Contributors

  • John Morgan
    Blog Owner
  • Kirk Wentzel
    Contributor
  • Peter Bonny Jr.
    Contributor
  • Michael P
    Contributor

Blog Ads


  • To advertise on this blog please contact the owner through the "Email Me" link.
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 09/2006
Recently on this blog
Recently on other blogs

« Retirement Bliss | Main | More Campaign Videos »

April 05, 2008

Comments

Rick

Please check out this Responsible Plan to end the War in Iraq. No hedging and no conditions.

http://responsibleplan.com/plan

John Morgan

I received a copy of it from Sam Bennett's campaign manager this week but have yet to peruse it. Someone slashed my tires this week so I've been tied up getting new ones today.

Dave M.

""No one has yet explained to my satisfaction why we invaded the country. I think voters are owed an explanation when Petraeus reports to Congress. Is it not time the country received an honorable answer to this question?""

Well, hopefully you can open your mind, get rid of any pre-conceived bias against Bush, and consider these facts...

Saddam violated 17 UN resolutions, culminating in resolution 1441, as well as 689 and 678. He routinely shot at our planes in the no-fly zone. He paid $25K to the family of each Palestinian suicide bomber. There have been over 300 mass graves discovered. His version of torture made waterboarding look like squirt gun fight. He had a terrorist training facility called Salman Pak in the suburbs of Baghdad which was verified by the ISG and Gen. Brooks.

If there was ever a country that was similar to being run by Mafia gangsters, it was Iraq with Saddam and his sons and his henchman. Yet you have no problem with that? You would let them be? Face it, he was one of the worst mass murdering dictators of the 20th century. Technically, he never lived up to the terms of the cease-fire of the first Gulf War, so some have said that this war is a resumption of hostilities of the first Gulf War. That has some basis in fact since he never lived up to the numerous UN resolutions.

The WMD issue was a sideline angle when it got to the UN security council in order to get France and Russia to vote for military action. But we know now that France and Russia had large contracts with Saddam, thus they were tainted.

As for me, I fully support the war and still do. I think it was a brilliant move by Bush. It was a two for one deal. First, you got rid of a megalomaniacal mass murdering dictator, which then provides you with a Iraq battlefield (with flat terrain) in order to fight Al-Qaeda. Luring Al-Qaeda into Iraq is much better than doing it all in Afghanistan, because the mountainous terrain would be very conducive to many ambushes to our soldiers. especially from elevated mountainsides. This would be much worse than the IED's in Iraq.

The anti-war liberals have to be careful not to lose their "compassion" status. If they are not willing to free subjugated people in other countries like we did in WWII, then they risk being labeled as heartless to citizens of those other countries. In essence, what they are saying is that "I got my freedom, but I won't lift a finger to help you get yours".

MC

And John McCain and the media want to say he's strong on national security and foreign policy? Great to see such a fine blog paying attention to these critical issues. http://acropolisreview.com/2008/03/john-mccains-iraq-war-five-year.html

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/184135.php

Joyful Alternative

Have we captured bin Laden yet, Dave?

John Morgan

Osama Bin Forgotten???

Dave M.

John, if that is your only retort, then I guess I am the first person to explain the justification of this war to your satisfaction. Always glad to help! BTW, about Bin Laden...winning the war doesn't mean you have to kill the General.

John Morgan

There were no wmd's Dave and, according to Ray McGovern, who told GWB that, the president knew that before the invasion. It wasn't about imposing democracy at the barrel of our guns because that would make us no different from the Soviet Union, it wasn't because Saddam was a bad guy because then any other country could use that reasont o attack us because of George W. Bush, they say it wasn't about oil so why did we invade Iraq?

Iraq was no threat to us. In fact they were completely boxed in and had little military capability. They had no intercontinental ballistic missiles with which to attack us, they posed no imminent threat to our strategic national security. Thus this was was illegal under international law.

Citing UN resolutions which were forced through as reasons to try and justify war is disingenuous. Their whole intent was to force war. We are seizing Iraq's oil supplies, have imposed a puppet government based on a constitution written by our State Department and we are building permanent military bases there. For what again?

Peter Bonny, Jr.

