I am also quite disgusted with those that parrot the “Iraqi’s never greeted the Americans as liberators”. The Kurds did, the Shia did when they were comfortable believing we would finish the job (and not leave them literally hanging as in the “multi-lateral” first war), but few of the Sunni did, as if they would when they were the ones in power. I believe that you, Neo, ran a post on that issue with an excerpt from a Brit, or am I confused?

I have to agree with gcotharn, although both sides suffer from the affliction, the left has a greater tendency to not correct itself, but change the subject like Lucy to Charlie Brown.

If “regime change” was the secret goal and “WMD’s” just a cover, why would they have given it away with a name like “Operation Iraqi Freedom”, when they could have done “Operation No Nukes for Saddam”.

Ben

Read Hitchens essay, and this was wonderful: “with the practice of what, if anyone else were to be the target, the left would already be calling “demonization.”"

I hope.

The article (by Paul Krugman, if you want to look it up) claims that the Heritage Foundation told Bush in 2001 to “take over” Civil Service, placing Bush loyalists in key positions over those who were better qualified.

Rather than trust the New York Times, I looked up the Heritage Foundation’s document itself: http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/BG1404.cfm

Almost halfway down the page, there it is: “This in turn means that the Office of Presidential Personnel (OPP) must make appointment decisions based on loyalty first and expertise second, and that the whole governmental apparatus must be managed from this perspective.”

Well, that’s not good. If I’m in civil service and an unskilled, inexperienced guy more ideologically in tune with the president gets promoted over me, I’m going to be pissed.

So what about this? It’s not some wacky liberal blog making these accusations. It’s the Heritage Foundation itself, giving step-by-step instructions.

The above was a little farther on. If you have ever seen “Yes, Minister” or “Yes, Prime Minister”, you would fully understand how the Federal Bureaucracy can be a “Permanent Government”, and actually defeat the promulgation of the policies of the elected government. It is a brilliant British TV series, and should be included in American civics classes.

The thrust of that portion of the document was that changes can’t be made if you simply promote those vested in the system, even though they will be the most competent and experienced. And those picked need to be loyal to the administration or they will go “native”, and reform will be defeated. Pragmatic, not nefarious.

Krugman, as usual, is a moronic hack who either cherry-picks out of context, or can’t understand what he reads, or skims to get what he needs. This is just one further example.
To think he made it through graduate school in economics. Proof that PhD can also stand for “permanent head damage”. No offense to those with PhDs that stand for Doctor of Philosophy.

Obviously, you hit a nerve.

I will say, however, that the document in question is unfortunately worded. Krugman didn’t have to work that hard to make the whole affair sound menacing.

The way lefties use ‘neocon’ reminds me a lot of the way the concept of the ‘kulak’ was used in the past. Mostly an Orwellian style false concept, a ‘goldstein’, used to rally the troops in their two minute hates.

Thanks, Ariel; I have indeed seen the shows you mention. Hadn’t thought of it that way.”

I just want to second Ariel and say that is indeed the way conservatives see the US government organs*. They are staffed, overwhelmingly (ie, 80-90%), with pro big government Democrats. Ergo, we may win the elections, but our preferred policies are stalled or undermined by the unelected government workers. Ergo the need to put some conservatives into them when we win an election….

* including the ones that conventional wisdom might suspect would be naturally inclined towards conservative (such as the CIA)…

Yes, we should imprison those that disagree with our knowledge of the secret islamic plan, so that we never have to have a police state and we preserve our freedoms.

Heck, is it opposite day again in wingnut world already?

But Mark Twain is problematic for Neocons. Why? Because he opposed previous instants of US imperialistic policies. It is much safer to stick with a nasty old imperialist like Churchill.

Fancy that. The MSM says exactly what Wolfowitz says - that WMD was an issue that was agreed on - one that would conviently garner the support needed for a war that otherwise would have been laughed out of congress and the UN.

I don’t need to mention that the WMD claims were false - and that there was more than enough evidence to suggest that Saddam didn’t have WMD - and that had the Bush administration waited for inspectors to do their job there would have been no basis for the invasion of Iraq - at least in the eyes of the international community - Iraq WAS NOT a threat to the security of the United States.

How in god’s name to you think saying something a different way changes a simple, verifiable fact?

You have to believe people are unbelievably stupid to present it as such Neo.

I don’t have time at the moment to dwell more specifically on the topic - but I will be back to point out how ridiculous your assertions are…

Really? Wolfowitz says ‘exactly’ that the war would have otherwise been laughed out of congress? I think your definition of ‘exactly’ is from another language, or an alternate reality, perhaps.

