The United States is mulling further intervention in Iraq as government forces flee Al Qaeda-linked insurgents and the country appears teetering on chaos. While the Administration is not ready to commit boots on the grounds, we may be moving toward a further influx of hundreds of millions or billions in military aid and even air strikes. As ISIS insurgents are seizing U.S. weaponry, the U.S. has already started to flood the country a new massive shipment of new free weapons.
Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant or ISIS is on a roll and nearing the capital. It is an al-qaeda linked terrorist group following the Wahhabi movement, the extreme religious view advanced by our ally Saudi Arabia.
So let’s take stock. We replaced a dictator based on lies in a massive invasion ordered by George W. Bush. We then spent over $2 trillion (the cost is over $4 trillion when you include Afghanistan). Both President Bush and President Obama continued to pour hundreds of billions of dollars in the country despite massive corruption and billions that simply disappeared. At the same time we have been cutting back on our own educational, environmental, scientific, and social programs due to a lack of money. Consider what $4 trillion would have done.
More importantly, we have lost some 4,486 U.S. service members between 2003 and 2012. Thousands have been wounded, many with lifelong disabilities. Our leaders continued to pour troops into the country because no one wanted to admit that the war was a mistake or that we were losing to Islamic insurgents. We continued to lose people and spend trillions in the belief that we could reverse centuries of sectarian and social strife.
In the meantime, we became increasingly hated by many Iraqis and we opened the country not to Saddamists but Al Qaeda forces who moved into the area as an opportunity to fight America and take over large parts of the country. They are now seizing advanced US weaponry so we are again arming extremists. Now to make our disaster complete we not only have Al Qaeda taking control of areas but Iran has now reportedly sent in troops to fuel the Shiite/Sunni violence. It is offering as many as 10,000 Iranian troops.
It is another example of the economic principle of “path dependence”: we have so much invested that we cannot change course. So once again, we will open up our coffers until the last helicopter leaves from the roof from the Green Zone.
BFM, Thanks. I have done that, and then go through streaks where wordpress is kind. So, I stop taking that step. Then, “Just when you think you’re out, it pulls you back in!”
Maybe, just maybe some dads were out celebrating Father’s Day with their children.
BFM, Myself, Paul and a few other back benchers had some terrible times getting comments retrieved. I went through an 0 for 20 something slump earlier this year. I thought I was going to get sound to AA! But, in recent months our comments have been retrieved just like others. Today, it looked like the bad ol’ days. Rafflaw came through in the clutch for me on his thread since I made my comment to Paul. It’s just inside baseball stuff, really. Small potatoes in the scheme of things.
Thanks, Nick.
It may not work for everybody, but if it is more than a few lines I put it in an editor first. If it disappears, I wait a few hours and just put it up their again.
The first time something would not post, I did not have a clue. I posted the same think some many times I must have single-handedly increased the site stats for a day or two.
I am a much calmer person now.
Paul: “Bob, Esq – the Center for Public Integrity is a group of investigative journalists. Journalists are 90+% liberal. Do you really think they are going to give Bush a break”
Paul, is it your contention that the Center for Public Integrity made up the 935 false statements? Did they re-define the term “truth” just to undermine your hero?
How long has this conspiracy against your hero been going on Paul?
I say “your hero” only because no other description could account for your willingness to lie to yourself and to others for the man.
To wit:
Paul: “Saddam tripped a series of UN resolutions which then gave the United States and others the right to go into Iraq and finish the first Iraq War. There was no lying going on, Prof. Turley. You have to go back to the UN resolutions and the US actions regarding those resolutions.”
Here we see you’ve been lying to yourself about the existence of a legal mechanism by which a U.N. resolution obligated the U.S. to declare a state of war existed between Iraq and the United States upon “tripping” said resolution.
And yet you continue to tell yourself and others that “there was no lying going on.”
“Above all, don’t lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him….”
― Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Bob, Esq – Bush is not my hero. However, you have to be careful about sources. However, given the number of Pinocchios received by Obama and the fact that the Center for Public Integrity is not covering his lies, lets me know who they are after.
I thought we had worked through that BS. I was apparently wrong.
