Redstate

A 31-year military veteran and former director of the Marine Corps War College, he worked for Powell in the public and private sectors for much of the past 16 years....

Sounds like a lefty to me.

as to characterize Wilkerson as "a standard product of the left."

I don't know Wilkerson well, I've met him a few times. Wilkerson is a long time Powell man. He was Powell's executive officer when Powell was Chairman and had been with Powell before that assignment. Wilkerson worked for Powell between the time Powell retired and the time Powell went to State.

First and foremost, Wilkerson is a Powell loyalist and a Powell retainer.

In my view, Wilkerson is voicing some of the frustration Powell undoubtedly felt at having to carry out the president's foreign policy rather than craft his own, voicing a lot of the anger the foreign service bureaucracy felt about having to do what they were told to do, and trying to protect his boss's legacy.

That doesn't go to the substance of Wilkerson's remarks which are a blend of the petulant, the juvenile, and the arrogant. The Vice President, after all, is a constitutional officer. He can't hijack foreign policy and in this particular case there is no doubt that Cheney and Rumsfeld were much more in synch with Bush's strategy than that of the foreign service bureaucracy.

...here, I don't think it's so easy to pigeonhole him as a lefty.  He contributed to Bush in the 2000 election cycle.  But he does come across as more liberal than Powell, given that he admitted butting heads with the SecState frequently.

I agree at his core I'm sure Col Wilkerson is not a lefty but having a falling out with your boss or not agreeing with policy is one thing taking up Liberal talking points to demean an administration is another.

that is a misreading.

Powell, Armitage, and Wilkerson became wholly owned subsidiaries of the foreign service bureaucracy. That was Powell's big objective when he went to Foggy Bottom: to make the stripy pants guys feel good about themselves. I think Wilkerson internalized their views of the situation and what you are hearing from him is not a good echo of what the conventional wisdom is at State.

But, I agree, I don't think this type of talking out of school is very honorable or very manly.

This is problematic, because, in essence, there is certainly nothing wrong with Rice "avoiding confrontations with the cabal and instead choosing to develop a personal relationship with the president."  This kind of politicking is so common that we should be surprised if it wasn't happening.  This is how people advance their agendas within groups of other people whose agendas are not always the same.

Wilkerson's comments are only important, really, if they show us that one faction of the American government workforce -- the center right, security and defense-oriented bureaucracy -- is or has drifted away from the president.  I'm not sure that this is the case.  Seems more like a "warning shot" in the same way that the Wilson editorial in the Times was.

Such warning shots are only meaningful if there is a real army, not a shadow one, hiding behind the next hill.

Is there?

Is this a sign of brewing mutiny in the nation's security and defense bureaucracies?  We're not at all sure.

Hasn't Powell distanced himself from Wilkerson over this?  I read they had had a "falling out" over Wilkerson's decision to go public.  Is this Wilkerson being loyal by defending his old boss even when his boss doesn't want to be defended or is he doing what Powell wants him to do but Powell can't do because he doesn't want to tarnish his loyal soldier reputation?  Or is Powell tacitly disagreeing with Wilkerson?

I couldn't find that article from Foxnews.com, although I remember reading it this morning. Do you have a reference to it?

The same Foxnews.com article also said that Colin Powell was "singing a different song" than Wilkerson, but I could not find the rest of the quote. It seems like Powell was trying to find a middle ground between the Bush Administration policy and that pushed by State Department officials left over from the Clinton years.

much more about this than you do other than knowing one of the personalities very tangentially.

I don't see a falling out. My assessment is he's voicing his own frustration over his time in State. I don't think he's a stalking horse for Powell in this even if Powell agrees with him (probably does), he's way to cautious to ever burn bridges in this spectacular of a manner.

Thirty-plus-years, either as a military officer, or as a federal government executive, turns all but the very few into tunnel-visioned parochial pinheads. That's why they're so extremely dangerous when unsupervised.

you're tying the defense establishment into this. I'd agree that the foreign service and intelligence bureaucracies have been conducting open warfare against the administration for over two years. I don't think Defense is involved in this because the senior Defense bureaucrats are winning their battles.

beware of the military industrial complex...did that make him a lefty?

what we have here is a diference in opinion regarding our foreign policy

i dont think its a right or left matter

exactly are you talking about?

I mentioned defense here because this guy was a career military guy before he became a sort of professional aide to Mr. Powell.

or at least the first 90 seconds of it.

or, just look up Eisenhower's farewell address to the nation at the close of his presidency.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

Powell wasn't terribly popular in the military, he was perceived as a guy who left very few tracks anywhere he went and was a highly political officer. As far as I know, Powell was the only the second uniformed officer to ever serve as National Security Advisor and Wilkerson is really Powell's guy.

Just remember, both Powell and Wilkerson retired over a decade ago.

