April 20, 2007
An Axis of Embarrassment: Saddam's WMD Bunkers Found?
Via Lucianne, just another crazed conspiracy theorist:
Mr Gaubatz verbally told the Iraq Study Group (ISG) of his findings, and asked them to come with heavy equipment to breach the concrete of the bunkers and uncover their sealed contents. But to his consternation, the ISG told him they didn’t have the manpower or equipment to do it and that it would be 'unsafe' to try.'The problem was that the ISG were concentrating their efforts in looking for WMD in northern Iraq and this was in the south,' says Mr Gaubatz. 'They were just swept up by reports of WMD in so many different locations. But we told them that if they didn't excavate these sites, others would.'
That, he says, is precisely what happened. He subsequently learnt from Iraqi, CIA and British intelligence that the WMD buried in the four sites were excavated by Iraqis and Syrians, with help from the Russians, and moved to Syria. The location in Syria of this material, he says, is also known to these intelligence agencies. The worst-case scenario has now come about. Saddam’s nuclear, biological and chemical material is in the hands of a rogue terrorist state — and one with close links to Iran.
When Mr Gaubatz returned to the US, he tried to bring all this to light. Two congressmen, Peter Hoekstra, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Curt Weldon, were keen to follow up his account. To his horror, however, when they tried to access his classified intelligence reports, they were told that all 60 of them — which, in the routine way, he had sent in 2003 to the computer clearing-house at a US airbase in Saudi Arabia — had mysteriously gone missing. These written reports had never even been seen by the ISG.
One theory is that they were inadvertently destroyed when the computer's database was accidentally erased in the subsequent US evacuation of the airbase. Mr Gaubatz, however, suspects dirty work at the crossroads. It is unlikely, he says, that no copies were made of his intelligence. And he says that all attempts by Messrs Hoekstra and Weldon to extract information from the Defence Department and CIA have been relentlessly stonewalled.
In 2005, the CIA held a belated inquiry into the disappearance of this intelligence. Only then did its agents visit the sites — to report that they had indeed been looted.
Hoekstra, the CIA, and now this nut Gaubatz... who is he, anyway?
The problem the US authorities have is that they can't dismiss Mr Gaubatz as a rogue agent — because they have repeatedly decorated him for his work in the field. In 2003, he received awards for his 'courage and resolve in saving lives and being critical for information flow'. In 2001, he was decorated for being the 'lead agent in a classified investigation, arguably the most sensitive counter-intelligence investigation currently in the entire Department of Defence' and because his 'reports were such high quality, many were published in the Air Force's daily threat product for senior USAF leaders or re-transmitted at the national level to all security agencies in US government'.
What a loon. No credibility at all.
And he poses an interesting delimma, if correct:
The Republicans won't touch this because it would reveal the incompetence of the Bush administration in failing to neutralise the danger of Iraqi WMD. The Democrats won't touch it because it would show President Bush was right to invade Iraq in the first place. It is an axis of embarrassment.
Quite true.
Should this Gaubatz guy, ISG and DIA supervisor Ray Robinson and other decorated "nutters" be correct, then Dubya is shown to be even more incompetent than both Democrats and Republicans have ever dared fear, and yet, Democrats couldn't call him on it, because they would have to admit he was right to topple Saddam in the first place, and they might have to back up that fact by confronting Syria... probably with "important action alerts."
I don't understand the comments between the quotations. If you are genuinely trying to make fun of the proposition that Saddam had WMDs and moved them to Syria in the run up to the invasion, you are very badly mistaken. Iraqi Air Force General Georges Sada has said precisely that. Translated Saddam government documents indicate the same. Also, Saddam did have and used one form of WMD, nerve gas, against the Kurds, killing thousands, and Saddam intended to get more WMDs once he was clear of U.N. supervision, which he was attempting to do through the Oil-For-Food scandal. But for the left wing's constant carping that WMDs were not found, everyone would be assuming, as they should, that Saddam had WMDs and secreted them somewhere before the invasion. Syria is the most likely choice.
Posted by: Phil Byler at April 20, 2007 06:55 PMPhil Byler,
But for the left wing's constant carping that WMDs were not found
It's "carping" when one complains about the government spending 3,500 soldiers and half a trillion dollars on lies? You are a rare breed.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 20, 2007 11:58 PMbrando:
Do you intend to substantiate that, or was it cowardly sniping?