‘I thought we had worked through that BS. I was apparently wrong.’
I suppose I should be cheered that you are admitting you were wrong -once.
Now if I could only figure out what we were talking about when you were wrong it would be like a gift on father’s day.
Do you channel with select observers of the internet?
What BS? When did we talk about it? What are you talking about anyway?
Sorry,Nick. But you should understand we don’t all have the perception and deductive ability of a Mike Hammer.
Paul, No love for the ‘B’ team today.
Help!!! The Vortex of Doom has eaten my post.
” personally, I blame it all on the Illuminati. You will notice even the very slippery Wikipedia did not accuse Bush of being a neo-con.”
Your remark seems to acknowledge there is something blameworthy here, so we do agree on something.
Are you sure you want to debate that the Bush administration foreign and military policy were not take whole from the neo con play book?
I think you will loose on that one.
Besides, it seems to me decisions were being made by Cheney, Rumsfeld and their staffs that seemed to operate in parallel to the presidents. If your point is that Bush was a moderate in comparison to the neo cons, then I don’t think he was a very effective counter to Cheney and Rumsfeld. I would argue that whatever Bush’s personal views, the administration followed the Cheney/Rumsfeld/neo con world view on issues of foreign and military policy.
If that view has such strong arguments for its policies why the deception to take us to war.
As for the threat of Iraq, this nation negotiated and contained a far more powerful adversary in the USSR for decades till we finally gained indisputable dominance without waging a war.
The neo con world view was proven defective at a cost of maybe 4 trillion dollars, nearly 10,000 US military lives, countless civilian lives, tens of thousands of US casualties, and maybe 750,000 veterans in treatment by the VA. Admittedly some of those vets would be in treatment at the VA in any case – But probably far fewer with traumatic brain injury and things like that, if you catch my drift.
But enough chatting about our exceptional past.
The real question before us is what are our real interests in the current situation, what can we realistically expect to accomplish, and what costs will we incur?
bfm – you are going to have to link to the neocon playbook before I can make any agreements.
“you are going to have to link to the neocon playbook before I can make any agreements.”
Unfortunately the web page for the New American Century think tank has been suspended.
But here is an article by William Kristol advocating attacking Iraq and a position paper from PNAC advocating rebuilding US military might.
I left out the leading ‘www’ for these web pages. But you should have no trouble copying those to your browser adding the www in front, linking, and enjoying a good read.
I also though the wiki article on Neo-cons was pretty good. Even if you take issue on their editorial view there is a wealth of information about people and their articles.
Neo-cons were prolific writers so there is not much of a problem putting together some of their favorite themes and favored policies.
://web.archive.org/web/20030321070617/www.newamericancentury.org/AttackIraq-Nov16,98.pdf
://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
bfm – I do not accept wikipedia articles for more then the briefest of information. I really cannot be concerned with an organization that no longer exists.
” I really cannot be concerned with an organization that no longer exists.”
I thought we were talking about the historical record and whether the Bush administration was influenced by neo-cons.
If that was roughly the subject then it would seem that persons, living or dead, and organizations, existing or folded, would be on point.
Why would the current existence of PNAC have anything to do with whether their personnel, or associates, or their positions influenced either the administration directly or persons in the administration?
As for wiki, if all you do is take names and their articles you could keep busy for days. My quick look suggest wiki is a pretty good starting point for a list of key players and their key publications.
If all you do is limit your self to Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld and their influence, I think you have a hard argument to deny the Bush administration was not deeply influenced by neo-cons.
Of course some people prefer a ‘see not evil…’ approach to understanding current events.
bfm – my only concern was that Bush was not a neocon. After that I didn’t care. This is your cause.
OK. Fair enough.
My only point was that neo-cons have a set of well known positions and advocate well known policies and that the Bush administration was deeply influenced by that body of work.
I think that is important to recognize because we still have real problems in that part of the world, and it is good to know a little about who is offering advice, what their record is, and how similar advice has played out in the past.
Having said that, it solutions are not simple or obvious – at least to me.
The real questions have to do with our real interests, what we might realistically hope to accomplish and at what cost in both dollars and lives.
bfm – the important thing to remember is that the Bush administration has been OUT of office for five years.