Since when is criticizing an administration that was wrong about everything leading into the war and has badly mishandled everything since then lefty talking points?  There were no WMDs, we're doing a lot of stuff to piss off the world...Take a look around.  Oh, and check the polls while you're at it.  It doesn't take a lefty to recognize incompitence.

And to speak to the original post, I wouldn't say that he had no ideas on how to fix things.  The one that he stated that I would hope that we could all agree on  was that we should restore checks and balances. Don't let the executive branch proceed with the attitude that it can do whatever it wants to do, because we have no perfect leaders.  Stop the secrecy, put some checks in place, and make government work like it was intended to work...

Your Talking-Point-o-Matic™ is stuck on "max output."

Isn't your first sentence a tad overstated?

Which branch of government is the DOS in? Doesn't it report to the executive? Isn't it subordinate to the executive? Shouldn't it respect and fulfill the executive's commands, as expressed through the will of the people in regularly conducted elections? Doesn't the legislature "check" this function with its oversight and appropriation responsibilities?

Is the DOS responsible for meeting any standards within these limits? Is everything solely and wholly the fault of George W. Bush, 43rd POTUS?

Just asking.

for a resupply drop of Known Facts™, you are in danger of running out.

Like getting permission from the UN? Or looking to Foreign law for Supreme Court Decisions?

as a source for anything historical? Hysterical maybe.

You must be either kidding, on something that's very bad for you, or missed your meds this morning. Oliver Stone?

Thanks for the update.  I was not aware that Powell did not have a good reputation in the military.

I actually don't believe this is all solely Bush's fault.  Clearly, Congress let the administration do what it wanted to do in Iraq.  And the media didn't do the research to get better evidence to either support or oppose.  For the most part, they accepted the arguments and ran stories supporting the war.

However, I fault the administration for being disingenuous in its arguments for war.  They didn't  have good evidence of WMDs.  They knew (or should have known...either way, it doesn't speak well of them) that the Iraqi people wouldn't be throwing rose petals at our feet.  They sold this on the basis of "have we ever steered you wrong?"  And they fostered an atmosphere where questioning them was un-American.  If you really believe in something and think it is a just cause, you throw all of the evidence out there so people can agree with you on the merits.  You don't strongarm the country into it by talking about 9-11 at every press conference.

That is what I fault the administration for.  That and not committing enough troops.  Oh, and for torturing people.  Not a big fan of the torture.

"a cabal between Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld on critical decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made."

Last time I checked, it was the VP and SecDef that were supposed to make decisions and recieve the blame for anything that goes on in their departments, not the bureucracy.  I have no problem whatsover if Vice President Cheney or Secretary Rumsfeld didn't consult the bureaucracy of their departments.  In fact, I rather like it.

VP + SecDef > Bureaucracy

And that's a good thing.  And the way it is supposed to be.

That's what I said.  Get permission from the UN.  And then vote for it, and subsequently vote against it.  Way to push the intellectual envelope there, Steve-o.  I hadn't heard those before.

you've caused a spike the Talking Point futures market with your profligate use of them in the last two posts.

Let me try to understand where you are coming from.  Do you believe that:

1. There were WMDs in Iraq?
   
   
2. This war (and post-war) have been handled well?
   
   
3. The picture that the administration painted prior to the war (oil revenues would pay for war, greeted as liberators, etc.) has come to fruition?
   
   
4. That there has not been torture of prisoners by the hands of US citizens?
   
   
5. That if Al Gore or John Kerry were in office right now you wouldn't be calling for his head?

If this whole thing has gone badly and the administration led us into it, shouldn't the administration be targetted with a little criticism?  I'm not saying they should all be hung, but I also don't think that saying they screwed up is now "lefty talking points".

stop the treadjack.

One more post from your Talking-Point-o-Matic™ will see you off. Ditto to snark to this warning.

If you want to flog the dead horse you seem to enjoy abusing so much then have at it, but just do it elsewhere.

This is boring.  I give you specific arguments for you to counter, and you say, "Lefty talking points! LOL!"  Are these the righty talking points?  If you think what I'm saying is totally off-base, then say, "The administration really believed in WMDs.  They thought that the Iraqis would kiss our feet as we marched into Baghdad.  They thought that the oil revenues would pay for this war.  Etc."

Problem is, if you say that, then it shows that the administration was ill-informed and has not handled things in a compitent manner.  The point is, this war has not gone well and the people who ran it deserve some criticism.  Isn't that how we do things in this country?  When someone screws up, we say so, we figure out what's wrong, and we try to do better next time.  And sometimes that involves saying, "That guy in charge who I voted for made some mistakes", then so be it.

Hey...I think it was wrong for Clinton to cheat on his wife with an intern and then lie about it to a grand jury.  Look at me!  I'm spouting righty-talking points!!!

Look...I admit here that my posts were not an effective way of getting the point across because the specific arguments are a particular point of contention between the left and right.  Fine.  But the original point I think is a valid one: criticism of a particular politician or office does not make one a righty or a lefty.  I think we need to move past this.