Dave, give me a break. Bush lied about his reasons to go to war. The reasons why there was a war in the first place was to go after Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, then he never finished the job finding him or pursuing Al Queda in Afghanistan. Instead, we left NATO alone in the job and stopped listening to our Allies. We forgot about the War in Afghanistan, so much so that the Taliban was able to regroup, and we invaded Iraq for Weapons of Mass Destruction that DIDN'T EXIST. Bush even admitted that he lied and our troops died because of it- being shot or blown up by mortar rounds while in underfunded helmets and tanks. The ones that didn't die got left in the dust- they didn't get to go back to their families, got stop-lossed or didn't get decent healthcare for brain trauma or living quarters or disability from the VA, and even ended up living under bridges and on the streets. Bush allowed his cronies to go into Iraq with his henchmen mercenaries at Blackwater, and Dick Cheney's oil cronies at Haliburton got to reap up Iraq's oil while the Iraq people's women and children got slaughtered on the streets. While 4,000 troops die for Bush's lies, people like you anoint Czarist Bush for everything he does, even his war profiteering, and you hide behind your computer and praise our troops getting their brains blown over the streets from the ethnic cleansing going on over there- however you're not over there fighting to stay alive. Admit the truth, Bush cheated them from being able to come home to their families, and he lied to all about his real intention about going to war with Iraq, and now we need to fight to bring them home. You, on the other hand, like to hide behind your computer and wave your banner while people continue to die and praise our army and economy getting ripped to shreds.

Dave M.

John said..."There were no wmd's Dave and, according to Ray McGovern, who told GWB that, the president knew that before the invasion.""

McGovern is a partisan political loon. In a piece he co-authored with David MacMichael, McGovern accuses both Ronald Reagan (for supporting the Contras against the Sandinistas) and George H.W. Bush (for going to war in Iraq in 1991) of misusing or manufacturing intelligence. McGovern has called for President George W. Bush's impeachment'

So, all the intelligence agencies in the world were wrong and yet it is all and only George Bush's fault. And all Republican presidents manufacture evidence, but no Democrats. Please, give me a break.

""It wasn't about imposing democracy at the barrel of our guns because that would make us no different from the Soviet Union,""

When did the Soviet Union impose democracy?

""It wasn't because Saddam was a bad guy because then any other country could use that reason to attack us because of George W. Bush,""

Oh come on, this statement is ridiculous. Moral equivalency doesn't work here.

""They say it wasn't about oil so why did we invade Iraq?""

I just said why in the above post. Numerous and flagrant reasons. Can't you realize how bad Saddam was?

""Iraq was no threat to us. In fact they were completely boxed in and had little military capability. They had no intercontinental ballistic missiles with which to attack us, they posed no imminent threat to our strategic national security. Thus this was was illegal under international law.""

You are ignoring all the UN resolutions. BTW, Germany never really attacked us in WWII, so WWII was illegal too? We have no moral obligation to help fellow human beings being subjugated by a dictatorial maniac? Where is your compassion, man!

""Citing UN resolutions which were forced through as reasons to try and justify war is disingenuous. Their whole intent was to force war.""

Not disingenious at all. You just don't like the facts because they don't agree with your pre-conceived notions. UN resolutions were forced through over 10 years? That's how long the patience of the UN and the US was. The intent was clear, if Saddam wouldn't comply, then there would be military consequences. That's what the UN is supposed to be for.

""We are seizing Iraq's oil supplies, have imposed a puppet government based on a constitution written by our State Department and we are building permanent military bases there. For what again?""

If we seized the oil, why isn't it helping gas prices here? If we installed a puppet government, why did all those Iraqi's have those blue fingers? And clearly we need a base in the Middle East, with all the religious fanatice over there.

John Morgan

If McGovern is a partisan political loon why was he tasked with personally giving George W. Bush his daily CIA briefing? Perhaps he was made a political partisan because he saw the President lying about going to war based on lies.

Dave M.

""Dave, give me a break. Bush lied about his reasons to go to war.""

