Drill Baby Drill

Iggy:

I agree with you that the war is sadly for questionable reasons.

But there is a difference between being ignorant and mis-informed and suggesting that the war was "100% crafted"

I don't think you (of all people) want to give GWB enough credit for being smart enough to craft something like that.

The war was initiated on faulty intel. There were good reasons which a lot of people with inner knowledge (like Congress, and Colin Powell) agreed on.

Unfortunately, they were wrong, because the information they had to work with was wrong.

But that does not make the decision wrong. Given the information they had at the time, the decision was right. It's sad to see leaders who participated in the decision now reversing their decisions and trying to blame someone.

I used to work for Habitat for Humanity. We were building a blitz build- 30 houses in 1 week. These projects take a lot of planning, and a lot of materials need to be purchased and warehoused in advance. There was a huge increase going on in the price of wood, and we asked all the contacts we had in the industry for the best info we could get to make a good decision about when to buy the 30,000 studs we would need. It looked like the prices were going to continue to spike, and we made the decision to buy the wood 4 months in advance. Unfortunately, by the time we built the project, stud prices had DROPPED by over $1 per. We could have bought them for $30,000 less. That's too bad. But the DECISION was a good one. We used the info we had available, asked all the right questions, put the effort into learning what we could, and made the best decision we could with the information we had available. We were wrong, but we made a good decision.

Crafting a war would be treasonous. There is plenty enough political motivation to make a charge of treason stick if there were any truth to it. The charge that the war was fabricated is, well, fabricated.

They were wrong, but the decision was not.

ignorant wrote:

Jensenman wrote: The best thing we can do in their support is see the mission through to the end.

I don't disagree with you... I don't disagree with anything you wrote and I support the troops 100%. I just shipped off my old cell phones to http://www.cellphonesforsoldiers.com/ instead of selling them on Ebay. I get upity when people think.. "ZOMG he's a liberal he doesn't support the military" What I do disagree with is the pretense for the war and anyone who tries to defend that pretense. There is no basis for it... None! Anyone who calls me ignorant on the subject, quite frankly should do some reading. This war was 100% crafted. If you believe otherwise, you really need your head examined. btw.. noone has still answered my question... Why did we go to war there? (well except for Shaun and I agree with him). Comeone you smart people.. Give me the reasons? Or are they illusive like trailers that are used to make chemical weapons...

Of course you know why. Saddam Hussein did his level best to convince the planet that he was building WMDs. In response to that, the UN sent inspectors. He kicked them out. As usual with the UN, they fell all over themselves trying to be 'civilized' about the thing (ha!) and finally Shrub got pissed enough to offer to straighten his ass out. Some of the UN's higher class members (sarcasm) saw yet another chance to beard the Great Satan and went for it. The US Congress ratified his decision to go to war (remember, the President CANNOT declare war; only Congress can do that) and there ya go.

Once 'in country', the evidence either 1) had never existed or 2) had been removed and/or destroyed. Remember that WMDs include such things as gas warfare (which Saddam had used against the Kurds, thus proving he had that at least) or germ warfare, the production of which can pretty easily be rolled up and disposed of leaving no trace. The CSM even agrees with that assessment. http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1020/p08s03-cojh.html

Of course, the intel could have been interpreted different ways. Put yourself in Shrub's shoes: what if he had chosen a different interpretation of the intel and there had been an attack on US soil which he could have prevented? It ain't exactly Hobson's choice, ya know.

Shaun wrote:

oldsaw wrote: the decision was made by people who had a lot more intel than yourself.

That is where it falls apart. I have read far too much from former intelligence community officers, or reporters with intelligence community connections that state that Cheney, Rumfield, Pearl, .. all the neo con jackasses invented, twisted, or used unreliable intel to suit their goal of war in Iraq, now, no matter what. These intelligence professionals were and are not "liberals", they, for the most part are highly patriotic Republican hawks who rightly feared the direction the administration was taking the country. It was so bad Cheney would find authors of individual intelligence briefings that he disagreed with track them down and personally bully them into the changes he wanted to see. Obviously the civilian leadership should not do that to intelligence officers who are sworn to unbiased assessments. It is a massive breach of any notion of good governance. This is an article from 2003 when people were terrified of Cheney. Even though, the author had no trouble finding intelligence community people willing to talk about their concerns with Cheney's manipulation of intelligence. As these folks retire and continue writing books, Cheney and the neo cons are going to be further exposed as idealougs bent on their vision no matter what the reality. http://www.newsweek.com/id/60579/page/1 It was a sad chapter in this nations history. The neo cons used 9-11 as the opportunity to launch their preconceived democratization of the middle east program, which was a nice theory, but did not match the national interest, or- based on result, our level of preparedness. Again, I give W a great deal of credit for firing these guys, moving away from Cheney, hiring Gates, moving back to the "realpolitik" of his Dad (who was an Excellent President, perhaps the best of the modern era) and Nixon, and sending more troops to Iraq, which I fully supported then. His first term was a disaster, this stuff needs to be acknowledged. As the old saying goes "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it". Here is a article that goes very easy on the neo cons, but it describes their history and ideology. It was published in the New Republic. http://www.tnr.com/article/identity-crisis-0?page=0,0 "The New Republic (TNR) is an American magazine of politics and the arts. It is published semimonthly and has a circulation of approximately 50,000. The editor-in-chief is Martin Peretz and the current editor is Franklin Foer. The magazine generally supports liberal social and social democratic economic policies, while otherwise taking a hawkish viewpoint on foreign policy, particularly with regard to Israel" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Republic