Obviously there are two or more valid views on how this war started and how it is going now.  And just because someone holds a view contrary to your own does not mean they can be ignored as political tools.  I believe that things haven't gone well.  I honestly believe that and have believed that this was not a good idea from the beginning.  That my views coincide with those of a large number of other people does not make them any less valid or genuine.  

And that's the point.  If someone's statement of views are automatically deemed political, then your dismissal of those views on that basis must also be considered political.  And your automatic blanket categorization of someone who holds a certain view on a certain issue as a lefty to be completely ignored isn't helpful.  Let's stop with the dismissals and actually work through this.  That's all I'm trying to say.  If that's snarky, fine.  I'll go away.

and FYI, the first 30 seconds of stone's film is straight footage the relevant portion of ike's address. no, I'm not kidding, so go do your homework.

at paragraph one to begin with, this skirmish would not have taken place.

If you look at my first post on this thread you will see that I don't think the comments are lefty or righty.

Having said that, this thread is not about your feelings on Iraq and for the record Powell thinks the decision to go into Iraq was correct. In fact, Wilkerson's complaint is not about Iraq. So your commentary on Iraq looked suspiciously like a cross between trolling and a threadjack.

Does your liberal blather that has been rehashed again and again by liberal socialist journalists a thousand times identify anything constructive?  No, and you end up making excuses for some really bad people.  Thats why we can give you a new label if your not careful:

Fascist Apologist

Its perky, its fun, say it again everybody!

There were WMDs in Iraq?

It appears that there were not. But that's not to say there they were not there and removed; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But the intelligence services of every western nation thought there were, not just us.

This war (and post-war) have been handled well?

That depends on your definition of "well". In real terms the war it self went very, very well. While it wasn't a cakewalk our forces did their jobs with great effectiveness, there were minimal US and civilian casualties. All in all, pretty good. The postwar activity has been spotty. Frankly I'd have preferred that the military be in charge and that State et al had been relegated to janitorial and latrine tasks. But even there it isn't as bad as the press and the left continues to paint it to be.

The picture that the administration painted prior to the war (oil revenues would pay for war, greeted as liberators, etc.) has come to fruition?

Well, I don't recall being told that oil would pay for the war; as I recall it would pay for the major parts of the postwar reconstruction efforts. In fact, in a manner related to the poor WMD intelligence, the prewar intelligence about the abysmal state of the basic infrastructure of Iraq was woefully inadequate. I don't think anyone planning for the reconstruction understood the real state of the Iraq infrastructure before the war. Our military did a superb job of not doing extensive damage to infrastructure. My guess is that the planners believed that the level of reconstruction would be lower; but it turned out otherwise, not because of combat damage but because it was a wreck before the war.

That there has not been torture of prisoners by the hands of US citizens?

Get over it. This is not policy, it was not systemic, it was not widespread, it was not extensive. Even a rudimentary reading of the slanted press reports would show you that Abu Grahib for example happened on one shift, on one day, by one group of soldiers. They have and are being tried and punished. Maybe you'd prefer that we pull their fingernails out?

That if Al Gore or John Kerry were in office right now you wouldn't be calling for his head?

No, because if either of them were in office none of these things would have happened. Gore would have wrung his hands over the WTC/Pentagon attacks and we'd still be apologizing to Al Queda.

------------------

Stone's reputation for accuracy and historical fidelity if he quoted the Ten Commandments I'd go look them up again just to be sure.

I am well aquainted with Eisenhower's views on the military-industrial complex, thank you.

Here's my plan.  And keep in mind I'm not a Middle-East expert, nor am I a military expert.  But you wanted ideas rather than just criticism.  I'll put some stuff on the table.

1. To as great an extent as possible, get American corporations out of Iraq.  Outsource the work to Iraq.  Yeah, our guys will have to manage the reconstruction, but let's make sure we employ as many Iraqi workers as possible.  Let them drive the trucks.  Let them build stuff.  If I have a job and am feeding my family when I go home, I'm much less likely to spend my time trying to blow people up.
   
2. If we have to send more troops to stabilize the country, then send them.  Not necessarily to fight, but I have to believe that we could maintain the fighting force we have and use additional troops to train up the Iraqi military.  If this is a cause we think is valid and important, why aren't we sacrificing for it?
   
3. Come out and publically state to the Iraqi people that we are not going to build permanent bases there and intend to have no permanent presence.  We want to be out of your country as soon as possible.  We need to start making them believe that we really want to go and aren't there trying to control their oil/control the region/whatever they believe we are there for.  And if we ARE really there to control the oil/control the region, then...uh...I would like to go on record as saying I don't think that's a good idea.

The fact is...nothing is going to get this scenario clean for a long, long time.  But there are some common sense things that we can do to try to start winning over the Iraqi people.  And winning over the Iraqi people is the only way to stop the insurgents.  I think we would be doing ourselves a favor to start thinking about how we can better their lives to some degree rather than just running around responding to insurgent attacks.

