.  Perhaps my analogy would be the Spanish-American War and the subsequent Philippine-American War.

      by Brian Ulrich on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 11:22:49 PM PDT

      •  Spanish-American War/Iraq war analogy (cont.)

        As in the current Iraq war more Americans were killed in the subsequent guerilla fighting (Philippine-American War) than in the intial war (Spanish-American War.)  Both wars are based on lies.  Come to think of it, the journalism is similarly "yellow" in both cases also.

        by assyrian64 on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 03:35:11 AM PDT

  •  that's the whole problem

    Leading up to the war, none of these guys were really thinking about what to do after the initial war was won.
    I remember asking repeatedly about our plans for post-war Iraq and everyone dismissed it as an afterthought, as if that was too far down the road to consider.
    So much discussion was placed on "are we going to war?/are we going to win?" and not enough was placed on "do we need to go to war?/what are our goals?/what is the endgame?"
    Sadly, I still don't think they know the answers to the latter questions.

    by MattBellamy on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 10:49:16 PM PDT

    •  Chalabi

      Was the solution to that problem.  They had, and still have, dreams that Ahmed Chalabi would be accepted as the leader of a free Iraq.  That he could simultaneously recognize Israel and Halliburton and that everything would be milk and honey while we staged troops for an invasion of Syria.

      These would be the ravings of an internet crank except for their being published in real time by people who actually supported this lunacy.

      Of all the potential leaders of post-war Iraq, and their followers, who did we chose to fly into Baghdad to celebrate the toppling of the statue?  Chalabi.

      This site was onto Chalabi in real time, and onto the fact that the exulting crowd around the falling statue was in fact very sparse and overwhelmingly made up of Chalabi followers, and that most of the bullshit being spread about WMD's came from people in and around the INC (Iraqi National Congress).

      But pictures and links make a thousand words:
      That guy looks familiar
      Cakewalk
      Contrast picture three, damning enough:
      Um, where are the 'cheering Iraqi people'  with the truly damning  Wait a minute!

      We knew - and we posted - all of this back in March 2003.  I beg of all of you, don't start the "Who knew??" meme.  Because you are not going to get any sympathy here.

      by Bruce Webb on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 01:43:25 AM PDT

      •  Pictures date from April 2003

        The point remains.  Clear sighted people on this site including our host and Steve Gilliard were yelling "Stop!! This is going to be a clusterfuck!" before the first tank rolled across the Kuwaiti border.  And you are welcome to wander through legacy dKos to confirm that.

        by Bruce Webb on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 01:48:19 AM PDT

      •  Pick a thread, any thread

        Legacy War Threads

        by Bruce Webb on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 01:53:19 AM PDT

        •  First Try!

          I took your advice and chose a date at random. Here are the first three comments:

          1.
          Mossadegh 1954, Khomeni -1979
          Saddam Hussien 2003, Muqtada al-Sadr -?
          Posted by RationalMan at August 25, 2003 11:08 AM

          2.
          I'm taking Riverbend at face value, and she's a hell of a writer. The stuff she's writing about is confirmed by the press.
          Posted by Melanie at August 25, 2003 11:08 AM

          3.
          [Quoting the thread ] Saddam was, whatever else you can say about him, a bullwark against Islamic fundamentalism. The US is increasingly unable to push back against the rising tide of fundamentalist in that nation. And in the long run, that may prove deadlier than an impotent Saddam.

          Now this IS the argument of the objectively pro-Saddam. It's bogus too. Iraq is too secular to become Islamic fundamentalist.
          Posted by at August 25, 2003 11:08 AM

          Lucky commenter No. 3 "forgot" to sign his post.

          But anyway, I get your point. Posters at DKos can be just as full of shit as anyone else. One small point: No administration let them lead us into a fucking war.

          by Olds88 on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 02:34:41 PM PDT

          •  Clarification

            The point at the end was actually addressing another post. Oops, the problem of having too many windows open and only one brain. Anyways, someone find Rationalman!

            by Olds88 on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 02:42:09 PM PDT

      •  Here is a sample

        Wow, only two comments on a Sunday thread (Sunday | September 22, 2002).  But sure enough one bashes Sully on his truly abhorrent servants statement Difficulties of Urban Warfare

        And the second makes this observation  "From what I know of Iraq - the Iraquis are blaming the US for their problems, not Hussein."  Hey true then, true today.

        by Bruce Webb on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 02:05:45 AM PDT

      •  Words from our host

        Monday | December 02, 2002
        Veterans against the war  

        A quick plug: Veterans Against The Iraq War.

        I am a Gulf War-era vet, and have never been a peacenik. I believe in the use of force to advance notions such as democracy, human rights, yadda yadda, so long as force is a tool of last resort (as was the case with Serbia).

        However, we face a conflict that is spurred not be democractic concerns, or human rights, or peace or anything noble and honorable. Rather, we have petty grudges, political considerations, and the commercial interests of the president's favorite oil conglomerates. And for that, many of our countrymen will pay the ultimate price.

        (Nevermind that Osama Bin Laden, a proven enemy of our nation, continues to run free and his followers continue to attack Western interests...)

        As a veteran, this offends me to no end. And I am not alone. It is one thing to surrender one's life in pursuit of a noble ideal. Another to die needlessly on behalf of political megalomania.

        Here's hoping that the folks behind this new anti-war group can help build a new veteran's movement on behalf of peace.

        (Hey Tacitus - where were you in Dec 2002?)
        "And for that, many of our countrymen will pay the ultimate price."  FOUR MONTHS BEFORE THE WAR STARTED

        by Bruce Webb on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 02:18:50 AM PDT

        •  that is www.vaiw.org

          A quick plug: Veterans Against The Iraq War.

          Fine but you forgot to give the link: http://www.vaiw.org

          by Fred in Vermont on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 05:23:11 AM PDT

      •  Informative pictures

        No words needed.

        by CSTAR on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 08:33:36 AM PDT

  •  Hair-splitting

    Sorry to say it, but you sound like a member of the Bush administration here. It's foolish in the extreme to try and distinguish between the supposed "war to depose Saddam" and the post-combat rebuilding phase.

    By embarking on this military action in the first place, it should have been obvious what was to come. By relying on these Polyanna-esque scenarios, the chickenhawks were dooming our troops to failure from the get-go.