Not true. Congress voted for it. Surely they didn't rely solely on Bush's word. Come on. Your Bush bashing is getting illogical. Probably your Senator voted for war too. The Senate has an intelligence committee too. And many of the other countries intelligence agencies said the same thing. Face it, Saddam was a brutal dictator and the patience of the international community ran out after many years of playing cat and mouse with the inspections, then refusing inspectors, and all the other reasons I stated in the above post. You anti-war types have to stop coddling dictators. Obama wants to invade Pakistan and you have little problem with that. You'll probably still vote for him.

""The reasons why there was a war in the first place was to go after Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan,""

No, that was the other theatre with different reasons for going there.

""We forgot about the War in Afghanistan, so much so that the Taliban was able to regroup, ""

Not doing too good a job, people are building shopping malls in Kabul!

""and we invaded Iraq for Weapons of Mass Destruction that DIDN'T EXIST. ""

No, that's not the main reason. You have to do more due diligence on this. But, even if it was the main reason, arn't you guilty of Monday morning quarterbacking? Love that hindsight! I will spare you the agony of reading the quotes of all your favorite Democrat politicans who were convinced that Saddam had nukes, some well before Bush was President.

""Bush even admitted that he lied""

Please provide evidence for this claim.

"and our troops died because of it- being shot or blown up by mortar rounds while in underfunded helmets and tanks.""

War is a dirty business. Always brought on by brutal megalomaniacal dictators. Soldiers die in war. Freedom is very expensive to protect.

""The ones that didn't die got left in the dust- they didn't get to go back to their families, got stop-lossed or didn't get decent healthcare for brain trauma or living quarters or disability from the VA, and even ended up living under bridges and on the streets.""

That's government health care for you. Conditions at Walter Reed Army Hospital is a preview of government health care brought on by Hillary and Obama. Yet you will vote for these people?

""Bush allowed his cronies to go into Iraq with his henchmen mercenaries at Blackwater, and Dick Cheney's oil cronies at Haliburton got to reap up Iraq's oil while the Iraq people's women and children got slaughtered on the streets.""

Now you're getting a little loony, so I won't respond to this illogical propaganda.

""While 4,000 troops die for Bush's lies, people like you anoint Czarist Bush for everything he does, even his war profiteering, and you hide behind your computer and praise our troops getting their brains blown over the streets from the ethnic cleansing going on over there- however you're not over there fighting to stay alive.""

Here come the "Bush lies" again. It's amusing, you like to say that Bush is really dumb and an imbecile, yet you say that he is able to geniously manipulate Blackwater, Haliburton, personal war profiteering, etc. The sad thing is that people like yourself won't take up arms until the enemy is right at your front door and it is too late to defend what you have. Will you readily submit to having your wife/girlfriend wear the burka? Will you fight then, finally?

""Admit the truth, Bush cheated them from being able to come home to their families, and he lied to all about his real intention about going to war with Iraq, and now we need to fight to bring them home. ""

Bush cheated, Bush lied, Bush is worse than Saddam, etc. You keep repeating yourself, yet it is not based in fact. Do you really want to let dictators have free reign? Jimmy Carter did that and it was a disaster. Communist/Marxist states were popping up everywhere. Come on, stop believing the propaganda and start examining facts. Your Democrat Congress can bring the troops home, yet they won't defund the war. Why?

""You, on the other hand, like to hide behind your computer and wave your banner while people continue to die and praise our army and economy getting ripped to shreds""

In war, some soldiers die. That's the reality throughout history. Brutal dictators keep us from abolishing war because they know no diplomacy. Another reality is that freedom is worth fighting for, all across the globe. Stop being so selfish and start helping out your fellow man who is in trouble in other countries with hundreds of mass graves and a brutal mass murdering dictator.

Dave M.

""Dave, give me a break. Bush lied about his reasons to go to war.""

Not true. Congress voted for it. Surely they didn't rely solely on Bush's word. Come on. Your Bush bashing is getting illogical. Probably your Senator voted for war too. The Senate has an intelligence committee too. And many of the other countries intelligence agencies said the same thing. Face it, Saddam was a brutal dictator and the patience of the international community ran out after many years of playing cat and mouse with the inspections, then refusing inspectors, and all the other reasons I stated in the above post. You anti-war types have to stop coddling dictators. Obama wants to invade Pakistan and you have little problem with that. You'll probably still vote for him.