Okay.  I'm going to drop most of this, because I have hashed this out with people who see it differently than I do before, and have come to an understanding about it.  The fact is that, for whatever reason, we see the same things happening and take an entirely different view of things.  And there is nothing wrong with that, except when we start dismissing each other's views as being "talking points" and therefore totally without merit.

I do, however, sometimes find myself wondering about the last question I asked, regarding Gore/Kerry.  If Al Gore was president and the same steps had been taken leading to the same war, would this conversation be completely flipped?  Would you be looking for his head?  Would I be defending him?

You're right to point out that this wouldn't have happened under a Kerry/Gore administration, although the "we'd still be apologizing to Al Qaida" comment is pretty lame.  But I think to a large degree, we follow the leaders on our own sides almost religiously.  And at the same time, we secretly hope for the downfall of political opponents.  It's not healthy.  And the left and right are equally guilty of it.

But I completely disagree with some of your points. By this I mean that we all tend to lose scope of the accomplishments in the mideast, military and otherwise, by focusing on possible missteps. I say possible missteps, since the WMD issue is pretty far into disproving negatives territory.

There were WMDs, now there are not. Basically a good thing. Did anyone lie about that, maybe, but I suspect other causes and actions attenuated the effects of such "lies".

Was anyone wrong about the WMD's - absolutely - plenty of people. And, that means what?

Where are the WMDs? Did they never exist? Did Saddam destroy them? This chain of questions can go on and on, which is where the "talking points" comments come in - most of us on both sides know those arguments.

Meanwhile - the big questions remain - is Iraq going to be better? Is the Middle East? Is the US?

In a weird way, the Clinton administration's actions were very conservative regarding these questions - namely, they sought small, incremental and limited efforts, with corresponding effects.

The current administration has obviously turned that approach on its head, but even there, only within limits. The limits of the UN resolutions and the congressional resolutions. Hardly grounds for condemnation.

Will events change things? Of course. Will the US try to effect certain changes - apparently more effectively than in the past few decades.

But, lets look at your points:

1.  Why would you want American corporations out of Iraq?  There is no comparable Iraq owned capacity.  Do you want take American corporations out and give the money to the French or Germans to do the same thing?  And as far as employing workers, you say "WE" should employ as many as possible?  So we can be the boss or something?  Unfortunately your argument is typical emotional socialism.  
   
2.  Go do your homework and stop listening to the mainstream liberal socialist media.  You want more troops, but not to fight.  That is a waste.  What you mean is more police,  and we do not have that capacity.  And find out for yourself what the real information is regarding Iraqi troop capacity.  You might be surprised.  
   
3.  Are you deaf?  How many times has the Administration stated that we will leave if asked, and will leave without being asked when the job is done.  And stop smoking Moore grass.  The oil thing is soo old and debunked elsewhere.  If you really believe it, you might need an exorcism.

Now getting this scenario clean, what was it before?  A nice peaceful region?  What are you trying to say?  Winning over the Iraqi people?  If you mean convincing members of the former Bath party to stop being Fascist, well good luck.  If you mean winning over the Shiites or Kurds who we just fought a war for, I don't think they need convincing.  

But, keep considering your own ideas and find out for yourself, there is no fate worse than a being a hate filled liberal socialist fascist apologist.  And I applaud the fact you are willing to go on record with options and ideas, unlike current Liberal Political Leadership.

I also know the the quote isn't what he originally wrote (military-industrial-Congressional complex was the original styling) but as Eisenhower, the military industrial complex, and everything else in that post has no place in this thread I still ask, what is he talking about?

for what influential generals are thinking read Ralph Peters. He's closely tied to Barry McCaffery and his columns closely parallel the opinions of their speeches, public and private.

I am so sick and tired of this lame old talking point. Here, let me point it out for you so even you can understand.

(1) We suspected Saddam had WMD, everyone else did too.

(2) but we didn't KNOW, cause he kicked out the inspectors.

(3) considering his history this was a situation which could not stand, so..

(4) we went to war precisely because we did not KNOW if he had them or not.

(5) your stuck on stupid.

A cabal of the elected Vice President and the appointed/Senate confirmed Secretary of Defense, vs. the bureaucrary at the State Department and who on earth knows how they got there...

Who are we supposed to trust?

Is this guy some sort of conservative plant trying to make our point for us in the pages of the NYT, or ar the pages of the NYT really that much of a parody of what conservatives think they are?

viewed Saddam had WMDs. Remember Desert Fox? Clinton and Gore BOTH held at the time 98-99 that Saddam had WMDs, that's why he kicked out the inspectors, and why we the US bombed the heck outta Iraq.

Everyone from Putin to Chirac held Saddam had WMDs prior to the War. Recall we were burned in 1991; Saddam's WMD program astonished us. So were we burned in 1994 when Saddam's sons in law defected and told us of previously hidden WMD elements. There was a major effort under Clinton in the late 90's to inoculate all service personnel for Anthrax because Saddam was perceived to have them.