    More importantly, it should be obvious to any moderately informed individual that the seeds of hatred were sewn from our very first shock-and-awe misfires. War is a messy, dangerous business, and the number of innocent casualties that happened during the "depose Saddam" portion of this horrific escapade almost guaranteed this outcome, even if we'd planned a well-conceived and perfectly executed follow-up to the destruction. The Bush cabal's incompetence just happened to make it worse.

    by Hard Left on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 10:51:27 PM PDT

    •  Bush's shock and awe bombing campaign

      of course helped fan the flames of the current anti-American insurgency in Iraq. Thousands of innocent Iraqis were killed in the initial weeks of the war. Times that by ten surviving family members and you can see how many Iraqis have hatred in the hearts for the American occupiers.  Imagine the feelings if a member of your family, your daughter, your grandmother, was murdered in a flash by one of these stray bombs. No one was pushing for the Americans to invade Iraq except for a handful of insane neoconservatives and Iraqi exiles.

      The insurgency also comes from national pride. No one likes to be told what to do by uninvited foreign invaders. No one likes to see their natural and industrial resources thieved from them and handed out to foreign investors. In this respect and others Ted Kennedy hit the nail on the head when he likened the current quagmire to Vietnam.

      by assyrian64 on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 04:05:30 AM PDT

  •  Really?

    Russert: The army's top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.

    Cheney: But to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don't think is accurate. I think that's an overstatement.

    Do you think Shinsheki thought it would take several years to defeat Hussein? No. He was talking about holding the country. And Shinsheki ("The army's top general.") was fired by Wolfowitz for that particular trangression of neocon theology, when Wolfowitz was anxious grease the skids for the Iraq invasion.

    by Thrasyboulos on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 10:54:30 PM PDT

    •  Plus having caught Saddam

      what do we do?  Set ourselves up again....I  caught that minor twit Brooks on Lehrer calling al-Sadr a "Hitler in the making".  Gee.
      We will never run out of production on those, not in my lifetime and not under Republican rule -- goes without saying by now, R rule is R warmaking, I just want to get to where the Ds are not the eager handmaiden to the lies.

      Catch the straight forward drift from the Australians:  Tears for Iraq

      [N]ow the Americans want his blood.

      From George Bush down, they are stung by the Mehdi guerilla tactics. In Sadr City eight US soldiers died when his men set a classic ambush, hemming in one patrol in a warren of alleys, and then waiting to strike - with guns, home-made bombs and rocket-propelled grenades - at two more that came to its rescue. Almost 40 Iraqis died, but that was expected - the American toll was the surprise.

      And in cities like Najaf and Kut his men marched in with swaggering confidence - driving out the police and, in Kut, even the Ukrainian soldiers serving in the US-led coalition.

      If al-Sadr was planning to change gears at a later stage, transferring support for his well-oiled organisation to the political process, he may have left his run too late - the Americans have decided that if he does not come in quietly on a warrant for his arrest on murder charges, he will die and his army will be "killed or captured".
      ...
      As men ripped swatches of green fabric to make Mehdi Army headbands, Imam Mazem Al-Araji spoke defiantly: "If the Americans try to take this city or this office, we will defend it. All the Americans do when they say that al-Sadr is an outlaw is widen the gulf between us.

      "They can't arrest him - we have 10,000 soldiers who will protect him with guns." [snip]
      

      Enough with talk of Saddam toppling/cakewalk/road north, etc., as anything other than opening chapter to what we have now...
      In the SMH there is reporting that Sunni and Shia are talking with Palestinians, sharing information on long term insurrection.

      All those lousy war mongers.  Uh, who is good at national security again?  We'd be absolute tops at it, if we never fell for R foolishness and right wing desires.  Talk about "Get over it".
      

      by Marisacat on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 12:01:04 AM PDT

  •  Here's what they thought was next

    Although Charles Krauthammer later changed his public line, here's what he said in a television interview long before the invasion (August 3, 2002),

    http://www.wusatv9.com/insidewashington/insidewashington_article.asp?storyid=8463

     "If we win the war, we are in control of Iraq, it is the single largest source of oil in the world, it's got huge reserves, which have been suppressed because of Iraq's actions, and Saddam's. We will have a bonanza, a financial one, at the other end, if the war is successful."

     "We don't speak about exit strategies," he continued.  "This is not Bosnia, or Haiti, or the Balkans. This is very important, everybody understands it, we are not going to run away."  

    by theologicus on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 11:28:15 AM PDT

•  Idiots...

  N/T

  by RichM on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 10:39:55 PM PDT

•  Cakewalk

  Of course, the fact that we bribed a bunch of Saddam's generals not to oppose us when we came in might have had a slight impact on the ease of the initial deposition.  

  Now if only we'd taken that, what is it?--$330,000 a month or something like that?--that we're paying to Chalabi, and some of the billions in contracts to Halliburton, Brown & Root, etc., and spent it on paying everyone else and establishing some kind of order, we might have really gotten somewhere.

  But that would have taken too much insight and too little greed for this group.

  by Leslie in CA on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 10:44:34 PM PDT

•  Dangerous times

  I know it's easy to get too worked up about the Iraq situation, but consider this (and one can easily add other factors:)

  • US forces are inadequate in number
  • US forces rely heavily on civilian firms for maintenance and supply functions
  • One year ago, our forces were trapped in desert sand storms, which severely limit our advantage in mobility and air power
  • Sunni and Shia leadership appear to be working together
  • The population of Iraq is horrified by the reprisal at Fallujah

  From a stricly military standpoint, the situation could become very dicey. The American public will not stand for mass casualties. The Bush administration, if faced with an utter military disaster, would no doubt seek to use air power and missiles to limit casualties.

  Grim thinking, I know, but one has to wonder how we have gone from the need to "pacify Fallujah" to a country-wide revolt in one week, and if we actually have enough troops to prevent an out and out debacle.

  by stilwell on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 10:46:56 PM PDT

  •  The Civilian

    Contractors can leave. That could be a disaster when critical maintenance has left the service entirely. The outsourcing was a bad idea.

    I had forgotten about those sandstorms.

    The draft is no panacea. Ramp-up and training takes time to do right. It would be 12 months to build an effective division from scratch. A rush job would give you troops more loyal than the Iraqis but about as useless.

    by ILDem on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 11:12:09 PM PDT

    •  They won't do it right

      They have reserists going in with basic training.

      by Gearhead on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 11:16:03 PM PDT

      •  That is a Recipe for Disaster

        And will drive casualties up.

