Apocalypse Not

[Bravus]

Robert Dreyfuss on the "Withdrawal Will Bring Chaos" assumption

[Neil D]

Thanks for bringing this out, Bravus...Looks rather interesting and rather sane.....

Maybe we need to just leave Iraq. After all, the logic for why we were to get into Iraq was all wrong!

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

In making his case, Bush added some detail to previously disclosed plots for aviation attacks in Los Angeles and on the East Coast, including water reservoirs, the New York Stock Exchange, and U.S. military academies.

The attacks of Sept. 11 were ``just a down payment on the violence yet to come,'' Bush said. ``It's tempting to believe the calm here at home after Sept. 11 means that the danger to our country has passed,'' he said. ``I see the intelligence everyday. The danger has not passed.''

Bush Says U.S. in Direct Confrontation With Al-Qaeda

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

The Bush administration famously based its argument for invading Iraq on best-case assumptions: that we would be greeted as liberators; that a capable democratic government would quickly emerge; that our military presence would be modest and temporary; and that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for everything.

I would like to see supporting evidence that the Bush Administration made these claims.

1. We were greeted as liberators. I distinctly recall the statute of Saddam falling.

2. I never heard any claim a democratic government would be set up fast.

3. I distinctly recall Bush saying this would be a long war.

4. I never heard the Bush Administration claim they would use oil Iraqi revenues to pay for anything.

When an article starts out with such misinformation, how can I believe anything that follows the first paragraph? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasssssssssssssse Mr. Dreyfuss. I am not a top. Don't spin me.

[bevin]

Quote:

We were greeted as liberators. I distinctly recall the statute of Saddam falling.

by one faction of the population. Usually liberators get hailed that way by 90%+ of the population.

Quote:

I never heard any claim a democratic government would be set up fast

I don't think anyone in the Administration thought or expressed as even possible the idea that, 4 years later, we would still have a huge occupying force moderating a civil war.

Quote:

I distinctly recall Bush saying this would be a long war.

The war on terror, yes. The war in Iraq? "missIon accompLIshED"

Quote:

I never heard the Bush Administration claim they would use oil Iraqi revenues to pay for anything.

Maybe you weren't listening

Press Secretary Ari Fleischer: “Well, the reconstruction costs remain a very -- an issue for the future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.” [source: White House Press Briefing, 2/18/03]

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: “This is not Afghanistan…When we approach the question of Iraq, we realize here is a country which has a resource. And it’s obvious, it’s oil. And it can bring in and does bring in a certain amount of revenue each year…$10, $15, even $18 billion…this is not a broke country.” [source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” [source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “If you [source: worry about just] the cost, the money, Iraq is a very different situation from Afghanistan…Iraq has oil. They have financial resources.” [source: Fortune Magazine, Fall 2002]

State Department Official Alan Larson: “On the resource side, Iraq itself will rightly shoulder much of the responsibilities. Among the sources of revenue available are $1.7 billion in invested Iraqi assets, the found assets in Iraq…and unallocated oil-for-food money that will be deposited in the development fund.” [source: Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Iraq Stabilization, 06/04/03]

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense…[Reconstruction] funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it. [source: Senate Appropriations Hearing, 3/27/03]

Source: http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm

[Bravus]

Important things but off topic, IMO: the point is that there is at least a credible alternative model in terms of what would happen in the event of withdrawal. Care to engage with the specifics of that?

[bevin]

I agreed with Dreyfuss' analysis:

Al-Qaeda never was the issue in Iraq - that always was a Bush lie.

There are two possible paths for the country if we pulled out quickly.

(a) The Sunni/Shiites/Kurds might actually start trying to work together, as opposed to what they are doing now, which is political manoevring aimed at the day we leave

( Other regional powers might step in and install a puppet government - Iran being the most likely

Part of the problem in Iraq is that our puppets don't want us to leave - and hence they have no interest in solving the problems that we are staying there to solve! Heck, they are even going on a long vacation!

As the British realised in India, sometimes you just have to leave and let the locals sort the problems out - regardless of the fact that you caused or enlarged them.