Saddam ONLY had to allow inspectors in to avoid war, he refused right to the last minute. Why?

Prior to 9/11 the consensus was that War required something like Saddam invading Kuwait (if that). Afterwards consensus was that threats had to be dealt with severely whenever possible. This was bipartisan and Clinton was on board.

Afterwards the anti-War status quo ante forces in Democratic politics took hold, see Howard Dean and Al Gore 2.0; hoping to turn back the clock by being "sensitive and such." However in October 2002, consensus was the only reason Saddam did not let inspectors in was he had something spectacularly nasty to hide in the WMD area. [It may have been the mass graves that Saddam wanted to hide; afraid it would turn off his French and European suppliers]

I am unhappy on much of the conduct of the war (not enough force used early and often) but am unwilling to apply 20-20 hindsight, or hand over Iraq and Afghanistan to bin Laden.

Bush had said that he planned on taking care of Saddam before WMDs were even investigated.  Whatever it was, it has nothing to do with the reasons he gave the US.  His trick is, he kept throwing out reasons why the war is valid to get people like you to bite.  And then you come and spit out some hilarious remark like:

"(4) we went to war precisely because we did not KNOW if he had them or not."

...and you dont see how rediculous it is.  So its valid to go to war based on what we dont know?  And he finishes with "Iraqi Freedom" as his final justification for war.  Freedom is a valid cause for any war, however, neither our government or our people would have approved of the war if Bush gave his current justification as his inital justification.

And now we are billions of dollars into this war, which we will be paying for years to come.  And we are 2000 lives into the war, which we will never have back.  Really, I wish someone could explain to me how even a republican isnt arngry at how things have panned out.

Having worked for one in a former life I think I'm qualified to comment on this.

Defense today is not what it is in Eisenhower's time.

In Eisenhower's time Defense contractors were expanding; today they are contracting and consolidating, because spending on Defense has declined dramatically.

When Clinton took office, he cut the military approximately 40% from what it was. This applied to programs as well and set off a wave of consolidation that continues to this day. Aerospace took a huge hit. Even Rummy has mostly continued the cuts; look at his attempt to kill Osprey and the killing of the Crusader self-propelled artillery.

Look at Halliburton. Really. MOST of their profits come from oil services in the Gulf. Gulf of Mexico that is with expanded drilling as oil prices rise. Their KBR subsidiary is the ONLY firm left able to fulfill rapid deployment contracts. They were the only one asked by CLINTON to put up stuff in Bosnia and Kosovo. Because Defense spending has radically declined.

Let's review: Eisenhower: space race, U2, SR-72 Blackbird, M-16 development, new tanks, atomic submarines, ballistic missile submarines, interstate highway system, etc. etc.

Today: cancelling Crusader, Osprey scaled back, JSF scaled back, F-22 scaled back, no replacement for B-52, no replacement for blue ocean supply ships, outsourcing logistics, only the "land warrior" pc-on-a-soldier program is going forward.

Sorry but the facts don't fit your views. Armaments is a bad-paying business, Hollywood cliches aside. You end up making a lot of stuff for fairly cheap and then compete with the surplus of your own stuff for decades. Look at Colt and Smith and Wesson. The post-Civil War and WWI, WWII eras almost bankrupted them since there were oodles of guns floating around and only constant and costly innovation helped them survive. Plus business loves certainty and war is the most uncertain thing ever.

...I still think that most of your big defense contracters are running a profit ;)

Every time someone on this site criticizes the administration and are accused of giving "talking points" from the liberal or the media (yes I know that is redundant here) you have to take a swig.

If it were that isolated, why is Sens. McCain and Graham so up in arms about it?  Why did the Senate vote 90 to 9 reestablishing the code of conduct against torture is this is all about one day, one shift, one group of soldiers...?

Within the last month, a top General testified before Congress that the # of combat ready Iraq battalions went from 3 last June to just one by the end of September...what information and source do you have?

they are opportunistic d*mned politicians! That's what they do; they will do or say anything that will get them in front of a microphone or 3 column inches in a newspaper.

----------------

This discussion explains in detail the different levels of readiness of Iraqi army units, why they move up or down, etc. I think it will make things more clear.

You want more troops, but not to fight.  That is a waste.  What you mean is more police,  and we do not have that capacity.

This is the entire reason we're having problems with the guerrilla terrorists in Iraq.  Our army is the best in the world at smashing armies: witness our very few casualties in the MILITARY phase of Desert Storm I & II.

However, Military does not equal Police.  What Iraq has now is a CRIMINAL element with very little military capability, if any.  While I doubt that the Pentagon "forgot" the lessons of guerrilla fighting from Viet Nam, I do doubt that they SOLVED those problems in the interim.

Thus, the situation in Iraq was, to those that expended thought on it, forseeable.

vis-a-vis torture, pal.