        Another downside of outsourcing is the cadre for new units has been siphoned off into the private military corporations.

        These clowns are gutting the big green machine.

        by ILDem on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 11:39:00 PM PDT

•  aaron brown doing his tomorrow's papers

  routine. holds up the philadelphia inquirer

  "top story: Fighting Erupts Across Iraq, six more U.S. troops die," he says.

  "But here's the story I'll read first: 'Arnie bids emotional goodbye to Augusta.'"

  by mannyramirez on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 11:00:53 PM PDT

  •  I tuned Brown out early

    When they did that laughable "bright side" story about all the schools opening in Iraq, and the young women with career plans. "It's not all black or white," said Brown, hitting one of his heavy thinker poses.  

    by Draco on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 11:08:14 PM PDT

    •  Speak S l o w l y

      and folks will mistake it for gravitas. Excuse me while I puke.

      by ILDem on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 11:16:03 PM PDT

    •  RE:

      aaron brown must not read Juan Cole

      by jg on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 02:12:30 AM PDT

•  More quotes

  I posted this on another diary but figured it might not get noticed there, and these are interesting.. I went searching through old Bush/Cheney campaign speeches from 2000 and found some comments that seem really ironic now.

  Dick Cheney
  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  Wednesday, August 2, 2000

  [On George W Bush:]

  He brings people together...reaching across party lines to do the people's business.

  He leads by conviction, not calculation.

  You will never see him pointing the finger of blame for failure...you will only see him sharing the credit for success. That is exactly the spirit that is missing from Washington.

  George W Bush
  VFW Speech
  Monday, August 21, 2000

  We are going to restore morale in the United States Military, and treat American soldiers, sailors, and air men and marines with the respect they that they have earned. American soldiers must have confidence that if asked to serve and sacrifice, the cause will be worthy and our support for them total.

  First - we will give our armed forces better pay, better treatment, and better training. Recently, after long neglect, a pay raise was finally passed.  But I don't think it was enough. In my first budget I will ask the congress to further the pay raise by a $1 billion a year to make sure our men and women in uniform are properly paid for their duty to America.
  
  Too much of our military housing is substandard.  I will make renovations a priority - and increase housing allowances to improve living conditions for our military families. More than 700,000 children of servicemen and women are taught in schools owned and funded by the Department of Defense and Department of Education.  Yet after years of under-funding, many of these schools are run-down, and in need of repair. I will ask Congress for 310 million dollars needed to repair and construct schools that will educate the children of the men and women who wear our nation's uniforms. These steps will go a long way toward improving morale in the armed forces and their families, but it its only a start.  

  As commander-in-chief I will give our military a clear sense of mission.  America will be involved in the world.  But that doesn't mean our military is the answer to every difficult foreign policy situation. It does not mean our military is a substitute for clear strategy. A generation shaped by Vietnam must remember the lessons of Vietnam.  When America uses force in the world, the cause must be just, the goal must be clear, and the victory must be overwhelming.

  I will order an immediate review of our overseas commitments in dozens of countries.  I will keep our pledges to defend our friends against aggression.  But I will replace uncertain missions with well-defined objectives.  And I understand this; nothing could be better for morale than clarity and focus of the commander-in-chief.  Should I be fortunate enough to earn this high office, the mission of the military will be able to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place.

  George W Bush
  Remarks At Bob Jones University
  Greenville, South Carolina
  Wednesday, February 2, 2000

  [...]
  We will take care of our current armed forces - adding a billion dollars a year in salary increases. We will restore morale with better training, better treatment, and better pay. We will begin creating the military of the future - so our defenses are always superior to any threat. And yes, I will make an unyielding commitment to develop and deploy an anti ballistic missile defense to protect our allies, our people and our country.

  But, let me tell you some things I won't do.
  
  I won't run our armed forces ragged with no thought for tomorrow - driving our military like a rental car. For this administration, a strong defense is something they expect from their lawyers.

  I won't ignore our allies. I will be their friends when we don't need them, so they will be our friends when we do.

  I won't run American foreign policy according to the message of the week or the poll of the day.

  by daria g on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 11:04:28 PM PDT

  •  Does not compute

    For this administration, a strong defense is something they expect from their lawyers.

    This quote seems especially ironic now that they really do need their lawyers, but I'm not sure what it meant in the first place. There's some stupid wordplay with two meanings of "defense," but why wouldn't the W administration expect strong defense from the military in the first place? Is this another Letterman-style joke that isn't really a joke?
    

    by Draco on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 11:15:40 PM PDT

    •  It's a campaign speech in 2000.

      When he says "this administration" he is talking about the Clinton adminsitration.  He is making a play on words.  He is saying Clinton's idea of 'defense' means lawers.  Were his is... well we all know what his idea of defense is: secrecy at all cost.

      by RichM on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 11:37:51 PM PDT

  •  True Story

    Better pay for the military?  If this were not such a bald-faced lie it would be humorous.  When my son was on his first tour of Iraq--during the cakewalk--he was receiving a combat bonus, which as a Marine Lance Corporal is no fortune.  We think it was somewhere around $200 a month for risking your life.  He was there from the month before the shock and awe started (I still hate that phrase) until June of that year.  All during that time, his pay accumulated in his bank account, as there was little to spend on since his battalion was at the very front line.

    After he returned, he told us they had trouble getting supplies, particularly food.  We had sent him a package containing, among other things, hard candy, beef jerky, and chewing gum while he was in Kuwait.  He got it the day before the ground fighting began.  He said that he and his crew in the humvee survived on the package for five days, as they had no other food.  Sometime in April, during a lull in the fighting, his battalion was encamped in a crowded compound and dysentery broke out.

    When he got home that summer for leave he was so proud that he had won a purple heart (wounded from RPG) and he had a couple of thousand dollars in his bank account.  He chose to use that cash to make a down payment on his first new car.  Shortly thereafter, some genius in an accounting department figured out that he and many of the members of his battalion had mistakenly been paid double combat pay.  They wanted their money back.  And they took it.  For the next six months, our son received a monthly paycheck of $75 while the US government got its money back.  The family had to chip in cash to pay for that car, his insurance, food, etc.  And now, the icing on the cake: they send him back, to Fallujah, for another round of killing and being killed.