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 21, 2007 01:27 AMConfederate Yankee, I would concede that you're right on many accounts about the Second Amendment, and that during the 18th century, such a right did ensure the citizens' "capability to take [the US] back by force from a corrupt government, overthrowing it if necessary."
However, the United States Military, if at some point turned against its own citizens, would hardly find challenges while possessing infantry fighting vehicles, Apache helicopters, biological weapons, or nuclear weapons. The US military (currently operating on $419.3 Bil.) would overwhelm such a militia, easily. This was not the case back when the Second Amendment was being considered. How does this play within your argument and does this pose an interesting question to not only the topic stated but to the dangers of an overwhelming military budget more generally?
Posted by: Joel at April 21, 2007 03:33 AMMy apologies, the comment I gave above was intended for the, "Temporary Safety" post.
Posted by: Joel at April 21, 2007 03:37 AM"It's "carping" when one complains about the government spending 3,500 soldiers and half a trillion dollars on lies? You are a rare breed."
Lies that the majority of Democrats voted for? Lies that the majority of world leaders and intelligence agencies believed in?
Anyhow, there were many other reasons to depose Saddam, as laid out in the 2003 SOTU. I know lefties have an issue reading anything that might teach them something other then their narrow dogmatic view as put out by MoveOn and Kos, but give it a try, Lefties.
Posted by: William Teach at April 21, 2007 06:30 AMThe US military (currently operating on $419.3 Bil.) would overwhelm such a militia, easily.
There are more weapons available to the general populace than firearms/explosives. 5 minutes of thought might suggest a few to you...presuming you have enough neurons firing to be capable of thought.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 21, 2007 09:42 AMWilliam Teach:
The
Dem congressmen voting for it doesn't make it right. Anyway, the reason they did vote for it was that they were scared by this administration's repeated lies. Look at the Downing Street Memo. Look at how they promoted the Niger forgeries, and attacked Joe Wilson for doubting the Niger connection. Look at the other main source of intelligence your boys used, a known lunatic named Screwball. Look at how the inspectors found nothing but Bush pulled them anyway.
there were many other reasons to depose Saddam, as laid out in the 2003 SOTU.
If you think this war was a good idea you're raving. Retired General McPeak just said we couldn't win now if we had a million soldiers.
You're most likely going to go to your grave thinking that the Dems ruined your perfect war, when Bush received every single thing he requested for years. Iraq is steadily more of a mess and you dead enders complain that the Dems are spoiling it. What a a whining loser you are.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 21, 2007 09:52 AMDo you think the war could be won if half of the enemy were screaming "We need to pull out now!!" or "The jihad isn't worth fighting!!" or maybe "Impeach Osama Bin Laden!!".
I think all you Libs are whining pussies
You are all class.
It's your side that's whining. "You're not supporting the troops! You're not supporting the troops!" The troops want to come home. A Zogby polled showed that "just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay 'as long as they are needed'. SecDef Gates just told Maliki that the "clock is ticking". You and Bush are dead enders. Nobody else wants an open ended commitment. Our troops are trained for combat, not policing.
The Iraqis want us to leave, our troops want to leave. You've got nothing except your irrational love of military force. You're an anchor to your country and a loser.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 21, 2007 01:27 PMThe Iraqis want us to leave
Which of course the Anbar sheiks just formed a party that has as one of its goals to "to promote a better image of American-led forces "to the Iraqis here."
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 21, 2007 03:27 PMCmon Lex, we know you guys are the whiners, you just dont want to admit it. Nobody wants an open ended commitment. If the war truely was lost, then Id say bring them home. Do you think the troops in WW2 wanted to stay on a shitty piece of rock for a year and watch all their buddies die? I dont think so. Im pretty sure no soldier likes war. My friends who are in Iraq think they should stay, until they win, or things go to complete shit. Do they like being there? Hell no!
Id like you to answwer my question I asked previously.
Do you think the war could be won if half the enemy were screaming "We need to pull out now!!" or "The jihad isn't worth fighting!!" or maybe "Impeach Osama Bin Laden!!"?
I mean seriously I just want know what you think. My opinion is that when people scream like that, it makes you look weak to the enemy. And, more impotantly, it scares away potential allies. Please explain to me that im wrong.