""The reasons why there was a war in the first place was to go after Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan,""

No, that was the other theatre with different reasons for going there.

""We forgot about the War in Afghanistan, so much so that the Taliban was able to regroup, ""

Not doing too good a job, people are building shopping malls in Kabul!

""and we invaded Iraq for Weapons of Mass Destruction that DIDN'T EXIST. ""

No, that's not the main reason. You have to do more due diligence on this. But, even if it was the main reason, arn't you guilty of Monday morning quarterbacking? Love that hindsight! I will spare you the agony of reading the quotes of all your favorite Democrat politicans who were convinced that Saddam had nukes, some well before Bush was President.

""Bush even admitted that he lied""

Please provide evidence for this claim.

"and our troops died because of it- being shot or blown up by mortar rounds while in underfunded helmets and tanks.""

War is a dirty business. Always brought on by brutal megalomaniacal dictators. Soldiers die in war. Freedom is very expensive to protect.

""The ones that didn't die got left in the dust- they didn't get to go back to their families, got stop-lossed or didn't get decent healthcare for brain trauma or living quarters or disability from the VA, and even ended up living under bridges and on the streets.""

That's government health care for you. Conditions at Walter Reed Army Hospital is a preview of government health care brought on by Hillary and Obama. Yet you will vote for these people?

""Bush allowed his cronies to go into Iraq with his henchmen mercenaries at Blackwater, and Dick Cheney's oil cronies at Haliburton got to reap up Iraq's oil while the Iraq people's women and children got slaughtered on the streets.""

Now you're getting a little loony, so I won't respond to this illogical propaganda.

""While 4,000 troops die for Bush's lies, people like you anoint Czarist Bush for everything he does, even his war profiteering, and you hide behind your computer and praise our troops getting their brains blown over the streets from the ethnic cleansing going on over there- however you're not over there fighting to stay alive.""

Here come the "Bush lies" again. It's amusing, you like to say that Bush is really dumb and an imbecile, yet you say that he is able to geniously manipulate Blackwater, Haliburton, personal war profiteering, etc. The sad thing is that people like yourself won't take up arms until the enemy is right at your front door and it is too late to defend what you have. Will you readily submit to having your wife/girlfriend wear the burka? Will you fight then, finally?

""Admit the truth, Bush cheated them from being able to come home to their families, and he lied to all about his real intention about going to war with Iraq, and now we need to fight to bring them home. ""

Bush cheated, Bush lied, Bush is worse than Saddam, etc. You keep repeating yourself, yet it is not based in fact. Do you really want to let dictators have free reign? Jimmy Carter did that and it was a disaster. Communist/Marxist states were popping up everywhere. Come on, stop believing the propaganda and start examining facts. Your Democrat Congress can bring the troops home, yet they won't defund the war. Why?

""You, on the other hand, like to hide behind your computer and wave your banner while people continue to die and praise our army and economy getting ripped to shreds""

In war, some soldiers die. That's the reality throughout history. Brutal dictators keep us from abolishing war because they know no diplomacy. Another reality is that freedom is worth fighting for, all across the globe. Stop being so selfish and start helping out your fellow man who is in trouble in other countries with hundreds of mass graves and a brutal mass murdering dictator.

John Morgan

"Congress voted for it. Surely they didn't rely solely on Bush's word." Funny, every Congressman I've spoken to said they did. This was, in fact, their basis for voting for the AUMF.

Dave M.

John said.."If McGovern is a partisan political loon why was he tasked with personally giving George W. Bush his daily CIA briefing? Perhaps he was made a political partisan because he saw the President lying about going to war based on lies.""

Got loony later. If Bush was lying, so was practically everyone else in Washingtonand also many international intelligence agencies. It was accepted everywhere that Saddamm had WMD's. The quotes from Democrat politicians, including Bill Clinton are numerous that Saddam was a real bad guy and had WMD's. In fact, we now know from his prison handlers (interviewed George Piro, FBI agent recently on CBS 60 minutes) that we was readily going to reconstitute nukes as soon as he got a chance. There's your main reason for the Iraq war right there. See, I can do Monday morning quarterbacking too! LOL

John Morgan

Now you're at conflict with the facts once again. We know from the UN weapons inspectors that Saddam had destroyed and dismantled his wmd programs. In fact the UN weapons inspectors told us that before Bush invaded Iraq. We also know Bush used the UN inspectors to spy on Iraq and Saddam which is why they were evicted from the country. Bush then used this as a pretense to got o war. Nothing like being so dishonest you create a false case for war by violating the law and the agreements which allowed these inspectors into Iraq.