” the important thing to remember is that the Bush administration has been OUT of office for five years.”
That doesn’t seem to stop some of their people from offering advice now. Why shouldn’t we consider the record when we evaluate advice?
And what does your revered expert advise for the current situation?
Do we stand with diplomacy, offer material support, apply air assets, send in advisers, special forces, combat brigades? What do the neo cons say? What is our next move?
bfm – they can offer advice as is their wont, however, take if for what you paid for it. Free. They are not the ones making the final decisions.
The burden-shifting away from Iraq proving compliance onto the US proving the intel is one fundamental error by revisionist critics of OIF.
As Paul points out, a second fundamental error by revisionist critics of OIF is removing Bush’s decisions on Iraq from the context of the whole 1991-2003 Iraq enforcement, despite that Bush inherited a Saddam problem and Iraq enforcement procedure that were mature by the close of the Clinton administration.
“The burden-shifting away from Iraq proving compliance onto the US proving the intel is one fundamental error by revisionist critics of OIF”
I think that gets it exactly wrong.
Legal justification is a necessary condition but can never be sufficient by itself to justify war.
War is far too deadly and important to be left to legal technicality.
Forget revisionism. We all have an interest and I would argue an obligation to reach an objective understanding of the recent past.
The policies that took us to war were based on a simplistic, flawed understanding of Iraq and its diverse ethnic groups.
That hubris lead to lies that cost us trillions of dollars, thousands of US lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and took us away from the real threat in the form of Islamic radicals.
It is hard to imagine a more deeply flawed policy.
The legal basis is simply irrelevant to understanding the arrogance, the stupidity, and the lies.
Paul C. Schulte,
Add this to the pile of top Democrats who flipped their position 180 degrees on the Saddam problem:
“I’ve very concerned,” Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, who served as the chief American representative at the United Nations during last year’s confrontation, told reporters on Wednesday. “My experience with the Iraqis is if you give them an inch, they take a mile.” – NY Times, August 13, 1999
The point you make is essential: Bush’s actions on Iraq cannot be understood properly outside the context of the whole 1991-2003 Iraq enforcement, most of all the escalating nature of the Saddam problem in the Clinton administration.
Opponents of OIF act like Bush invented the Saddam problem, when in fact, the Saddam problem and enforcement procedure were both mature by the close of the Clinton administration. Bush inherited the Saddam problem and the enforcement procedure to resolve it.
Eric, I retrieved your comment on 6/15 at 10:21
pete – I saw the pussy-footing of other countries as well. Personally, I put it down to their being chicken. However, given that during the first Gulf War the majority of the work was done by American and British tanks after air raids by American and British planes. What you really needed was the two most well-equipped armies
Here are the Democratic fellow-travelers. You will note the list of anti-war people on it.
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” – President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
– President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
– Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
– Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
– Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
– Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
– Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
The effort by many Democratic politicians to appear every bit as bellicose as their Republican counterparts generated some irresponsible rhetoric. Their failure to take a more principle, more critical view of miltiarism eliminated the most improtant obstcle to the imperialist adventure in Iraq that the second Bush administration was determined to launch even before it had defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan. That means that Democrats own a share, albeit far less than the Republcians, of the responsibility for the quagmire in Iraq and the unfinished war in Afghanistan.
– Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
– Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
– Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
– Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
– Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Gulf_War_II
Paul C. Schulte
bfm – whether it makes sense or not is a judgment call. Clearly you do not think it make sense. Clearly, Bush and a bunch of other countries thought it did.
=============================================
i don’t know that i’d say a bunch of other countries. poland, who sent the fourth largest army only sent 194 troops, and they were very open about the fact they were there for the oil.
Australia, who sent the third largest army, only sent 2000 troops. I believe iceland was on our side and they don’t have an army.
935 False Statements
In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.
President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14).
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2008/01/23/5641/false-pretenses
Fraudulently inducing the country into war is a felony. Attempting to lie on behalf of the fraud-doers is equally offensive.