HAH! I just saw a Dem in congress call a handgun a Weapon of Mass Distruction. Aparently invading Iraq was justified.
Posted by: Justin at April 21, 2007 05:08 PMMaybe that explains trips by top Democrats to Syria.
Posted by: crosspatch at April 21, 2007 06:58 PMDem congressmen voting for it doesn't make it right. Anyway, the reason they did vote for it was that they were scared by this administration's repeated lies.
What a joke. So LEx, are you really trying to tell us that all the speeches by the dems during the Clinton administration were due to lies from the Bush administration? Are you trying to tell us that Operation Desert Fox was a Bush administration operation? Do you really want us to believe that the problems with the Jihadis started when Bush took office? What are you smoking dude?
BTW - What's even funnier about the statement/sentiment I quoted at the top is this. You keep calling Bush stupid/incompetent. But by your reasoning, he was smart enough to outwit the Dimmie Brain Trust. That means, by your own admission, Bush is smarter than all of the DemoNcrats that voted for AUMF. Wow. Pretty stupid!
But - that's from someone like you Lex, that thinks that Hillary, and Howie "AAAAIIIIIYEEEEE" Dean are actually smart. The Dimmie brain trust at work. LOL.
Posted by: Specter at April 21, 2007 10:01 PMNobody wants an open ended commitment
Wrong. Bush has said this time and time again.
Im pretty sure no soldier likes war.
First of all, that's just wrong. Some men acquire a taste for killing other men, as Ernest Hemingway said.
If the troops want to come home, which you seem to allow, then how can we be supporting them by keeping them there for some indeterminate period?
Do you think the war could be won if half the enemy were screaming "We need to pull out now!!" or "The jihad isn't worth fighting!!" or maybe "Impeach Osama Bin Laden!!"?
You're conflating the war against jihad with the war in Iraq. Iraq was a secular nation under Saddam and had little to do with jihad. Al Qaeda is a Sunni group, whereas Iraq is mostly Shia. Bin Laden is a pious Sunni, whereas Saddam was a plain despot. As a result they naturally distrusted each other.
So what do you mean the war against jihad that we should be fighting, or the war against Iraq?
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 21, 2007 10:05 PMThey are the same thing Idyut. What - you think the jihadists have a specific country they hang out in? Learn a little from history.
Posted by: Specter at April 21, 2007 10:10 PMLex, your telling me there are no jihadists in Iraq? I know that doesnt fit your views but cmon man, open your eyes. You still didn't answer my question. I guess your answer must not fit too well with your insistance that Liberal whining has nothing to do with hurting our boys over there.
Posted by: Justin at April 21, 2007 11:04 PMDem congressmen voting for it doesn't make it right. Anyway, the reason they did vote for it was that they were scared by this administration's repeated lies.
Cmon Lex, lets go back a few years and see what a few of your buddies were saying:
"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
President Bill Clinton 1998
Wow clear evidence, and even before Bush was elected! Holy crap he was "scaring" Dems even before he got elected. Now thats amazing.
"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
Clinton again 2003
"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
No way that was said by Harry Reid 2002
Man, kinda looks to me that this was a justified war. Looks like the Dems are criminalizing Bush for doing what they though was right. Got anything to add Lexy boy?
My last post pretty much affirms that Libs are pussies.
Oh I got a few more too
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.
In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing."
John Kerry
"Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger 1998
"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."
Mad Albright 1998
What did Saddamn do with those weapons between Clinton and Bush? He threw them away? Sarindar maybe?
Posted by: Justin at April 21, 2007 11:20 PMHarry Reid's comment put every Iraqi and American death in Iraq squarely on his and the Dem's sodiers.
Someone somewhere will start tallying his toll and display it publicly.
Posted by: CoRev at April 22, 2007 08:26 AMSorry, should have been shoulders!
Posted by: CoRev at April 22, 2007 08:28 AMSpecter:
So LEx, are you really trying to tell us that all the speeches by the dems during the Clinton administration were due to lies from the Bush administration? Are you trying to tell us that Operation Desert Fox was a Bush administration operation? Do you really want us to believe that the problems with the Jihadis started when Bush took office?
I'm not saying any of those things.
BTW - What's even funnier about the statement/sentiment I quoted at the top is this. You keep calling Bush stupid/incompetent. But by your reasoning, he was smart enough to outwit the Dimmie Brain Trust. That means, by your own admission, Bush is smarter than all of the DemoNcrats that voted for AUMF. Wow. Pretty stupid!