I don’t need to mention that the WMD claims were false

No, the WMD claims, specifically that Saddam Hussein had not fulfilled his side of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, was not fully cooperating with inspections, and that there was every reason to believe that he had WMDs and WMD programs, were all true. That we didn’t find WMD stockpiles isn’t even relevant; there were excellent reasons for believing we would find WMD stockpiles. We DID find programs that could have been reactivated once sanctions were lifted. There is also some evidence that WMDs were trucked to Syria prior to the invasion. And Saddam was clearly in violation of UN resolutions 678 and 687, which authorized war as a consequence of noncompliance.

- and that there was more than enough evidence to suggest that Saddam didn’t have WMD

For example? I mean, March 7, 2003, Blix’s final report to the UN - Saddam was not fully cooperating with inspections, tons of chemical weapons agent unaccounted for. Pretty clear to me.

If you “don’t need to mention” it, then don’t.

Or, you could actually admit that the intelligence agencies of virtually the entire world agreed that Saddam had WMDs, that the some of the most vociferous WMD deniers today were some of the most insistent that Saddam did have WMDs, and that he had fooled virtually the whole world. Really, this is such a tired argument that holds no water any more; it’s not the only reason we went to war, and it’s not necessarily false. We have yet to investigate the whole of Iraq for weapons caches; we’re finding stashes of weapons daily. Iraq’s a big country…and Syria is very close and cooperative.

You conveniently side-stepped what her entire post was about. You implied to me that Wolfowitz revealed the neocon’s lied, through this “convenience”. You hadn’t read Wolfowitz’s actual comment, had you?

TC, the WMD evidence went both ways even into 2002. Like I said before, you filter through your own dogma every bit as much as any one here. The Hitchens comment was just plain stupid on your part, because all of us can read it. I’ve read it twice now trying to figure out how you could write what you wrote. Your going deeper into “out-of-ass” statements.

Rubbish.

Feckless.

Oh? Really? And when did this agreement take place?

We have heard very little of the opinions of the various intelligence agencies regarding WMDs in Iraq.

“What do you mean, ‘we’—do you have a turd in your pocket?”

-Warren Beatty, “McCabe and Mrs. Miller”

You don’t get out much, do you, WR?

Hans Blix 2/7/03 Report:

Another matter and one of great significance, is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were “unaccounted for”. One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

We are fully aware that many governmental intelligence organizations are convinced and assert that proscribed weapons, items and programmes continue to exist.

…

In my earlier briefings, I have noted that significant outstanding issues of substance were listed in two Security Council documents from early 1999 (S/1999/94 and S/1999/356) and should be well known to Iraq. I referred, as examples, to the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles, and said that such issues “deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside…”. The declaration submitted by Iraq on 7 December last year, despite its large volume, missed the opportunity to provide the fresh material and evidence needed to respond to the open questions. This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions.

The 3/7/03 report does not explicitly restate this, but does say the same problems exist as previously noted.

That is what I see going on here. I had a good, good friend who was a Wobblie (International Workers of the World) with whom I spent probably months of arguing over all aspects political, life, the Universe, and everything. Over the last three we agreed the answer was 42. But on all things political we seldom agreed, but would work to find agreement. Our vantage points were too different for more than that.

I see TC in that way, except for the Hitchens comment, where that came from I have no idea. As an aside, when my friend became a supervisor, the IWW kicked him out. He had become an oppressor, instantaneously. It was a rude awakening for him, the last I spoke with him he was moving more centrist politically. Rude awakenings can do that.

Finally, the problem with this artificial world is that we can’t speak face to face, see the humanity, or lack of it, in each other. It’s sterile.

TC, on the other hand, has never escaped from his fantasy, “neo-marxist” anti-semitic cocoon, and floats along blissfully burbling comments that are about as connected to reality as the daydreams of any standard paranoid conspiracy theorist.

Neither one of them appreciates being bothered by facts.

Lee, it’s the insulting part. There are no consequences for acting like a rabid two-year old. I’ve read things in comments that would have led to death or injury in a bar, and shunning most elsewhere.

In war-time, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.

And rightly so.

I cannot see how how you can come to that conclusion. There was no evidence to support a conclusion that Iraq had WMD. Statements like, “We know that Iraq has WMD”, and, “We know where they are”, are lies. The administration did not “know” either that Iraq had WMD or where they were. Further our administration knew that they did not “know”.

Yes. And your point is….?