Bob, Esq – let us take a closer look at the Center for Public Intergrity who came out with the list of all the Bush administration lies. For starters, it is a journalistic organization. Then, there is the fact that most 90+% of voters are liberal. Can you honestly think they are gong to give Bush a break on this? And why were they not all reporting this when it was happening? If they knew that Saddam did not have WMDs why were they not reporting it loud and proud? Hindsight is 20/20.
Paul, I retrieved your comment on 6/15 at 5:07 AM
Bob, Esq – the Center for Public Integrity is a group of investigative journalists. Journalists are 90+% liberal. Do you really think they are going to give Bush a break
Paul: “whether it makes sense or not is a judgment call. Clearly you do not think it make sense. Clearly, Bush and a bunch of other countries thought it did.”
“Fraud is kaleidoscopic, infinite. [And that] being infinite and taking on protean form at will, were courts to cramp themselves be defining fraud with hard-and-fast definition, their jurisdiction would be cunningly circumvented at once by new schemes beyond the definition… Accordingly definitions of fraud are of set purpose left general and flexible and thereto courts match their astuteness against the versatile inventions of fraud-doers.” (Stonemets v. Head, 1913)
Bob, Esq – Members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees have access to the intelligence reports (the same briefings that Obama blows off). I am not sure you can bring a charge of the President defrauding Congress.
Darren Smith
“Steve Kellam, I retrieved your comment at 11:37.
Folks, Steve wrote a lengthly comment that got snagged a while ago. It is available at 11:37.”
Thank you sir!
As with our attempts to miliarily intervene in the affairs of China, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan — just to name four of America’s most spectacular criminal blunders, a simple G.I. slogan from Vietnam says it all: namely, “We lost the day we started and we won the day we stopped.” If the late-great historian Barbara Tuchman still graced this planet, she would no doubt have update her classic March of Folly with more gruesome examples of U.S. bungling in the Middle East. America has betrayed itself again and has no one else to blame for the genuine fear and loathing with which so much of the world now regards us. The Lunatic Leviathan has done quite enough, no thank you, and needs to do no more harm for at least the next century.
In the coming days and weeks, the October, 2011, decision, which had the overwhelming support of the American public, will be relitigated. That’s a legitimate debate to have. But it shouldn’t be allowed to distract from the broader truth, which is that Iraqis and the rest of us are still living with the consequences of the initial determinations made by President Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, and their colleagues.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2014/06/the-iraq-mess-place-the-blame-where-it-is-deserved.html
TheSaucyMugwump (@TheSaucyMugwump) 4:09
John wrote “All agencies knew 9/11 was coming.”
Large conspiracies are difficult to keep secret. If “all agencies” knew 9/11 was coming, then you would have had tens or even hundreds of potential Snowdens. I think it is highly likely that someone would have sounded the alarm before the event, especially given how many of those officials would have families in the firing line, but now that we are almost 13 years after the event, it boggles the mind that such a secret could be maintained.
*******************************************************************************************
Obama is keeping this conspiracy secret.
Obama destroyed the salient e-mails of the notorious Lois Lerner.
Obama’s “plumbers” are in there working as we speak.
Obama’s “plumbers” are obliterating the physical connection (i.e. e-mails) to the White House, the Obama committee to reelect, involved democrats and IRS officials.
“Obama is the President, Nixon wanted to be.” PT
Obama’s handlers won’t pussy foot around like Nixon’s people.
They don’t care who knows that they willfully and deliberately destroyed evidence. They just send Holder, the “enforcer,” after them, shut them up and destroy the evidence.
They are writing a new narrative for Bergdahl, including the release of the Taliban General Staff, and they will write a new narrative for any witness who speaks out; perhaps an obituary. They wrote a new narrative for Michael Hastings (which you may want to inform yourself of).
“All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.”
Eric,
Did you ever consider that the reason you keep referring back to your own blog site for authority is that you’re all alone in your beliefs?
See my comments about INFP’s above.
Is it Iraq? Or Iran?
The Eye countries. Never the Twain shall meet. George Bush confused the two. One had an EyeaTohla and the other one didn’t. If we would just let them break up into distinct religious regions. Kurds here, Sharia there, Farsi over there, Funki underwear. etc