    So when that lying coward in the Whitehouse starts spewing his bullshit rhetoric about the "fine men and women" in our armed forces my guts start to churn.  They--and all of us by extension-- are no more than pawns in his endless game to further the neocon agenda and rape of our planet.  Go to Hell, George Bush and take all of your friends with you.

    Damn, this really pisses me off.

    by BigOkie on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 05:15:41 AM PDT

    •  compensations

      A very high official in the Pentagon is an old friend of mine from college days.  About a year and a half ago I asked him why the military were cutting out a benefit for retired wounded veterans (on the grounds that the benefit represented double-dipping of some sort).  I recall having said something like the amount of money involved wasn't worth a drop in the bucket relative to the overall defense budget, so why not give the poor buggers a break.  He replied that the administration did not want to establish a precedent for a new entitlement programme.  I was bowled over.  He's not a neocon, It was clearly a party line that had been established somewhere else in the administration.  I couldn't get over the cheapness of it, given what our boys and girls are going through.
      

      by Knut Wicksell on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 06:03:59 AM PDT

    •  thanks for telling us this

      That story is unbelievable and yet totally believable (with this admin.)

      How the govt. treats our kids over there just makes me sick.

      by Jsea on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 08:52:00 AM PDT

    •  What really pisses me off..

      Is that the "contractors" get $500/day to be in Iraq.  

      Nuf' said.

      by RAST on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 09:00:15 AM PDT

      •  Some stories report

        $1000-$2000 per day, over $100,000/yr.

        by Unstable Isotope on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 10:05:53 AM PDT

•  Very, very wrong, indeed

  Check this NY Times story out...holy backfire, batman...

   Second-Guessing of Bush Now Extends to Convention

  When the Republican Party chose New York City as the site of its 2004 nominating convention, the symbolism was apparent: the G.O.P. would be rallying around its nominee in the city that had come to embody the nation's resolve in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, a place where President Bush once stood on a pile of debris at ground zero, rallying the nation to unite in the war on terror.

  But then came Richard A. Clarke, the 9/11 commission and a rising insurgency in Iraq. Now, as the administration faces increasing scrutiny of its handling of pre-9/11 terror threats and the wisdom of extending the war on terrorism into Iraq, the question has emerged whether New York is the best place for the Republicans to be gathering this summer.

  ... But while some Republican leaders still express confidence about staging the convention in New York, a few very tough weeks in which the president's former counterterrorism adviser has questioned the administration's handling of the Qaeda threat and dozens of Americans have died in Iraq have made other strategists nervous. They say they fear it could underscore any second-guessing of the president on national security issues.

  "The premise for coming to New York is no longer valid," said Roger Stone, a longtime Republican political strategist who supports President Bush but is also known as a maverick who at times has opposed Republican candidates. "Karl Rove's master stroke idea may turn out to be an unmitigated disaster. It has the potential to highlight an issue that may be a negative by the time he gets to the convention."

   

  by valabor on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 11:12:03 PM PDT

  •  Hallelujah

    I love how the kiss-ups trying to say that a NY convention will still be good for the republicans are nobody I've heard of, anyway.  You know, the republican congressman from Long Island thinks it'll be good.  Clearly there's someone who has no vested interest in that being the case.

    And the article barely even refers to the 9/11 families.  That's something great that's happening thanks to the commission, is those families getting madder and madder at Bush.  Because if regular old Americans protested Bush using 9/11 for campaign purposes, the tear gas and rubber bullets would come out.  But they can't shut the families up, they can't brutalize them if they demonstrate.  

    Bush has pretty much been warned off using 9/11 for political purposes at this point.  So what he's left with is a really late convention in a hostile city, and a lot of back-pedalling surrounding it.

    by MissLaura on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 12:09:23 AM PDT

  •  Roger Stone is the

    Repub operative propping up Al Sharpton in this very odd run he just conducted.  I refer to Al's delegates as the Republican ones.  I mean, why miss the point.  
    Cute, amusing that Roger Stone weighs in on this.
    

    by Marisacat on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 12:29:11 AM PDT

    •  Roger Stone - Group Sex Devotee

      Let's not forget this nugget from the Dole '96 campaign. Stone placed an X-rated ad in the online magazine "Swing Fever" looking for partners for he and his wife.

      His priceless denial:"We deny this vile caricature that is being peddled to destroy our lives." The Post quoted Mr. Stone as conceding that the bills for the postings on the Internet site were paid for with his credit card. He told the newspaper the post office box number listed on the Internet site belonged to him, but had been improperly obtained."

      by joejoejoe on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 02:54:10 AM PDT

      •  but New York will be cluster fuck for GOP

        Well or then again perhaps it was just someone giving him a dose of the sort of dirty trick medicine he had been dishing out for on behalf of Republican candidates most of his adult life.

        Either way,  I think he is probably right in predicting a cluster fuck at the late GOP convention in New York City.

        by Fred in Vermont on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 05:43:51 AM PDT

  •  Theatrics not substance

    Picking NYC for the convention is one of many examples of the administrations stage managers being too clever by half.  And while the administration might like us to forget the flight suit and the "mission accomplished" imagery, we should remember that mother of all photo ops for another reason.  Prior to taking that flight to the aircraft carrier Bush had to take lessons in the White House swimming pool on how to escape if the jet missed the line on the deck of the carrier and ended up in the water.  I think of that everytime I hear someone in the administration protest that the President is too busy to spend much time with the 9/11 commission.

    by Condor on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 10:59:57 AM PDT

  •  Iraq did not have anything to do with 9/11

    Remember the whacko suggestions a few weeks ago that Bush make his acceptance speech to the assembled GOoPers via a live feed from Ground Zero?  Somehow I don't see that happening given the work of the 9/11 commission the last few weeks and the Aug 6 PDB leak.

    I was just reading through the convention location article again and noted the last four paragraphs make no distinction between 9/11 and the war on Iraq:

    Lance Copsey, a Republican political consultant based in Washington, also thinks that having the convention in New York will be a net positive. "I think part of the challenge of the president in the campaign is to remind people that we can fight the war on terror in places like Iraq and Afghanistan or western Pakistan, or we can fight it in New York City," he said. "So I think coming here helps. It goes right into the message that the campaign wants to present."