/Bevin

[Tom Wetmore]

Quote:

The Bush administration famously based its argument for invading Iraq on best-case assumptions: that we would be greeted as liberators; that a capable democratic government would quickly emerge; that our military presence would be modest and temporary; and that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for everything.

I would like to see supporting evidence that the Bush Administration made these claims.

1. We were greeted as liberators. I distinctly recall the statute of Saddam falling.

2. I never heard any claim a democratic government would be set up fast.

3. I distinctly recall Bush saying this would be a long war.

4. I never heard the Bush Administration claim they would use oil Iraqi revenues to pay for anything.

When an article starts out with such misinformation, how can I believe anything that follows the first paragraph? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasssssssssssssse Mr. Dreyfuss. I am not a top. Don't spin me.

Rememeber these?

“I believe demolishing Hussein’s military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk.” Defense Policy Board Member Ken Adelman, 2/13/03

“It is not knowable how long that conflict would last, it could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 2/7/03

“My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.” Cheney 3/16/03 on Meet the Press

“We know where (the weapons) are, they’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, north and south somewhat.” Rumsfeld, 3/30/03

“Major combat operations have ENDED.” President George W. Bush, 5/1/03

“We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, 3/27/03

“Iraq will not require sustained aid.” O.M.B. Director Mitch Daniels, 3/28/03

“A year from now, I’d be surprised if there’s not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush.” Former Pentagon Advisor Richard Perle, 9/22/03

Tom

[olger]

“I believe demolishing Hussein’s military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk.” Defense Policy Board Member Ken Adelman, 2/13/03" Thank you. It was.

oG

[Bravus]

Um, if its present condition can be meaningfully defined as 'liberation', then yeah.

[olger]

Hi bravus. Liberating them from Saddam's oppressive regime. That's been done.

Now it remains to be seen if they will succeed at deffusing the zealots who like to blow themselves up. How do you fight a crazy person? It's hard.

oG

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Usually liberators get hailed that way by 90%+ of the population.

Why not just admit that we were welcomed as liberators instead of spinning it into something it wasn't? US troops were greeted as liberators by the masses because they, like us, didn't see the insurgency coming. Of course the anti=Bush crowd will never admit that because they think he cannot even wipe himself correctly.

Quote:

I don't think anyone in the Administration thought or expressed as even possible the idea that, 4 years later, we would still have a huge occupying force moderating a civil war.

The insurgency was not foreseen but the extended length of the war on terror was. If all had went well in Iraq, we would probably be in Iran right now. Which is probably why Iran has fueled the insurgents as much as they have.

Quote:

The war in Iraq? "missIon accompLIshED"

Someone eats the far left SPIN hook, line and sinker. Not me. I am not a top. I don't spin.

The "Mission Accomplished" banner was posted by military commanders, not the Bush Administration. The speech was given on an aircraft carrier after its mission in the Persian Gulf was "accomplished" and it was going home. Saddam had been toppled. It was a military victory unlike any other in history that is destined to be taught in classrooms until the Lord Jesus returns in glory.

Quote:

Maybe you weren't listening

Obviously I wasn't getting my news from as many sources then as I do now. The insurgency certainly impacted the ability of Iraq to use their mineral wealth to rebuild the country. If the insurgency hadn't happened, a new government likely would have been established faster and they (the new government) would have been able to use Iraq's mineral wealth.

[Tom Wetmore]

...Someone eats the far left SPIN hook, line and sinker. Not me. I am not a top. I don't spin.

Shane, of course you don't eat the far left SPIN... But me thinks you have been run through the right wing FoxNoise spin cycle more than a few times...

Originally Posted By: Shane

The "Mission Accomplished" banner was posted by military commanders, not the Bush Administration....

From a reliable news source:

Quote:

Not long afterwards, the White House had to amend its account. The soldiers hadn't put up the sign; the White House had done the hoisting. It had also produced the banner — contrary to what senior White House officials had said for months. In the end, the White House conceded on those details, but declared them mere quibbles. The point was, they said, that the whole thing had been done at the request of the crewmembers. Even that explanation didn't sit well with some long-time Bush aides. "They (the White House) put up banners at every event that look just like that and we're supposed to believe that at this one it was the Navy that requested one?" asked a senior administration official. Others remember staffers boasting about how the president had been specifically positioned during his speech so that the banner would be captured in footage of his speech. - TIME 11/1/03

Tom

[Dr. Shane]

The White House made the decision to have the banner in the background of Bush's speech. They did not make the decision to hang the banner. The banner was hung by military leaders and referred to the ship's mission, not the military's mission in Iraq. Those that want to spin like tops can go ahead - I don't.