I won't defend the Dems in congress. They screwed up when they voted for war. However I don't agree that Bush outsmarted them. He rode roughshod over them is more like it.
Specter:
They are the same thing Idyut. What - you think the jihadists have a specific country they hang out in?
I understand averages and use them correctly, so if I'm an idiot then you have a most severe handicap.
Iraq wasn't anywhere near the top of the list for jihad when we invaded. 11 of the 19 911 hijackers were Saudis. There are definitely jihad training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Iraq was a secular nation under Saddam. Sure there are jihadists there now, only because our troops are sitting ducks for them.
Be glad of the good news: America is mired in the swamps of the Tigris and Euphrates. Bush is, through Iraq and its oil, easy prey. Here is he now, thank God, in an embarassing situation and here is America today being ruined before the eyes of the whole world.
--Osama bin Laden, video message broadcast October 18, 2003
Nice job, guys. Iraq is such a ringing success that you want to attack Iran now too.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 22, 2007 02:02 PMJustin,
Lex, your telling me there are no jihadists in Iraq?
Sure there are now.
You still didn't answer my question.
Your question doesn't make any sense as I pointed out. You are grossly uninformed about the situation in Iraq.
Liberal whining has nothing to do with hurting our boys over there.
Our boys want to come home. 77% of those polled say they want to come home within a year. Your idea of supporting them is making them stay. Look at Walter Reid. Look at the new deployment time of 15 months instead of 12. You're not supporting the troops, you're getting them killed on a babysitting mission that you're too proud to admit is an abject failure. You're the whiner, "support the troops, support the troops." Why don't you go help out, yellowbelly? Or maybe you're part of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders? Coward.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 22, 2007 02:08 PMJustin,
"Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
I already told you that I take exception to the Dem congressmen voting to authorize the Iraq war. Can't you understand that? I'm not a partisan Democrat, I'm a registered independent. So I agree that some of the quotes you gave indict the Dems. The war was still wrong.
How did she get those opinions though? It's because Bush lied and lied and lied. Everybody knows it now except you dead enders.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 22, 2007 02:13 PMLex and David (I know he's not active on this thread) are both always quoting in a historical context. Why don't you come up with some alternatives strategies? Let us view and discuss your critical thinking.
You are always whining about what has happened. let's talk about your goals and their possible/probably impacts. Oh, don't forget to start talking about the poor chilruns in Darfur. We just must protect dem poor chilruns over there.
Posted by: CoRev at April 22, 2007 02:53 PMOh, don't forget to start talking about the poor chilruns in Darfur. We just must protect dem poor chilruns over there.
You're a real prince, aren't you?
You're whining that we keep pointing out what a complete failure this administration has been.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 22, 2007 03:26 PMBush lied, about what? You really need to get yourself another storyline. You are boring.
Posted by: davod at April 22, 2007 03:53 PMSo much for the critical thinking. Try again, next thread. You are a bust on this one. Come to think of it, you have consistently been a bust. Same message every day/thread. Davod is correct, you are boring.
Posted by: CoRev at April 22, 2007 03:57 PMOsama bin Laden, video message broadcast October 18, 2003
Lord HawHaw and Tokyo Rose said similar things. I'm guessing you'd have been on their side too.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 22, 2007 05:26 PMDavod, CoRev, Purple Avenger:
If you had any arguments you wouldn't need to resort to insulting me, so I consider the debate over.
How does it feel to watch your countrymen die in your perfect war? You're brave all right when someone else is doing the fighting. Your are yellow bellies and cowards.
Read here about your new hero Gaubatz.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 22, 2007 07:33 PMSteele, how can you deny history? It is said there are not so stupid as those who will not learn. From what I read of your posts, you belong in that catagory. Demonstrate where Bush runs roughshod over anything except our enemies. Notice during the Clinton administration and their dealing with terrorism as a policing problem, how many times we were struck, both here and abroad. Now reflect if you can, on the Bush adminsitration. Notice any difference? Probably not. Finding bunkers locked does not mean they were filled at the time of the invasion. Trucks took those itmes to Syria. They will reappear when Syria loses the next war to Israel.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at April 22, 2007 07:49 PMBut Lex Idyut,
You said:
Dem congressmen voting for it doesn't make it right. Anyway, the reason they did vote for it was that they were scared by this administration's repeated lies.