    But delivering that message could once again reveal the double edge of 9/11 as a political tool, opening the president to charges that he chose New York to exploit the tragedy. And some Democrats are already enjoying the president's New York predicament.

    "That mantra of Republicans has been, 'So long as we are talking about national security, we are on our strongest footing,' '' said Representative Anthony D. Weiner, a Democrat who represents parts of Brooklyn and Queens. "But with the downturn in Iraq, with the impending 9/11 commission report, and with a lot of angry victims' groups, the mantra has turned into a murmur."

    Mr. Stone, who worked to help Mr. Bush win the Florida ballot fight in 2000, had a similar observation. "I think the decision to go to New York was predicated on the fact that this war effort was as successful as the gulf war effort under President George H. W. Bush," he said. But, he added, "While the conduct of the war was probably a plus for the president, it now has the potential to be a negative and therefore the party's presence in New York becomes problematic."
    

    How many times do we have to go over this.  Iraq did not have anything to do with 9/11.

    by Condor on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 12:15:47 PM PDT

•  Cakewalk and Urban Warfare

  One thing this past week has reminded me of was one of the posts on Daily Kos last year in January (before Bush's lying SOTU and Powell's discredited address to the UN and before the first bombs dropped) which discussed how nasty urban warfare would be. Our soldiers did not have to wage bloody war to take Baghdad last year, yet they are dying in Fallujah in exactly the manner foreseen then.  Although Iraqis had been beaten into submission by Saddam, it was predictable that once Saddam was gone, they would not suffer an occupation by Americans or their proxy dictators easily. (How long did the southern Iraq uprising last - the one GWH Bush instigated in 1991 - before Saddam crushed it with the weight of his oppression?  And will our forces have to act like Saddam's in order to "restore order"?)

  Being Cassandras in our own time does not bring pleasure even though the warmongers and death seekers like to charge the anti-war group with being happy when our predictions come true.  They ignore the fact that the predictions were made out of a better and more realistic insight into human nature than theirs.  How bitter it is to know the road the warmongers chose was so bloody and so typical of most wannabe lords of the universe throughout the ages.

  by Mary on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 11:23:32 PM PDT

  •  Good point

    Being Cassandras in our own time does not bring pleasure even though the warmongers and death seekers like to charge the anti-war group with being happy when our predictions come true.  They ignore the fact that the predictions were made out of a better and more realistic insight into human nature than theirs.
    

    This is a crucial point whenever we're discussing the horrific consequences of this administration's policies.  It only takes a second to slip it in to any argument.  Thanks for doing that.

    by Condor on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 11:08:40 AM PDT

  •  No satisfaction in being right

    Being Cassandras in our own time does not bring pleasure ... How bitter it is to know the road the warmongers chose was so bloody

    I've been thinking about this a lot over the past few days.  What I've been predicting since late summer 2002 has now happened, but I'm finding there's no satisfaction in being right, just disgust at the horrors of the war -- and an immense sense of frustration.  So many of us were predicting things that are obvious in retrospect, and were highly likely to be correct at the time.  What we were saying should have been considered seriously, but instead was met with anger, name-calling, and a flat-out refusal to listen at all.

    So now what? Two problems -- how to keep from getting discouraged, and how to be more effective next time.  Millions of people demonstrating in the streets, tons of letters sent to Congress, billions of words written on the internet -- none of that, in the end, worked.  Is there perhaps a better way, is there anything we can learn from this, is there some way, next time, to get people whose minds are locked down to listen?

    by jade on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 03:14:47 PM PDT

•  Remember

  Remember william safire arguing that the Iraq War redux would pay for itself from oil revenues (l..o..l.. how emarrasing!)?  I know I had a copy of that article (it was a class handout last year) but I can't find it, and my google skills can't find it either...

  by Demosthenes on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 11:32:08 PM PDT

  •  Oil to pay for Iraq invasion...

    That was Wolfowitz again. Here's the NYT url.

    http://tinyurl.com/yszhh

    Unfortunately, it's been archived, and costs $2.50 to retrieve. I shoulda cut and pasted the whole thing.

    by Thrasyboulos on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 01:03:16 AM PDT

    •  what happened with that oil?

      For a while some time ago they were announcing that the oil would be flowing in a few days, and then that it would be flowing again just as soon as one fire or another was put out. 
      
      And lately I have not seen any stories about new pipeline or oil field fires.  But I have also not seen any "good news" stories about the oil being now flowing.  What is going on? 
      
      Isn't this something we paid Halliburton top dollar to make happen?  I wonder if they delivered.

      by Fred in Vermont on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 05:56:36 AM PDT

      •  Iraqi oil

             April 1 (Bloomberg) -- Crude-oil exports from Iraq, holder of the world's second-largest reserves, rose to the highest since
        last year's U.S.-led invasion after shipments started through Turkey and a second terminal in the Persian Gulf.
             Exports averaged 1.76 million barrels a day last month, up about 25 percent from February and the first increase since December, according to data collected from local shipping agents.
             Iraq has relied on the Basrah Oil Terminal in the Persian Gulf to export most of its crude since last April. It has struggled to restore oil production, disrupted by sabotage, looting and power shortages, to generate revenue to buy food and pay for reconstruction.
        

        by gracchus on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 06:51:12 AM PDT

•  arms and the Iraqi people

  Let's just say I know someone who knows someone who's an expert on the Middle East, in Washington, and has worked for the government (esp. the defense dept.) at various times, including under Bush 1.  I believe he may have been considered for some kind of post in this admin but they didn't really go after him and he didn't lobby hard for the job.  However, he has their politics, only is smarter than most of them.  

  Before the war, he was saying "it'll be a cakewalk.  The Iraqis all want Saddam gone."  The person he was talking to went "but on tv I see where like half of Iraq is armed heavily -- if Saddam is that hated, what's he doing letting everyone have guns."  "Well," said our expert, "he doesn't let them have bullets." (Isn't that a Chris Rock routine?)

  Anyway, fast forward a few months to late last spring, when things were not quite as smooth as hoped-for.  He seemed to have forgotten about the lack of bullets; what is suddenly important is that we need to be very concerned because the Iraqis are all heavily armed. As far as I know he never made strong predictions that troops would be greeted with flowers and cheering, but his concern over the level of resistance definitely shot up at some point in may or june of last year.