This is an example of the Bush Administration's failure to defend itself. Left-wing wackos are allowed to tell a story over and over and Bush feels that by defending himself he is stooping to their level, so he says nothing. As a result more and more people eat up the left-wing propaganda hook, line and sinker.

In Tommy Franks' book "American Soldier" he claimed it was his idea. He thought it would provide motivation to the troops, which it did. Partisan, left-wing, attack dogs with no regard for the troops' moral, seized on the issue to criticize the administration.

So shame on Bush. Shame on General Franks. Shame on the Navy. Next time they better get a hold of Media Matters or Moveon.org and get their blessing before they try to motivate the troops.

BTW: in that same speech Bush said, "Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland. And we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike."

Does everyone grasp that? The sign hung by the military said "Mission Accomplished". The words that came out of the President's mouth said, "mission continues".

Don't eat up SPIN hook, line and sinker. Get news from various sources and think for yourself.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

the point is that there is at least a credible alternative model in terms of what would happen in the event of withdrawal.

Yes, there is a possibility that the US could pull out of Iraq and Iraq would stabilize. None of us here have all the intelligence that the President and members of Congressional intelligence committees have so not one of us can be certain what the probability of that is. However, until the Iraqi government feels secure enough to ask us to leave, I don't know why a complete withdrawal is even being discussed.

[Tom Wetmore]

The White House made the decision to have the banner in the background of Bush's speech....Those that want to spin like tops can go ahead - I don't....

Shane you are terribly confused about who is spinning and who is being spun. I think you have been so thoroughly spun that you are all mixed up and so dizzy you obviously are unable to read even a short Time article quoting specific White House officials. If you are interested in refuting evidence show us when and where Dan Bartlett, et al. ever challenged, attempted to correct, deny or clarify what was reported by Time.

Originally Posted By: Shane

Left-wing wackos are allowed to tell a story over and over...left-wing propaganda...Partisan, left-wing, attack dogs with no regard for the troops'...

Your repeated use of these terms in reference to mainstream media and astoundingly blind defense of all things Bush have reduced to absolute zero any hope of anyone ever believing your feeble and futile attempts to claim you are a moderate... Shane=moderate???

Originally Posted By: Shane

...The words that came out of the President's mouth said, "mission continues".

That same speech also said ""In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." The original White House draft of the speech did in fact contain the "mission accomplished" statement. The truth is that even Don Rumsfeld had the good sense to insist that the "mission accomplished" declaration be removed. He later acknowledged, "...they fixed the speech, but not the sign." And barely one month later George W. in a speech to the troops at Camp As Sayliyah on June 5, 2003, said, "America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished."

Originally Posted By: Shane

...Don't eat up SPIN hook, line and sinker. Get news from various sources and think for yourself.

Same back at you, Shane...

Tom

[Jeannieb43]

I'm not a prophet or the son of a prophet. But I have this deep dark foreboding feeling that Bush will continue to be ineffective, just stalling along spouting the same mantra that Al Qaeda will come to USA and bomb some landmark, killing hundreds of Americans, if US pulls out of Iraq. But as soon as our next president takes office, there will be an immediate pullout of our troops -- with absolutely no ill effects to the world.

IMO, the Iraqis will be able to run their own country. Maybe not in the democratic mode, but that's their own business, not ours.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

you obviously are unable to read even a short Time article quoting specific White House officials.

Anyone that doesn't see Time Magazine as an idealogical publication is not going to know SPIN when the see it. Time Magazine is slanted far enough to the left that it cannot be considered an objective news source.