Don't try to backpedal now. You said it. So, my question, which you did not answer, was completely logical. How do you explain all of the Dimmies speeches about Hussein before Bush took office? How do you explain the Clinton admin attack - Operation Desert Storm? That was all before Bush could have "lied" (your inept words) to the Dimmies. Right? So how do you explain that before they voted for the war - in fact for years before - the Dimmie Brain Trust believed that Hussein had WMD? You can't and you know it. But you see, rather than analyze things from a realistic point of view, you want to keep your Dimmie Spectacles on and blame everything on Bush. Sorry that you have no brain other than what you've been fed from KOS and DU.
Posted by: Specter at April 22, 2007 08:26 PMLex, you have been thoroughly busted. The critical thinking comment was meant as a challenge to see if you had anything other the Dimmie talking points. You did not!
Posted by: CoRev at April 22, 2007 09:47 PMZelsdorf: Demonstrate where Bush runs roughshod over anything except our enemies.
You're ill informed. During Bush's first term he bulldozed whatever he wanted past the Democrats. There's no debating this.
Specter: You said: "Dem congressmen voting for it doesn't make it right. Anyway, the reason they did vote for it was that they were scared by this administration's repeated lies." Don't try to backpedal now.
It is oh so tedious speaking with you, that's why I usually ignore you. I agree with the statement 100%, and at no point did I backpedal from it.
How do you explain all of the Dimmies speeches about Hussein before Bush took office?
That's easy. Saddam was a source of instability in the region and a ruthless dictator. He clearly pursued WMD before the first gulf war. So what's your point?
How do you explain the Clinton admin attack - Operation Desert Storm?
First, Operation Desert Storm was initiated by Bush 41. It was due to Saddam invading Kuwait, not terrorism. I could go on and on. You may be the biggest clown I have ever run across. You can't understand simple arithmetic. I don't have any more time for you.
CoRev: lots of substance in that last post. Why don't you make fun of the Somalians some more? Your mean, small minded, ugly little man act is amusing to us educated folks.
Time to enlist, fellas. The surge can't miss, am I right? Go give it that extra little push.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 22, 2007 11:50 PMLex, You admit there are jihadists in Iraq. Ignoring all the BS that led up to this war, do you think we should just let them have Iraq? Happy birthday Osama! Merry Ramadan Ahmadinijad! A country of your own, filled with oil.
Don't you think it alot of lives could have been saved if we took out Hitler in the 30's? Yes. Saddamn Hussein was a modern day Hitler. We took him out. Now we are trying to build a country from scratch. We did in Japan. It wasnt easy. Now Japan is one of the greatest economic powers in the entire world. You want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. We are VERY close to stabilizing Iraq. The civil war is winding down as the jihad from the terrorists is gearing up. People who wanted to kill us a year ago are realizing there better off with America than Osama. The jihadists kill women and children. We don't. Give the surge a chance and quit your friggin WHINING. We will know if it is working by the fall. When the terrorists bomb something the Dems scream "its not working". Dont you think they are going to try and fight back?
The Libs are pussies because they want a war where nobody dies. Thats insane. We have to fight these jihadists or we have to praise allah. Take your pick.
Oh and my question was simple. If the terrorists talked like you Liberals did, wouldn't you think they were weak and could easily be defeated if we only killed a few of them in a brutal way?
Liberals are a key part of the Al-Qeada strategy. Give them a bloody nose and they run for the hills.
Posted by: Justin at April 23, 2007 09:43 AMJustin:
You admit there are jihadists in Iraq.
There are now that people like you have our troops stuck there as sitting ducks. In 2000 Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone.
Ignoring all the BS that led up to this war, do you think we should just let them have Iraq? Happy birthday Osama! Merry Ramadan Ahmadinijad! A country of your own, filled with oil.
Look, Osama wasn't in Iraq, had nothing to do with 911, and had no operational ties with Saddam. Ahmadinijad is in Iran. What does invading Iraq have to do with either of them?
Don't you think it alot of lives could have been saved if we took out Hitler in the 30's? Yes. Saddamn Hussein was a modern day Hitler. We took him out.
Hitler was a genocidal maniac who lead an advanced industrial economy. Saddam was neither of those things. He was basically harmless in 2001.