Bush knew from both the CIA and the Un that no wmd's existed in Iraq yet he and his team continuously used these fear tactics to beat the drums for war. So much so that Rice and Cheney both raised the specter of an Iraqi nuclear attack on an American city as even you admit wasn't possible.

International law does NOT allow a country to invade another based on some vague suspicion that, sometime in the future, that country might pose a threat. There'd be nothing but war if that were the case and this would justify any country on earth to attack and invade us now since we're seen as being the single biggest threat to world peace.

Dave M.

""Now you're at conflict with the facts once again. We know from the UN weapons inspectors that Saddam had destroyed and dismantled his wmd programs. In fact the UN weapons inspectors told us that before Bush invaded Iraq.""

No, not true. Inspectors were never sure of that at the time. Saddam wouldn't let them in on numerous occasions. UN resolutions said to come clean. Saddam wouldn't.

""We also know Bush used the UN inspectors to spy on Iraq and Saddam which is why they were evicted from the country.""

Oh come now. Inspectors are supposed to spy! In fact, the inspectors never had surprise inspections, their movements were always telegraphed ahead of time.

""Bush then used this as a pretense to got to war. Nothing like being so dishonest you create a false case for war by violating the law and the agreements which allowed these inspectors into Iraq.""

Not true. Enforcing all the UN resolutions was the reason. You should know that. As I said, the WMD angle was used for the security council. If you recall, at the council, France wanted to try and increase the inspectors (to protect their contracts), before invading. US and others said, no, we're tired of the cat and mouse game and time is up. 10 years of patience has worn out.

""Bush knew from both the CIA and the Un that no wmd's existed in Iraq yet he and his team continuously used these fear tactics to beat the drums for war.""

Not true either. Gee, I thought George Tenet (Clinton appointee) said it was a "slam dunk" that Iraq had WMD's. Clinton's fault, huh?

""International law does NOT allow a country to invade another based on some vague suspicion that, sometime in the future, that country might pose a threat.""

But it does allow them to invade to enforce resolutions and stop genocide. Bill Clinton has said his biggest regret as president was not invading Rwanda to stop the genocide.

""since we're seen as being the single biggest threat to world peace.""

Wow! Amazing. Can I question your patriotism now? Gee, I thought we have done very well in the last 100 years in liberating millions of people from mass murdering dictators. I'm curious, tell me, what would it take for you to justify a war in your mind? If there was a dictator who was slaughtering his people, how many have to be slaughtered before you would take arms and defend them and defeat the dictator? One million? Two? Five?

John Morgan

Numerous polls have indicated the world's population sees us as the biggest threat to world peace. The rest are all facts based on Scott Ritter's personal experience. He was the head of the UN weapons inspectors program. No, these inspectors were not supposed to spy for the U.S. government. Your are completely wrong on the facts.

As for genocide, why did we then tolerate the cleansing of Baghdad?

Dave M.

Dave said..""Congress voted for it. Surely they didn't rely solely on Bush's word."

John said..""Funny, every Congressman I've spoken to said they did. This was, in fact, their basis for voting for the AUMF.""

This is amazing. So the Congressmen you spoke to ignored the CIA, NSA and relied on Bush instead? Wouldn't it be logical for them to read intelligence reports from the CIA and NSA and not from a fellow politican like Bush? Surely that's what they did and you are incorrect. Your story doesn't make sense or the politicians you spoke to are idiots. But, I wouldn't want to get in the way of more illogical Bush bashing, when in reality it was a Democrat appointee (George Tenet) who is at fault.

""As for genocide, why did we then tolerate the cleansing of Baghdad.""