  Today, and for several months now, this expert is just plain pissed at the Bush administration for screwing things up so badly.  So he's a good example of how someone with their repugnant politics but a good measure more intelligence thinks: for a while, he could pretend that things would be ok (if not great like they were publicly predicting), but by now, he's disgusted with how little planning they did, how poorly they've run everything, how much they've alienated the rest of the world.  You have to figure that he's not the only republican to be reaching this point.

  by MissLaura on Fri Apr 09, 2004 at 11:53:52 PM PDT

  •  This is so true!

    Let me say that there are whole bureaucarcies who are undermining the administration.

    I have pointed out be fore that the intellegence community was none to thrilled with Val Plame's sudden thrust into the limelight. None too thrilled at all. Add to that, the military is a second class citizen at its own headquarters. Look at Kimmet being followed around by that utter rat Senor. You know some commanders are powerful and some are popular, and then there are the likes of Tony Zinnie and Eric Shinseki. Men of both valor and intellegence.
    You must expect the military to not have a real desire to throw themselves into the grinder.

    Career people at Justice, EPA, Treasury are up in arms.

    What this will create is a steady flow of leaks, stonewalling, and congressional "epiphanies". Oh, yeah, even there the desire is to push the boy king over the side. Luger, McCain, Snowe, Collins, etc, will be able to start their own caucus soon. And our boy Rove ain't looking like the horse to ride this year.

    Nope, I figure the defections will become a flood soon.

    Next week will be bloody in Iraq. I think it a good time to remind us all that Syria, and Iran have huge standing armies. there is a real chance this might turn into a real war, especially if the pilgrims who are in Karbala, Najaf, and on the roads, are harassed or attacked. This situation is rife with permutations of alliances and interests. The Brits and we are the only defined enemy.The ball is way up in the air.

    I hate this administration's hubris and swagger. they have killed many good people, ours and theirs. The blood however is on all of our hands, like it or not. I'm in the not catagory.

    The election is too far away, and the danger is too close.
    

    by oofer on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 01:14:10 AM PDT

  •  the republicans are the communist party

    well, the capitalist party, but the resemblance to the old CPSU is striking. just like in soviet russia, every major department has a `political officer' with reliable ideology who's responsible to the party in power, rather than to the state. the people who are the nominal heads of the departments don't actually run the show, but defer to the political officers. this ensures ideological conformity and loyality to the party. it's something i left out on my diary entry on this subject.

    http://gracchus.dailykos.com/story/2004/4/6/115728/1317

    by gracchus on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 01:59:24 AM PDT

    •  Spot on

      They are also slavishly devoted to ideology to the point of ignoring all contrary evidence.

      Their policy is perfect for every condition.  Tax cuts are necessary to give people some money back in this time of zooming economy.  No, these tax custs are necessary to spur growth in this time of sluggish economy.

      Tax cuts and "preventive war" are a sort of gospel to these folks that simply cannot be questioned or you are an enemy of the state.

      by Velvet Revolution on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 11:48:27 AM PDT

•  Goetterdaemmerung

  How we screwed up.

  by Melanie on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 12:06:57 AM PDT

  •  A "MUST READ!"

    Great find, Melanie. Includes gems like:

    Other than Quakers or the Amish, it is hard to find a group with less direct military experience than pseudoconservatives, particularly the neoconservative wing thereof.

    Some great ammo here.

    by Ivan on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 07:21:12 AM PDT

•  On Nightline tonight

  The reporter embedded with the Marines at Fallouja reported that the reason for the cease-fire in Fallouja and "cessation of offensive operations" that has continued since the breakdown of the ceasefire is due to the fact the Marines "do not have the strength to hold more than the positions they have."  This, from a guy who is with the Marines and subject to military control???  One wonders just how bad it really is.

  And the report on the attack against the supply convoy between Baghdad and Fallouja certainly showed an operation that was not the work of "amateurs."

  One wonders whether that world-class bureaucratic incompetent L.(as in Loser) Paul Bremer is having second thoughts about abolishing the Iraqi Army now?  It's pretty obvious that's who we're now fighting.

  by HollywierdLiberal on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 12:12:09 AM PDT

  •  RE:

    Well, if this Marine is correct and this is the reason for the cease fire then that is quite unbelieveable.  I thought it was a combination of the Marines wanting to let woman and children out, and a chance for the Marines to rest a spell and re-arm, etc.

    by jg on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 02:10:22 AM PDT

    •  it is believable

      I don't have a problem believing that our 1,300 Marines reached a point where they could not continue to advance in a prudent way. 
      
      This is a town of 500,000 where many former military live.  The resistance to the Marine advance seems to have been well calculated to take full advantage guerrilla  tactics in an urban environment well known to the defenders and the unwillingness of the attackers to use too many air strikes or kill too many civilians.
      
      I think that Operation Punish Fallujah just bit off more than it could chew.   And that we are going to have to settle for something much less than the total control and pacification the we intended.

      by Fred in Vermont on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 06:11:08 AM PDT

      •  RE:

        I think you are right that we bit off too much than we can chew, but the fact that we (USA) went into a seige we couldn't maintain is unbelievable and doesn't say much for our military ability in these situations.

        by jg on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 10:25:15 AM PDT

•  WaPo reporting rising anger at US

  throughout arab world.

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A324-2004Apr9.html

  Juan Cole says Iraq governing council near collapse.

  http://www.juancole.com/2004_04_01_juancole_archive.html#108157786505341380

  by mannyramirez on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 12:38:13 AM PDT

  •  It is wose than seen in US media

    Juan Cole says Iraq governing council near collapse. [link]

    It is really much worse than Cole reports.  Even yesterday the BBC was reporting something that somehow did not make the news here: that two members of the US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council had resigned and others were denouncing the attack on Fallujah in most harsh terms possible.
    
    Take a look at the current BBC article "US allies call for truce in Iraq" which starts out this way:

    The US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council has called for an immediate ceasefire, as US forces battle Sunni militants for a sixth day in Falluja. The council said a political solution needed to be found to the crisis in the besieged city, west of Baghdad. One member called the Falluja operation "genocide" after doctors there reported 450 deaths and 1,000 injured this week.

    and goes on to say:

    One Sunni Muslim member, Ghazi Ajil al-Yawer, said he was ready to resign over the Falluja crisis.