Now we are trying to build a country from scratch. We did in Japan.
Not true. We retained most of Japan's laws and their parliament. An Iraqi govt will have to be made of whole cloth.
We are VERY close to stabilizing Iraq. The civil war is winding down as the jihad from the terrorists is gearing up. People who wanted to kill us a year ago are realizing there better off with America than Osama.
It is not stabilizing at all. There are more and more car bombs. US casualties are still heavy. You are dreaming.
The jihadists kill women and children. We don't.
What bull. Remember the tons of bombs we dropped?
Give the surge a chance and quit your friggin WHINING.
We've walked into Osama's trap as per my quotation above, and you say I'm whining. We've sacrificed 3,500 troops and half a trillion dollars for nothing and I'm whining. Bush is determined to continue the war without any timetable so he can say it's the next guy's fault and I'm whining.
We will know if it is working by the fall.
Come the fall you will need to break out your big shoes and round red nose. You will look into the mirror one morning and face a clown and a loser. Oh, and a coward. Why aren't you doing your part?
The Libs are pussies because they want a war where nobody dies.
No, we want a war that has some bearing on Osama and 911. Nice mouth, by the way. I'm sure your mother is proud of you.
Let us know which branch of the military you decided on. I'm guessing the 101st Fighting Keyboarders will suit you best, coward.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 23, 2007 11:22 AMYou know Lex, every time I see "101st Fighting Keyboarders" cited by one of you anti-war liberals, I smile. I attended the 1st annual MilBlog conference where this was discussed, and am proud to see it has had its intended effect.
You still have brought nothing of value to this discussion. Provide us an insight to your way out. With honor. Without losing to al Qaeda.
Posted by: CoRev at April 23, 2007 12:06 PMYour cowardice makes you smile? That's novel. Most of us would have the decency to be ashamed.
The way out of Iraq is simply logistics. No, we will not leave with honor, but it will be worse the longer we put it off. The sooner we leave the more resource we will have left to engage them productively, instead of occupying a country where we are not welcome and our troops are sitting ducks.
Read William Odom's interview with Hugh Hewitt. He describes the predicament more eloquently than I can.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 23, 2007 02:27 PMLex, now you are calling me a coward? And, Iraq is a predicament?
Let me ask you another question. How do YOU support the troops? I can list mine. Can you?
And to the cowardice point, I am too old to serve, and already have. Have you?
You have been challenged to propose some action that does not leave us without honor, and you say we cannot. Not Dhimmie talking points to pass on in this area? I'm absolutely shocked to know that..
Posted by: CoRev at April 23, 2007 03:55 PMFolks, I've already deleted several comments from folks for profanity and personal attacks. Please engage the topic, not each other's character.
Those that can't play by house rules will be invited to play elsewhere.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 23, 2007 07:53 PMConfederate Yankee: my older son is a U.S. Army First Lieutenant (with Ranger tab) serving as a platoon leader in Iraq; and the problem is that it takes profanity to deal with the left wing nitwits such as Lex Steele who don't have a clue.
Posted by: Phil Byler at April 23, 2007 09:08 PMLex, now you are calling me a coward?
Yes.
And, Iraq is a predicament?
Obviously. Bush said Mission Accomplished in 2003, yet here we are.
How do YOU support the troops?
77% said they want to come home within a year. I support them. You don't.
You have been challenged to propose some action that does not leave us without honor, and you say we cannot.
As I said, we're going to leave sooner or later. Your side is the one compromising this country's honor. It was the wrong war. Though toppling Saddam was relatively easy, and our troops have performed excellently, we cannot impose the rule of law with military night alone.
Look at all the failed plans. This is from the guy who runs IntelDump. You all quoted him enthusiastically when he was delivering the positive news. Now he seems all but certain that the war is lost.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 23, 2007 09:30 PMPhil Byler:
my older son is a U.S. Army First Lieutenant (with Ranger tab) serving as a platoon leader in Iraq; and the problem is that it takes profanity to deal with the left wing nitwits such as Lex Steele who don't have a clue.
The Iraqis, the US citizens, and the US troops all favor withdrawal. Who is it that doesn't have a clue? That's why you're reduced to profanity, because the facts aren't on your side. Your need to help bring your son home. You have faith against reason in a doomed mission. Look at the article I quoted in my last comment. There are fewer and fewer people who believe this is a war that can be won.