Not true either. We never stood by and let it happen. Baghdad has 5 million people, our soldiers can't be in all places at all times. Sunnis and Shia have old scores to settle, especially since Saddam's Sunnis killed and tortured so many Shia over the years. Here's some news sources that refute your claim. None have mentioned US Army indifference. Shame on you for insulting our armed forces.

Time magazine

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1550441,00.html

LA Times

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/081307K.shtml

First hand account.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-is-disintegrating-as-ethnic-cleansing-takes-hold-478937.html

John Morgan

We aren't very happy with the Congressmen and Senators who relied on Bush's word. Of course, why should they read the entire NIE when Bush didn't either?

Dave M.

""We aren't very happy with the Congressmen and Senators who relied on Bush's word. Of course, why should they read the entire NIE when Bush didn't either?""

Oh..My..God..This takes illogical Bush bashing to a new level. NIE?
You actually mention the NIE? Well, sir you havn't read the NIE and are a victim of propaganda. Here's the 2002 NIE synopsis...Link provided below...
---------------
In the 2002 NIE, however, the IC made new statements about Iraq's CW program, shifting some judgments in significant respects and eliminating some of the uncertainties regarding Iraq's chemical programs that had been expressed in previous assessments. The 2002 NIE said that, "Baghdad has chemical . . . weapons" and "we assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosarin), and VX." As in previous assessments, the IC continued to note that there was little specific information on Iraq's CW stockpile, but it increased its assessment of its size, noting that, "Although we have little specific information on Iraq's CW stockpile, Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons and possibly as much as 500 metric tons of CW agents - much of it added in the last year."

(U) Because the 2002 NIE encompassed all of the intelligence in the previous assessments and because of the notable shifts in assessment between that estimate and all previous assessments of Iraq's CW programs, the Committee focused its review on the intelligence supporting the NIE and the assessments that led the IC to conclude that Iraq had chemical weapons. The Committee examined all of the intelligence provided by the IC underlying each of the assessments made in the NIE and focused particular attention on those assessments which changed between the 2000 ICA and 2002 NIE. Committee staff interviewed analysts from each all source analysis agency involved in the chemical section of the NIE including CIA, DIA, and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) to hear each agency's views of Iraq's chemical program and to understand how and why each analyst's assessments of the intelligence evolved over time.

(U) All intelligence agencies agreed with the assessments in the CW section of the NIE and there were no dissents or footnotes in this section. The discussion below outlines the intelligence supporting the assessments in the CW section of the NIE. Those assessments included:

Baghdad has chemical weapons.


We judge that Iraq is expanding its chemical industry primarily to support chemical weapons production.


We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosarin), and VX.


Although we have little specific information on Iraq's CW stockpile, Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons and possibly as much as 500 metric tons of chemical warfare agents much of it added in the last year.


The Iraqis have experience in manufacturing chemical bombs, artillery rockets, and projectiles.


Baghdad probably is hiding small scale agent production within legitimate research laboratories.


Baghdad has procured covertly the types and quantities of chemicals and equipment sufficient to allow limited CW production hidden within Iraq's legitimate chemical industry.
-------------------------

Link is...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter5.htm

John, John, John, you must stop this ridiculous Bush bashing, you are embarassing yourself. As always, I am glad to introduce actual facts into this discussion.


John Morgan

This is according to Bob Woodward. Are you questioning his integrity? Bush and his White House gave him full access for those books. If you'd like my sources (Scott Ritter and Ray McGovern) you can read their statements at my original blog archives where I covered their speeches.

Scott Ritter actually ran the weapons inspection teams and Ray McGovern actually gave Bush the CIA briefing and was told by his aides "we know he doesn't have wmd's, you don't understand, this isn't about wmd's any more it's about regime change."

Bob Woodward reported that Bush only read the NIE summary.

John Morgan

Do I believe Dave M who no one even knows who he is or do I believe two men who were actually THERE?

Then there's Sidney Blumenthal's article here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/

It's interesting how everything he writes turns out to be true.
Bush relied on the fake intelligence manufactured by Cheney's renegade intel operation run by Doug Feith. It was all lies and fabrications so bad even Colin Powell has disowned them after they destroyed his reputation.

The comments to this entry are closed.