    "How can a superpower like the US put itself in a state of war with a small city like Falluja? This is genocide," he told AFP news agency on Friday, the first anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein.

    and by now those earlier resignations are just reported deep in the article as background

    The Iraqi interim Human Rights Minister, Abdel Basit Turki, and a member of the Iraqi Governing Council's rotating presidency, Iyad Allawi, both resigned on Friday

    by Fred in Vermont on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 06:26:27 AM PDT

•  David Brooks continues to adhere to rosy scenario

  These creeps never stop.  David Brooks today in a piece entitled "Take a deep Breath" tries to pretend that the last week was part of the plan all along.  Talk about shameless.  Isn't it great that we're cleaning up the "dead-enders" and the Sadre fighters before June 30?  Whoopee.  http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/10/opinion/10BROO.html?hp

  by patm on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 01:42:07 AM PDT

•  RE: Juan Cole's latest

  I have read countless pieces on the events in Iraq this past week, but nothing sent chills up my spine the way Juan Cole's last (4/10/04) piece did.

  He basically says that the IGC has collapsed with reports that up to 25 members have fled abroad, and that the US may now have to govern Iraq militarily.  Strikes are widespread.   Why?  It seems the Pentagon's decision to collectively punish Falluja for the deaths of four hired-guns was too much.  Shocking, chill sending stuff from

  http://www.juancole.com/

  by jg on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 01:59:19 AM PDT

  •  Juan Cole's piece today

    I definitely agree that Cole's report is truly frightening.  I worry about what the US response will be now.

    by Mary on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 03:02:45 AM PDT

  •  hmm. I just finished it.

    I wish we could chase the Bush Family, all of them, to the ends of the earth.  Perhaps an end similiar to that Khoie met in Najaf.. just a year ago as well.  
    If there is a drop of justice, Bremer may meet his end in Iraq.

    Truly it is over but the blood letting.  Could anythign have come of this but the Muslim world to rise against us.  We made it happen.
    

    by Marisacat on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 03:06:47 AM PDT

    •  RE:

      The end is preordained at this point, it is just a matter as how the end plays out at this point.

      by jg on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 10:27:31 AM PDT

•  It's so frustrating....

  that it seems we're doomed to repeat history.  But what else could you expect from a man who reportedly possesses such an incurious nature?  Perhaps those C's in school really do matter....

  I'm looking at 4 years of depression if this guy is re-elected.  Why does half the American population have their heads in their arses?  Why isn't the obvious, well, obvious?

  Alright, I'm a little drunk and will end this poorly formulated rant before it truly begins....

  by Hounds on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 03:07:28 AM PDT

  •  depression

    Personal depression or a Great Depression (30s style)?

    by Unstable Isotope on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 10:12:00 AM PDT

•  Long term musings

  So we're mad at how they've gone about doing things, but what could they do better at this point?  Now that we're there, I don't think too many heads are thinking we should pull out.  Instead of reacting to the news of the day, it'd be better to wonder if showing resolve to give the Iraqi people democracy might have an effect on the battle.
  We're likely undermanned, but as much as it pains me to say it, our media response does have an effect on Iraqi morale.  Instead of jumping ship, we need to see what we can best do in the long term for Iraq.  Yes, I think Bush has done this atrociously, but our media response can have a very real effect on the situation in Iraq.  After all, how many of you realistically think we can pull out our troops anyway?
  It's probably wisest for Kerry to hold back criticism of the war until he can formulate a better plan for Iraq than this administration has (or until he sees how this current cycle goes).  A plan in which the troops are fully equipped/supported and in which he's given America a clear message on Iraq(Bush failed badly on this).
  And yes, I object greatly to what amounts to a media blackout on Iraq.  It's difficult to find an accurate broad picture of what's going on, even in blogs.

  by jerech on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 03:21:20 AM PDT

  •  Pull The Hell Out NOW!

    I don't care what the hell you call it. Cut and Run. Whatever.

    I think it's just outrageous to volunteer somebody else's life. What makes somebody saying well, we broke it, the Iraqis need us yadda yadda yadda, OK if its a dem?

    I don't see ANY difference at all with someone on the left spewing that, than I do with some neocon, military asshole or politician saying it.

    It makes me furious. I don't give a rat's butt about saving face - I'm up for saving LIVES.

    Unless and until you are ready to head on over there and do it - I think it's ridiculous to say it.

    Old saying "No man can rule in another man's house."

    We learn that now or we learn that a whole lot more body bags later.

    Out Now!

    by mattman on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 07:22:58 AM PDT

    •  Thrasyboulos

      The "we bought it, we own it" handwringing is cover for continued occupation of Iraq. Soft warmongering. You can spot it a mile away.

      I have a plan. Get out. Let the UN supervise elections. Live with it.

      You'll have to, anyway. Better now than later. Save a lot of lives and money.

      by Thrasyboulos on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 07:46:11 AM PDT

•  bush cheney

  i as a canadian am looking in from the outside.after 9 11 canadians along with the rest of the planet were all americans.we fought with you in afghanistan loosing several young people there. we still have a few thousnad soldiers in kandahar.
    what we d ont understand is the link between  iraq and the twin towers.
    to this day it is perceived in america that    
  saddam and iraqis attacked new york.recent polls   show over 30 percent of u s. citizens    
  believe hussein attacked them.
    maybe americans should watch less american idol,
  the aprentice,and the sopranos and pay attention to what their leaders are doing.
    i d ont understand how an un elected think tank
  composed of wolfowitch,perle,feith,libby and kristol can forge the united ststes of america foreign policy.
   its truly scary that these men can control over 300 million people and dictate their own policy.
   as aneighbour to the north i am very scared,they are leading you and me over the precipace.

  by eteba on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 03:48:29 AM PDT

  •  Military Discipline Breaking Down

    Much effort will be spent analysing the tactical failures taking place now, in Iraq. What is actually happening, is a breakdown in discipline, between commanders and the troops in the field.
    This is understandable - the soldiers feel abandoned, they have received orders and counterorders, been told they're going home, that the force will be reduced to 30.000, and are now getting their tours extended, while what looked like peace is turning into living hell.
    They can't shoot Rumsfeld, so they'll shoot some Iraqis instead.

    This letter from Scott, a contractor in Iraq, tells the story - though there are several reports that General Kimmit's order about a cease fire was not respected yesterday, as the soldiers were seeking revenge.