I sincerely with the best of luck to your son.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 23, 2007 09:39 PMLex, well Duhhhh, they were all supposed to return home in a year or less when your poll was taken. So what answer would you expect?
I still wish someone would ask these very simple poll questions of the Iraqis: Do you want us to leave? When?
I also wish we could ask a similar simple question of Americans: Do you want us to lose the war in Iraq?
Answers to these questions will stop most discussions.
Posted by: CoRev at April 23, 2007 09:57 PMSorry about the profanity CY. Wont happen again. I lost it a little when this guy calls me a coward. He doesnt know me.
Posted by: Justin at April 23, 2007 10:31 PMCoRev: you don't follow the news very closely. I found the examples below with about three minutes of googling. There are many more such examples if you care to look yourself.
Many or most Iraqis think it's okay to attack US forces in their country. Think about that before you tell me I'm not supporting the troops.
- Nearly half of Iraqis approve of attacks on US-led forces
- 70% of Iraqis favor setting a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces.
- Support for attacks against US-led forces has increased sharply to 61 percent (27% strongly, 34% somewhat). This represents a 14-point increase from January 2006, when only 47 percent of Iraqis supported attacks.
- Two-thirds now oppose the presence of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, 14 points higher than in February 2004. Nearly six in 10 disapprove of how the United States has operated in Iraq since the war, and most of them disapprove strongly. And nearly half of Iraqis would like to see U.S. forces leave soon.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 23, 2007 11:39 PMLex, well Duhhhh, they were all supposed to return home in a year or less when your poll was taken.
That is so weak it made me wince. No doubt you have some rationale for why you did so poorly in school, but the actual reason is real simple.
Do you think the soldiers feel supported now that deployments are extended to 15 months? I'm guessing yes.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 23, 2007 11:54 PMDo you think the soldiers feel supported now that deployments are extended to 15 months? I'm guessing yes.
Posted by Lex Steele at April 23, 2007 11:54 PM
Speaking from experience, it's not the length of the deployment that makes you feel supported, it's giving Kudos where and when they belong (there has been a hell of a lot more good in Iraq then the news even comes close to mentioning.).
Posted by: Retired Navy at April 24, 2007 05:20 AMLex, your research still has not answered my three simple questions. No context, no build up, no spinning, just a simple poll. Let's see the results and then discussions will be ended.
And, most politicians behinds would be covered.
Posted by: CoRev at April 24, 2007 07:30 AMLex go read this email from a soldier in Iraq
http://64.13.251.37/2007/04/23/marine-corporal-from-a-bunker-in-ramadi-i-got-a-message-for-that-douche-harry-reid
BTW if you ask a soldier if he wants to go home he will say yes. If you ask them if they think all soldiers should quit and go home they will say no. Your stat is based on a loaded question.
Posted by: Justin at April 24, 2007 07:33 AMThere are fewer and fewer people who believe this is a war that can be won.
Yeah more and more people who dont know what they are talking about. And they get there info from the Liberal propaganda machine chugging along in this country. Why doesnt the media report ONE SINGLE good thing about Iraq? Because it doesnt fit the "Democrat in '08" philosophy. '06 wasnt good enough. The Libs and Mr. Soros want it all no matter how much distortion of the truth it takes.
Posted by: Justin at April 24, 2007 07:39 AMLex, well Duhhhh, they were all supposed to return home in a year or less when your poll was taken.
That is so weak it made me wince. No doubt you have some rationale for why you did so poorly in school, but the actual reason is real simple.
Do you think the soldiers feel supported now that deployments are extended to 15 months? I'm guessing yes.
Lex, support is when you say
"Good job guys." or "We're behind you 100%" or "We belive in what your dying for."
not when you say
"You lost the war" "The war is unwinnable", "We have no confidence in you", "We dont believe your generals know what they are doing. We (congress) are more qualified for that job."
I dont know how you guys can think that is supporting the troops.
Posted by: Justin at April 24, 2007 07:46 AMCoRev: your research still has not answered my three simple questions... I still wish someone would ask these very simple poll questions of the Iraqis: Do you want us to leave? When?
I replied with snippets from various polls on the internet. I bolded some parts that you missed:
- Nearly half of Iraqis approve of attacks on US-led forces
- 70% of Iraqis favor setting a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces.