This would be nice to know and would tell us a lot more about the state of the Iraqi army than the number of Iraqi units able to go off on their own.

I share this concern, but the generals before the Armed svces committee did not seem particularly forthcoming with this type of information.

It is nice that in that source's update he did discover that "fairly independent/Level 2" battalions went from 18 to 36.  Good news, to be sure.

The winners force the losers to do whatever it was that the winners went to war to force them to do. Winners do this effectivly and efficently.

The losers fail at this.

A nominal winner that wastes resources far in excess of what the benefit, is a losers.

Q: Did we win in Iraq or lose?

or "Favorite Brewery" now - Anticipating dramatic increases in production, sales and profit!

That if Al Gore or John Kerry were in office right now you wouldn't be calling for his head?

No, because if either of them were in office none of these things would have happened. Gore would have wrung his hands over the WTC/Pentagon attacks and we'd still be apologizing to Al Queda.

Kerry, who when attacked in Vietnam turned his boat into the attackers, would have apoligize to Al Queda? Gore, who also served in Vietnam and was part of the solution that stopped the violence in the balkens wringing his hands? I think not. You can disagree with the policies and the politics of these guys but to say they would not have gone after Al Queda is stupid.

since we're participating in conjecture....

Gore, after prolonged hand-wringing contemplation, a phone call to Bill for advice, and having received word from Mother Earth, decides the best way to retaliate against bin Laden is to flush him out of the Afghan mountains by swatting willow branches, telling him we understand his pain, and then, once apprehended and a big hug, putting him in a lockbox.

Kerry, on the other hand, would have aptly shown his diplomatic and multi-tasking skills by immediately calling Chirac to schedule a meeting while getting a french manicure and sampling a delightful brie.

after 9/11 that any President would not have invaded Afghanistan and went after Al Queda?  

The 'known facts' you recite regarding Kerry's actions as a swift boat captain have been thoroughly discredited by his superior officers and the other swift boat captains that were on the river that same day.

Al Gore's military service as an 'Army Journalist' does not inspire confidence that he would be a compentent 'Commander in Chief.'

the inconsistency in their story? They also said that after he attacked and went ashore that he shot the VC in the back. Both of these things could not have happened. Did he not turn his boat into the attack or did he shoot the VC in the back? Are they lying about one or both of the versions of these events? You cannot have it both ways.

have invaded Afghanistan and went after Al Queda. Then why did they both support the administration when we invaded Afghanistan and went after Al Queda?

to make someone look evil use words that imply evil,like cabal.  Cabal,"a number of persons secretly united for some private purpose".  Well there you have it.  Probably the cabalists were working some scheme to beat the tables at Los Vegas,it certainly couldn't have been foreign policy.  If it was the cabalists keep a secret like a sieve holds water.  These Catiline conspirators lived before congressional committees,answered countless questions at press conferences,gave press releases,and step by step explained and defended their every move.  Wilkerson may or may not be a leftist {John Glenn] but he knows that if you want both a hearing and respect there's only one vocabulary to use.

the wrong thread for this particular discussion.  I'm not going to highjack it.  Many here have posted extensively on the subject and it's available in the archives.

Back to the point - The Clinton-Gore administration treated terrorist acts as law enforcement matters.  Nothing in Al Gore's or John Kerry's past indicate either of them would have changed US policy or prosecuted acts of terrorism any differently than their predecessor.  Their lengthy senate records lend further evidence to that supposition.

Well, other than they both take their direction from the poll of the day, which, in my mind, qualifies one as a spineless bureacrat.

"I voted for the war before I voted against it" causes me concern, despite the chuckle.

toward terrorism change after 9/11? Of course it did. My point is that to say that any President of either party would not have invaded Afghanistan and go after Al Queda is crazy and the American public would not have stood for it. If you want to argue about the success of such policy that is a different story. This administration has failed to capture Ben Laden, his deputy and Mullah Omar. Maybe Gore or Kerry would not have done so either but then again maybe they would have. To the extent of capturing and bringing to justice the leaders (the 3 listed above) of those who attacked us on 9/11 it is just a fact that this administration has failed miserably.

if I ever heard one.

Especially, given that the Al Queda and Taliban orginazations have been effectively gutted, a democratic Afghanistan now exists, a mass-murdering tyrant was removed from power and currently undergoing trial, a constitution about to be representatively voted for in Iraq, and the prevention of a post-911 attack on US soil.

And you call bin Laden, holed-up in a cave somewhere, a failure?

"I voted for the war before I voted against it" causes me concern, despite the chuckle.

I would have done the same. It was vital to the security interests of the United States that we find if Saddamm had WMD's and I would have voted for the resolution as a way of getting Saddamm to let the inspectors in. The day this administration decided to invade Iraq with the inspectors on the ground doing their job was the day they lost me.  

the fact that we obviously define 'doing their job' in terms completely at odds with one another, arguing the point of what, or what-not, Frenchie would have done is moot.

capturing Ben Laden, his deputy, and Mullah Omar is a sign of success? I would like you to answer 3 questions that gets at the real crux as to whether our policy about Iraq is a success.