Both are interesting articles, but I simply don't reach the same conclusions when it comes to demonizing Cheney or the "neocons".

I do believe that the poor execution of policy (after initial military operations) and turn-coat political foes did irreperable damage in successfully conducting the war.

On some things we agree and on others disagree.

oldsaw wrote:

Shaun wrote:

oldsaw wrote: the decision was made by people who had a lot more intel than yourself.

That is where it falls apart. I have read far too much from former intelligence community officers, or reporters with intelligence community connections that state that Cheney, Rumfield, Pearl, .. all the neo con jackasses invented, twisted, or used unreliable intel to suit their goal of war in Iraq, now, no matter what. These intelligence professionals were and are not "liberals", they, for the most part are highly patriotic Republican hawks who rightly feared the direction the administration was taking the country. It was so bad Cheney would find authors of individual intelligence briefings that he disagreed with track them down and personally bully them into the changes he wanted to see. Obviously the civilian leadership should not do that to intelligence officers who are sworn to unbiased assessments. It is a massive breach of any notion of good governance. This is an article from 2003 when people were terrified of Cheney. Even though, the author had no trouble finding intelligence community people willing to talk about their concerns with Cheney's manipulation of intelligence. As these folks retire and continue writing books, Cheney and the neo cons are going to be further exposed as idealougs bent on their vision no matter what the reality. http://www.newsweek.com/id/60579/page/1 It was a sad chapter in this nations history. The neo cons used 9-11 as the opportunity to launch their preconceived democratization of the middle east program, which was a nice theory, but did not match the national interest, or- based on result, our level of preparedness. Again, I give W a great deal of credit for firing these guys, moving away from Cheney, hiring Gates, moving back to the "realpolitik" of his Dad (who was an Excellent President, perhaps the best of the modern era) and Nixon, and sending more troops to Iraq, which I fully supported then. His first term was a disaster, this stuff needs to be acknowledged. As the old saying goes "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it". Here is a article that goes very easy on the neo cons, but it describes their history and ideology. It was published in the New Republic. http://www.tnr.com/article/identity-crisis-0?page=0,0 "The New Republic (TNR) is an American magazine of politics and the arts. It is published semimonthly and has a circulation of approximately 50,000. The editor-in-chief is Martin Peretz and the current editor is Franklin Foer. The magazine generally supports liberal social and social democratic economic policies, while otherwise taking a hawkish viewpoint on foreign policy, particularly with regard to Israel" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Republic

Both are interesting articles, but I simply don't reach the same conclusions when it comes to demonizing Cheney or the "neocons". I do believe that the poor execution of policy (after initial military operations) and turn-coat political foes did irreperable damage in successfully conducting the war. On some things we agree and on others disagree.

Fair enough. I am quite happily to demonize Cheney and the neocons who were a disaster for this country, and maintain that there was no policy to poorly execute after the initial military operations which were deeply flawed because there were not enough troops to secure anything, and I am going to agree with Republican and former senator Chuck Hagel:

"Nebraska Republican U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel, who has been critical of the Bush Administration's adoption of neoconservative ideology in his book America: Our Next Chapter, writes, "So why did we invade Iraq? I believe it was the triumph of the so-called neo-conservative ideology, as well as Bush administration arrogance and incompetence that took America into this war of choice ... They obviously made a convincing case to a president with very limited national security and foreign policy experience, who keenly felt the burden of leading the nation in the wake of the deadliest terrorist attack ever on American so"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Shaun wrote: They obviously made a convincing case to a president with very limited national security and foreign policy experience, who keenly felt the burden of leading the nation in the wake of the deadliest terrorist attack ever on American soil

If that is the case, we better hope like hell THIS prez never gets to make that kind of decision.