There was tremendous evidence. One bit of it I posted above, where in 1991 Iraq claimed to have 1000 tons of chemical agent, for which it couldn’t account in 2003. There was also 12 years of obfuscation — why would Saddam try to hide something he didn’t have?

UB, you’ve got an opening now run through it.

For godsakes, go back and read the comments at 02.16.07 - 12:08 am and 02.16.07 - 12:13 am. There was plenty of evidence, numerous intelligence agencies still thought he had them, even Blix’s report hedges on the question. They were wrong.

This is from a comment on Neo’s post on Feith,

“If you want it from the horses mouth, nice interview with Feith:

here

douglas | 02.14.07 - 2:12 am | #”

It will give you a better sense of the intelligence community, should you care to read it.

And perhaps you can give it wasn’t the ONLY reason for going to war, The ONLY reason being often implicit or explicit when it’s pointed out no WMD’s were found.

I wish more people would actually read the Joint Resolution of Congress.

Let’s look at the two meanings of “lie”:

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

I think we can all agree again that in the Bush Administration’s case for war, outright falsehoods were rare, but many statements were made or implied that conveyed the wrong impression, i.e, some things were presented as incontrovertible facts when in reality there were some serious doubts about them.

Ah, so NOW Congressional Resolutions have meaning. How nice!
I have read it as it turns out, and besides the enforcement of the UN resolutions, which Wolfowitz didn’t seem to recall, the items fall under the 3 main categories he mentioned in the full quote: the threat of WMDs, Iraq’s link to terrorists, and Saddam’s tyranny over Iraqis.

By Wolfowitz’s own admission, there was insufficient agreement about the terror links, and liberating Iraqis from Saddam was “not worth sending American kids to die for.”

But given the failure to turn up the WMDs, and the tenuous links to Al Qaeda, liberating Iraqis seems to have become our primary mission.

Nobody “lied”. Most in the government, most of the world’s intelligence agencies, Hans Blix, the UN, virtually everyone “thought” Saddam had WMD. The risk was too great to let the man remain in power.

Check out the link at 02.16.07 - 12:26 pm, my comment. It would put into perspective “the serious doubts”.

As for Congressional Resolutions, some do and some don’t, but I did see it as a good summary of the stances that both Clinton and Bush took regarding Iraq, as well as Congress.

So we didn’t find the WMDs, we should go home and leave the Iraqis to hang? We should have liberated Iraq the first go round.

At least you gave me not the ONLY reason. And I haven’t called you a troll yet, either. That was a gratuitous reminder.

I’d go on but I have to get away for awhile.

I hope TCs back is getting better.

Apparently al-Masri and “Al-Qaeda in Iraq” don’t count?

What O what would these innocents do if they ever had to face the sharks out there? Kim? Almawhatshizname? Putin? The Chinese?

Ariel, the “troll” remark I made was directed at our friend Sally, who defined me as such while accusing me of name-calling.

As for what we should do now, I agree with the senior military officials who maintain that Iraq has no military solution, and that a political solution needs to be sought as soon as possible.

Unfortunately the Bush Admin is lacking a bit in diplomacy skills and besides, around here diplomacy = appeasement.

Feith has no credibility. Something that you fail to understand is that the US people are pushing the Neocons back to a dark corner in the basement where they belong. Bye bye Doug.

“amusing in a humorously “sadistic” sort of way”

Now, that does have a certain appeal. I was raised by people born before the Spanish-American War and before the end of WW1, so I had a near Victorian sense of civility pounded into me. Ah, the things people do to their charges.

Please, don’t let me stand in the way of simple pleasures.

Regards,

So the tentative nature of intelligence went right over your head? Or failed to breach that unassailable wall? Whether Feith has credibility or not to you, he laid out an excellent description of the nature of the community.

No matter.

So you agree that we did not know that Iraq had WMD.

You seem to have missed the very real nature of the disastrous strategic position we find our selves in as a result of following intelligence of such a tentative nature.

Sorry, no sale.

Which is what we have now.

Again good try, but the terminal paralysis was in the decision making process. No sale on that spin either.

Lee,
Can you say WAR WANKER?

UB: I think we can all agree again that in the Bush Administration’s case for war, outright falsehoods were rare, but many statements were made or implied that conveyed the wrong impression …

I don’t agree. Do you have evidence of this? (Transcripts, etc.)

UB: I agree with the senior military officials who maintain that Iraq has no military solution, and that a political solution needs to be sought as soon as possible.