1.    If you had it to do over would you still invade Iraq?

2.    If this administration had it to do over would they invade Iraq?

3.    Would the American Public if it had known what it knows now support such an invasion?

The first I do not know

My guess to the second is I doubt it

The third is obvious, no they would not

is that it is ridiculous, not to mention a straw man argument, to base WOT effectiveness on the capture of Laden, et al.  His organization has been gutted, even he knows it.

Now, though I've become tired of listening to your what-ifs and generous blathering of Talking Points, my answers are yes, yes and more likely than not.

Now show me the money.

That is show me where the US would be less well off with no war as vs a war.

That is using reliable sources, show me that Saddam could have done several 911 type attacks, because boss, the casualties of the Iraq war is about what 911 was and the cost is much greater.

And remember I ain't no peacenic, so don't get all uppity and all. Just the fact please.

the same UN "Inspections" that allowed Saddam to profit from UN "Sanction Violations" and the UN's "Oil for Food Fraud" at considerable expense of the Iraqi people?

"Now, though I've become tired of listening to your what-ifs and generous blathering of Talking Points, my answers are yes, yes and more likely than not."

Calling an argument a "talking point" is not an answer to an argument.

The first two answers to my questions are just opinions.

To think the American public would have supported the Iraq invasion if it knew then what it knows now is wishful thinking.

Anyway, enjoyed our discussion and have a fine day

is not what I really care about. What I care about are the security interests of the United States. I wanted to know if Iraq was a threat to us. If the inspections have been allowed to continue their work. we would have found out the truth and not have invaded. Is that true or not?

all evidence of a successful WOT campaign and pin your criticism against it on the capture of bin laden, then go straight ahead.  It is, however, a Talking Point.

We can argue back and forth all day about whether or not we should have invaded Iraq.  Any point you or I could make is moot.

Now, if you want to talk about rebuilding Iraq, or have suggestions concerning such, I'm all ears.

Personally, though the sacrifices made in Iraq have been great, IMO, our lasting success will be a democracy left in place of what was an evil and oppressive regime.  Not only can the cause of freedom become infectious throughout the Middle East, to have fanned the flame will not only have created a US ally in a hostile environment, but by doing such will have further stricken a blow to the evil ideology which spreads like cancer under tyrannical government.

would you be willing to give for inspections?

There comes a time when one wakes up and smells the coffee.

Or, in the case of Saddam, the stench of corruption, murder and complete disregard of UN resolutions.

in Iraq has been a waste of lives and treasure. With this new constitution we have really created 3 new states. In the north is a Kurdish State that really has been in existence since the first Gulf war. In the south we will have a state linked with Iran and ruled by Shia law and a theocracy. The women there are very happy about our work in restoring their freedom. Now they will be able to choose the color of the Burka they will be forced to wear. In the middle we have a state of Sunni's who are really pissed by their loss of privilege and oil revenues. Only in the Kurdish north will there be anything resembling a democracy and that has been in existence for 13 years which makes the Turks nervous. Do not be surprised if the Turks move in. What have we accomplished and at what cost? I do not know but it is sure not democracy in any since that we know it. My Answer? Give them a year, train as many troops as we can and get out.

candy bar laden with arsenic?

The point is that at the time we had the deal in place to make sure he would not be a security threat for the near future. We have spent 200-300 billion dollars so that he will not be one in the far future? We spend that money so the southern part of Iraq will be a theocracy like Iran which is a sure security threat? Have you noticed that Iran and North Korea are thumbing their nose at us? Is it possible that this Iraq adventure not only cost us treasure and lives but has made us weaker and less able to deal with the security threats around us?

We agree they exist.

Compared to the 200 year history of our government and our ever-present 'kinks', patience is in order regarding the new Iraqi government.  Progress takes time.  Would you rather the future travel of Iraqis be on the road of tyrany?

From what I understand, there is serious consideration of initiating troop withdrawal beginning early next year.

enjoyed the discussion. Take care

you speak of wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.  More than a dozen UN resolutions, and yet you still maintain a white-knuckled grip that just one more resolution might have worked.

The inspectors would have found out that he was not a security threat to the United States. I could not care less about U.N. resolutions on the subject. I only want to go to war against people who are a security threat to the United States of America. We had the system in place to keep Saddam from being one. If it came to pass that he was in the process of becoming one then I would have had no problem going after him. It seems to me that in 2003 he was not a security threat that needed to be invaded.

kyle wrote:

    (1) We suspected Saddam had WMD, everyone else did too.

Actually, this was mainly a PR view marketed by the OSP and WHIG. On the UN Security Council, China, Russia, and France did not share this view. In NATO neither did Germany or Belgium. Certainly, the "yellowcake" and "aluminum tubes" had been decisively debunked, including by the UN IAEI's ElBaradei  before the invasion took place. I suspect we went to war when we did with the army we had precisely because the much of the evidence was proving to be false.