- Support for attacks against US-led forces has increased sharply to 61 percent (27% strongly, 34% somewhat). This represents a 14-point increase from January 2006, when only 47 percent of Iraqis supported attacks.
- Two-thirds now oppose the presence of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, 14 points higher than in February 2004. Nearly six in 10 disapprove of how the United States has operated in Iraq since the war, and most of them disapprove strongly. And nearly half of Iraqis would like to see U.S. forces leave soon.
Do you understand now? Perhaps you can have a friend draw pictures for you.
I also wish we could ask a similar simple question of Americans: Do you want us to lose the war in Iraq?
That's a loaded question obviously. Of course neither I nor anyone else I know wants us to lose the war. Rather, we don't know how to define a victory any better than what we've achieved, so it's unfair to ask our troops to remain.
The conservative Republican truism used to be, you can't force democracy at the barrel of a gun. Japan and Germany were way different. If many or most Iraqis think it's okay to attack our troops, then we aren't going to promote a democracy there. The battle for hearts and minds has been lost.
Justin: go read this letter.
BTW if you ask a soldier if he wants to go home he will say yes. If you ask them if they think all soldiers should quit and go home they will say no. Your stat is based on a loaded question.
It's at best tortured reasoning to say that you are supporting the troops by keeping them there if they want to come home.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 24, 2007 10:24 AMJustin:
Why doesnt the media report ONE SINGLE good thing about Iraq?
We have walked right into Osama's trap. Iraq and Israel were the only countries in the region not involved in jihad, so Osama is delighted to see us bogged down there. What good news do you want to hear? How many of our troops haven't been killed yet? As I quoted above, many or most of the Iraqis think it's OK to attack our troops. You live in a fun house.
Be glad of the good news: America is mired in the swamps of the Tigris and Euphrates. Bush is, through Iraq and its oil, easy prey. Here is he now, thank God, in an embarassing situation and here is America today being ruined before the eyes of the whole world.
--Osama bin Laden, video message broadcast October 18, 2003
Justin:
Lex, support is when you say "Good job guys." or "We're behind you 100%"
I said above they've performed excellently, and that's what I believe. I am behind them 100%. I want them to be fighting a war that they can win or not at all, not dying for a failed president's vanity. They're in a war for hearts and minds where most of the Iraqis think it's okay to attack our troops and want us to leave. What a fiasco.
The troops want to leave, too. I'm supporting them, you are condemning them. One poll showed "Only 1 in 5 troops want an open commitment."
or "We belive in what your dying for." not when you say "You lost the war" "The war is unwinnable", "We have no confidence in you", "We dont believe your generals know what they are doing. We (congress) are more qualified for that job."
The war is not winnable, so it's cowardly to lie and say it is. The soldiers did not a thing wrong, it was Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Cheney, et al, and people like you who keep wanting to double down instead of preserving the resources we have left.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 24, 2007 10:38 AMTo Lex Steele: If you will check my comments, I have not actually used profanity; and no, I am not reduced to profanity because the facts are on my side. Sorry, Lex Steele, but it is you who really do not have a clue. The assertions you make are not true. What you say reflects that what you htink you know ios based on what you read, but you lack experience. You are just citing this biased poll and that piece of "reporting" in the mainstream media to weave together your argument for cutting and running from Iraq and accepting the radical Islamist defeat of the democratically elected Iraqi government that operates under a democratically elected written Constitution. You are not thinking ahead in terms of what that will mean in Iraq and in what is a war with the radical Islamists. You are a defeatist, but the troops, including my older son, are not. Your assertion that the troops want to leave Iraq is just laughably wrong. If you ask a single soldier in World War II or in Iraq, if he would like to go home, the answer is likely to be yes; but that answer did not mean that the soldiers did not want to defeat Hitler or Tojo in World War II and does not mean that the soldiers do not want to defeat al Qaeda and local allied insurgents in Iraq.
Posted by: Phil Byler at April 24, 2007 01:44 PMPhil,
Again, your son has my best wishes, and I appreciate his service.
However I'll go to my grave believing that we cannot foist democracy onto a populace that thinks it's okay to attack our troops and wants them to leave. I'm not even sure if Democracy's the goal anymore. Bush's goal is clearly to let the next guy clean up.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 24, 2007 11:37 PM