Let's review the facts and see if we can sort through all the SPIN:

• Time Magazine says, "Not long afterwards, the White House had to amend its account. The soldiers hadn't put up the sign; the White House had done the hoisting."
• Tommy Franks, in his book, "American Soldier" admits that convincing Rumsfield to put the sign up there was one of his [Frank's] mistakes as it exposed the President to undue criticism.
• Communications Director Dan Bartlett said, "That was an important moment to mark in time," he says, noting the speed, bravery and success with which the soldiers and airmen prosecuted the war. "We're not going to take anything away from celebrating them. There are no regrets."
• Bush stated in the speech itself that the mission continues not that it was accomplished.

It looks to me like Time is spinning the story. Do we have reason to believe Tommy Franks is being dishonest in his autobiography?

Quote:

Your repeated use of these terms [Partisan, left-wing, attack dogs] in reference to mainstream media and astoundingly blind defense of all things Bush have reduced to absolute zero any hope of anyone ever believing your feeble and futile attempts to claim you are a moderate...

If one reads my post they will see I was referring to Media Matters and Moveon.org as the partisan, left-wing, attack dogs. I was not referring to the mainstream media as such. I won't even use such strong language in reference to publications like the New York Times and Boston Globe which are obviously slanted to the left.

As far as a "blind defense of all things Bush" goes. Well, anyone that has followed my posts over the years has seen that I defend the reasons for us going to war and have criticized how the war has been fought. I have been very frustrated with how loyal Bush is to those that serve under him. Loyalty is a virtue to a point, but beyond that it becomes a liability. Bush is so loyal it has become a liability to him. Rumsfield should have gone within a few months after the invasion.

The Iraq War is a good example of me being a moderate. Liberals are against it 100%. Conservatives (Ann Coulter, Sean Hanity, Rush Limbaugh) are for it 100%. I support our reasons for going into it and criticize the way it has been run.

I have learned more and more as time goes by the importance of getting my news from various sources.

[Dr. Shane]

The stakes are high in Iraq. It would be simply wonderful if we could pull out and the Iraqi's could run their own government and fight off the terrorists. That would be itself victory for the United States.

However if the terrorists overrun the government, they will gain such a great wealth from the oil resources the nation has that they will be able to send terrorists over to the US by the thousands. Which, of course, would mean another invasion.

Until the Iraqi government asks us to leave, I don't know why we are talking about it. What we need to be focusing on, IMO, is diplomatic relations with Syria and Iran so they feel comfortable that we are not going to strike them militarily and thus they will not feel it necessary to tie us up in Iraq by funding and fueling the insurgency there. IMO, the best solution is a diplomatic one.

[Jeannieb43]

I have learned more and more as time goes by the importance of getting my news from various sources.

Smart decision!

I think you'll find the best political leaders read their news from BOTH viewpoints. It may not agree with their gut reaction, but it opens their eyes to what the country is thinking, and may save them from doing something rash.

[This statement does not refer to our present Administration. Dubya has stated publicly that he doesn't read.]

[bevin]

Quote:

I have learned more and more as time goes by the importance of getting my news from various sources.

Now, the next lesson you need to learn is that President's and their staff lie.

Maybe by the time you are 50 (my age) you will have learnt this.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

The last President taught me that. Although if it hadn't been for the blue dress, I might have believed there was a vast right-wing conspiracy.

[bevin]

You do know that the famous "Gulf of Tonkin" incident that was used to ramp up the Viet Nam war never happened, right?

One of the biggest public lies was Neville Chamberlin's "peace in our time", which bought Britain the year it needed to accomplish one of the fastest ever ramp-ups of military force, and even so they barely had enough to stop Hitler at the English Channel.

This was an example of the best kind of lie - where you tell the audience what they want to hear.

This kind of lying can be achieved by cherry-picking the intelligence. During the Battle of Britain in England the daily losses by the Luftwaffe were greatly exagerated - and the English people didn't realise how near they came to loosing, and in Germany the exagerations went the other way.

The same thing is happening now in Iraq. The Bush administration is continuously presenting measurements that show things are getting better, rather than giving comprehensive analyses of the situation.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

The same thing is happening now in Iraq.

The same thing can't happen today because there are too many different kinds and sources of news media. The internet and satellite radio and television has changed our world forever - and for the better. We can now read and hear what our enemy governments are telling their people. We can read the news published anywhere in the globe.