Just today the Boston Globe stated that former United Nations chief weapons inspector Blix spoke at Tufts University alleging the "US misled the world"on WMD, w/o stating whether it was deliberate.

Of course we felt he might still have anthrax,  Clostridium botulinum, Histoplasma capsulatum, Brucella melitensis, and Clostridium perfringens since the US sold these to Iraq in the first place. As Jay Leno stated, "we still had the receipts." See, eg,    Senator Riele's Report to Congress

    (2) but we didn't KNOW, cause he kicked out the inspectors.

Only after we passed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 [(Public Law 105-338], stating that we intended to depose Saddam. The inspectors were ordered out the same day Clinton signed the bill-

October 31, 1998.

    (3) considering his history this was a situation which could not stand, so.

    (4) we went to war precisely because we did not KNOW if he had them or not.

Not really. This has always been about control of oil and the ME. Even Pentagon papers from before the invasion stated that Iraq posed no military threat, a view shared by Iraq's neigbors.

    (5) your stuck on stupid.

I assume you mean "you're".  

It is not clear to me why you seem driven to judge intelligence, or what your qualifications to do so might be.

as a basis for an argument

Despite being the catalyst for much of the activity of the past week, Mr Kay has focused on the failings of intelligence-gathering rather than the failings of the Bush administration, which he says was misled by the spies. He said intelligence analysts in the US, France, Germany and elsewhere had all believed Saddam had WMD stockpiles.

or

David Kay appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee shortly after he resigned as special advisor to the Iraq Survey Group. Kay states, referring to the expectation that there would be substantial stocks of, and production lines for, chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, that "we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here." He also notes that other foreign intelligence agencies, including the French and the German, also had believed that Iraq possessed such stocks and production lines.

and

US analysts were not alone in these views. In the late spring of 2002 I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly 20 former inspectors from the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM), established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did.

Other nations' intelligence services were similarly aligned with US views. Somewhat remarkably, given how adamantly Germany would oppose the war, the German Federal Intelligence Service held the bleakest view of all, arguing that Iraq might be able to build a nuclear weapon within three years. Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France held positions similar to that of the US; Jacques Chirac told Time magazine last February: "There is a problem - the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq." No one doubted that Iraq had WMD.

and as a bonus you draw your first and only warning for trolling. We simply are not going to re-argue the historical record with you.

isn't everything.

25 million free Iraqis is plenty worth it. Fact.

It never ceases to amaze me how you guys, "peacenics" among them, are so much in favor of consign foreigners to slavery rather than doinh the right thing.

Now they have been reduced to doing This

That is Extremely insulting to the members of the Armed Forces.  I find it simply amazing that you can get away with such critiques of the people who protect the freedoms you so righteously enjoy every waking day on a website suposedly dedicated to the support of said men and women.

My life may be on the line for your right to spit on my uniform, but I'm going to employ my own right to respond in kind.

Took us from WWI to WWII.  You defeat a nation in war and bankrupt it with "reparations" and all you accomplish is setting up another war.

Defeat a nation in war and Rebuild them, however, and you get...

...Japan, Germany, Italy, South Korea...

Could it be that because ANY violation of the UCMJ and Code of Conduct by members of the military is a Serious Issue?

1 violation, especially one like Abu Graib, represents a terrible breakdown in military discipline and the Chain of Command.  1 Violation is too many.

Is it a objective of the military to maintain a large scale police force?  Very expensive, and questionable usefulness.  Unless of course we plan on taking over the world!  Bwhaahhhahaaahahah...  You can note from history, the Roman legions were both militarily effective and a mobile police force.  Well, its like a toned down martial law.  And Hitler was good at effective military police, of course they just shot any criminal, but it worked for a while.  

So I would question the whole premise of the military having much to do with police.  But it might be interesting to have a strategic rapid deployment force of people who could train police.  Oh, wait, thats special forces, so the real question is why don't we have more SF?  Uh oh, now were talking politics...

"Is it a objective of the military to maintain a large scale police force?"  Historically, it hasn't been.

"Very expensive, and questionable usefulness. "  Does that remind you of anywhere? Say, somewhere around the Tigris & Euphrates?

"Roman legions were both militarily effective and a mobile police force.  Well, its like a toned down martial law."  Well, we're a little removed from that era.

"Hitler was good at effective military police, of course they just shot any criminal, but it worked for a while.  "  Well....ummm....ah, ok:  the SA were more of a militarized police force than a military used for policing.  The SA didn't fight externally; they maintained order internally.  Let's NOT go there, ok? :)

"So I would question the whole premise of the military having much to do with police."  As do many Americans in the current occupation; oh, no, it's not technically an "occupation," what are they calling it now?  "Strategic partnership with a fledgling democracy?"  Regardless, our military wasn't DESIGNED or EQUIPPED or TRAINED to do THAT job.