    Renegade Army

    Rumsfeld sought to solve his too-few-boots-on-the-ground problem by enlisting private companies. These operators are not bound by the Geneva Convention or by the Army's Rules of Engagement. They are in a society with no laws, with no accountability - and they have been taking advantage of that situation.
    Compound that with frustrated and irate soldiers, from 18 years and up, and you are in serious, serious trouble.
    There can be no policy and no politics, if the military does not express the intentions of the central command.
    However, as we all know, CENTCOM has engaged in lies and prevarication from day one. The soldiers know they are not fighting "thugs and criminals." Journalists in Iraq reported that something happened after the murder of Sheikh Yassin in the Palestine. From one day to the other, they could feel the streets were no longer safe, and they and other foreign civilians in Iraq started retreating into their protected enclaves.

    The murder of the contractors is said to have been in response to Sharon's killing of Sheikh Yassin. It is also being claimed, in Iraq, that the reason the CPA moved against AsSadr is because he came out in support of Hamas. That would explain things - Wolfowitz giving the order to hit the man with a ton of bricks? And the complete miscalculation of not understanding that this young man, in his early 30s, commands between 4-5 million people.

    The whole thing is very dangerous, because it could ignite a response all over the Arab world. And the USA is weak now, as it's becoming obvious to the whole world that the military arm is not respectful of its leaders...

    by SteinL on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 03:53:21 AM PDT

  •  American Idol

    Hey, I have to come out and make a confession.  I watch American Idol.  It is the ONLY network entertainment show on television I currently watch regularly (and that includes CNN).  I'm too poor to afford HBO.

    Watching American Idol doesn't make you stupid.  It's being incurious that makes you stupid.  The problem is not that people are filling their heads with American Idol after a hard crappy day at work.  That's sort of like saying that the Roman Empire fell because the population liked to attend events at the Coliseum.  The problem is that the richer and more well-off and more powerful people are, the less sensitive and curious they get.

    by NYCO on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 06:30:46 AM PDT

    •  Yes! Yes! Yes!!!

      Watching American Idol doesn't make you stupid.  It's being incurious that makes you stupid.

      Good one.

      by KissyO on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 08:37:24 AM PDT

•  Fallujah Leaders

  Has anybody figured out who we are negotiating a ceasefire with? I've seen the word 'sheiks' used and town leaders. This brings up a question: Since Fallujah has been a Baath stronghold, are we currently in negotiations with the Baath Party?

  by Reino on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 03:49:59 AM PDT

  •  just local leaders

    Has anybody figured out who we are negotiating a ceasefire with? I've seen the word 'sheiks' used and town leaders. This brings up a question: Since Fallujah has been a Baath stronghold, are we currently in negotiations with the Baath Party?

    It is not clear.  If you go to the homepage of the BBC World Service and click on the link called "Latest World News Bulletin" aka "http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/summary.ram" you will hear the very latest world news if you have RealPlayer.

    The story just says that a group of Iraqis including some members of the IGC are meeting with "local leaders".  The group says that they "don't have a list of demands from the Coalition Forces" but rather are there to do whatever they can to avoid further blood death and destruction in Fallujah.  The statement from their spokesman sounded a lot to me like a bunch of people that hoped to someday be elected to office by Iraqis.

    by Fred in Vermont on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 07:22:21 AM PDT

  •  No one

    It is a phoney cease fire.  Our guys ran out of gas bullits people etc.  They couldn't go anymore.  They didn't need a partner to agree to that.  They had to stop and they are trying to make a virtue out of it.

    by SW on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 08:24:24 AM PDT

•  Rumsfeld said no US regular in Iraq speaks Arabic

  My personal theory is that America invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein was the only world leader to praise the 9/11 attacks the day after they happened.  Kim Jong Il sent his regrets.  So did Mullah Omar.  Saddam said it was our just deserts.

  That said, we didn't need three hundred thousand troops after taking Iraq provided we were committed to turning over power to a democratic, or at least pacific, government, and immediately.  Afghanistan, so we're told, has been kept in the hands of Karzai by a small number of Special Forces. (Though in this week of reverses a warlord threw out the governor of Haryab Province in the northwest and there may be much more trouble ahead.)  In Iraq, on the other hand, Rumsfeld declared at the start of the war that there was no US soldier there outside the Special Forces who speaks Arabic (an apparent proxy for removing Arabs and Muslims from the invasion force, which would have been deemed illegal).  In Afghanistan, the Special Forces are acting as bodyguards for governors. In Iraq, maybe as an overreaction to Afghanistan, the USA seems to have had no plans to provide security for a single Iraqi.  Iraqis were expected to live under the humiliation of anarchy, with an American flag downtown to remind them who was boss, as punishment for the evil deeds of Mister Saddam.  We now can see the price being demanded.

  Half-colonial measures in the name of peace don't work. Power-sharing between armed occupiers and armed locals who would rather be shooting each other is very likely to fail.

  by Branch Casting on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 06:21:00 AM PDT

  •  Maybe

    I thought we were there because Saddam tried to kill George's Daddy. Also, it looked easy if you ignored enough of the facts. If Chalabi had been as great and popular as he thought he was, maybe it would have been easy.

    by Reino on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 11:40:45 AM PDT

•  Cheney: The read we get on the people of Iraq ....

  I'd like to know just what Iraqis Cheney is reading? We know Bush doesn't read.

  by JackAshe on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 08:38:40 AM PDT

  •  Cheyneyesque

    This is the inescapable Dick Cheney, squinting his left eye, with his signature tilted mouth and speaking in his soft monotone voice trying to sound scientiftic. His team "reads" the Iraqis like a physicist might read an instrument panel. Fuck, get another instrument panel, Dick!

    by CSTAR on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 08:48:24 AM PDT

    •  Talks out of his ............ too

      He does talk out of the side of his mouth !! He and Bush are scheduled to both appear before the commission soon so we know he'll be talking out of his ass too.

      by JackAshe on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 08:52:01 AM PDT

      •  I'm glad I won't be in that room

        To use your phrase, the options will be to suck seed or suck shit.

        by CSTAR on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 09:08:23 AM PDT

•  If Brains were Bullion

  these guys would be paupers.

  by Velvet Revolution on Sat Apr 10, 2004 at 11:29:51 AM PDT