There was never a military-solution-only plan. COIN mandates a primarily political solution, backed by police work and military force where necessary. That’s what we’ve been doing the last few years. You can see it in the billions we’ve put into Iraqi infrastructure and institutions, into training the Iraqi Army and police forces, into elections and government. That’s standard COIN operating procedure. And over about 80% of Iraq, it’s been successful.

No one ever proposed a purely military solution; it was always a combined solution intended to get the Iraqis up and running on their own while providing the security necessary to allow that to happen.

That was always the plan. If you were unaware of it, you haven’t been paying attention.

Which has begun to be addressed by last November’s elections. The American people are in a decision making mood.

I’m really not trying to a sale to you. You’re irrelevant. Yesterday’s man. If you wish to become relevant your only option is to join the army and contribute to the “surge” (upon which, apparently, everything depends).

Sorry, did my four years of service. Perhaps you could “make a difference”? Did you notice that a number of conservative Democrats were elected? Wonder what that means?

Boy, that “you’re irrelevent” was a truly defining moment in argumentation.

Four years! This is our last chance in Iraq and we can only field an extra 20,000 troops and you quibble about four years! What sort of patriot are you? Twenty years would not be sufficient. Try forty years.

As i wrote to UB, I don’t see lack of service as an indicator of a person’s character or bravery. My son will never be able to serve for physical reasons. I use other indicators. Which is also why I detest the “Chickenhawk” argument.

However, your little bit of snotty sarcasm deserved a moment’s notice.

But really, you should take the guy in pajamas and my advice. Show some self-respect.

So what was this acronym COIN? And I know I’m going to feel very embarrassed.

That is not true. I am worth it.

Do not loose heart, guys. If you persist you may succeed. Some of your post are quite powerful. Ariel, your post about your son who would like nothing better than to fight and die, but cannot, so that we may make the US into a Neoconery is almost a classic. The pathos. And Lee, what can I say. You’re the man.

It’s best just to talk over their heads.

…and that’s not very hard, really.

I know they’re trolls, the emotionally stunted low-life of the Internet. However, I have one last thing to do.

And by the way, WR, I was in the United States Coast Guard as a Gun Fire Control Technician. You know, the people that save lives, as well as go to war when called. The cutter that I was on went on 5 SARs and saved a number of lives. My cutter went into drydock after rescuing 2 badly burned crewman of a cargo ship because the speed our Captain maintained in 25 to 40 foot seas literally bent the bow and distorted the gun mount, if he hadn’t they would have died. I could go on about servicemen putting themselves in harm’s way for others, the Air Force does it as does the Navy. But it doesn’t mean anything to a self-righteous, adiabatic troll. Get some self-respect.

The new blog site holds some promise for better troll control.

Justaninanedweeb illustrates my, and your, point both at 02.17.07 - 4:58 pm |and 02.17.07 - 5:01 pm . As I wrote earlier, I don’t consider service as indicative of courage or character. My response to WR was becasue of the snotty sarcasm regarding my time in and my comment about my son not being able to serve, which was to further buttress my comments on character and courage. I volunteered and had papers going for both the Marines and Coast Guard (which is always capitalized, by the way). Chose the USCG because of both its humanitarian and military mission. The rate I chose made it likely that, in time of war, I would serve in some theater as dictated by the Navy, when the USCG is put under USN command.

The “self-respect” had nothing to do with military service, but as to why WR would keep coming to a site full of those he characterized as “irrelevant”.

Given that this was all spelled out earlier, excepting my volunteering, the complete misunderstanding had to be purposeful. This further confirms that trolls are the emotionally-stunted low-life of the Internet.

Look forward to your new site.

I had a feeling I was going to be embarrassed. Thanks for the definition of COIN.

You can believe, Neo, whatever you want to be the reason for the Iraq war - whatever you choose to believe that justifies what is turning out to be a pretty horrible chapter in American and world history.

But there in no ‘big lie’. The facts are there. And you haven’t got any on your side.

And certainly you can have a website where you and other-like minded individuals can play make-believe and create whatever extenstential, alternate universe you like - but I think you’d do better to argue the ‘benefits’ of this war and these polices than to try to provide excuses or spin to cover up what are obvious facts - like Wolfowitz’s clear admission of manipulation of public fears. Which he and the rest knew were exaggerated or out outright lies…

And that is where you go where you say she is.

I read it too, and I question your interpretation as much as you would mine. You transform your interpretation of what he said into the “facts” then draw conclusion from those “facts”. As I said before, you filter as much as anyone.

Speedy recovery and good night.

No doubt, Ariel, the back injury is from all the spinning.