20,000 tons weapons destroyed

[SonomaCat]

Three words....France, Germany, China

And it turned out that they were right, and we were wrong ... I hate that.

[catamaran]

There reasons, as we came to find out, were more about cash they were getting from Iraq than their concerns about WMD's

[SonomaCat]

There reasons, as we came to find out, were more about cash they were getting from Iraq than their concerns about WMD's

Whatever we assert their reasons to be, they were right and we were wrong. And I hate that.

Many a skeptic would assert that our reasons weren't as black and white as a concern over WMD, either, but that's the argument we were making to justify the invasion.

This goes without saying, but all of this is, indeed, water under the bridge and stuff that we can't change now. How we got on this whole tangent was a discussion about whether it is currently okay for guys like Murtha to suggest changes to our current policies, or whether he should be silenced (and whether the NYT is an appropriate venue for voicing one's opinions).

I don't really want to re-hash all of this stuff as we've been through it a million times, and nothing has changed. We need to focus more on the present than bickering about the past, as the only relevant impact of the past (beyond learning from our mistakes) is the weakened credibility we now face with the international community and the increased challenges that arise from that. Our leadership needs to make a good situation out of a bad one in Iraq and also continue reaching out to our allies to make nice before we have no allies left. It's easy enough to hate the only superpower in the world, but it's downright obligatory to hate them when they appear arrogant and reckless with their unchecked power and might. We need allies, or we will never win the real war on terrorism.

[Stevicat]

When we went into Iraq, the President stated "We have three goals: one - to dispose of Saddam Hussein, two - to secure the nation of Iraq so they can hold free elections and write a consititution, and three - to train the Iraqi army so they can defend themselves."

Where did you find this quote? I can't find it anywhere ... and I still assert that the reason we were told we were going to war was for WMD. Had our initial goal been only to liberate a country from a brutal dictator and convert the country to democracy, it never would have passed public opinion muster, and we never would have gone to war. And we would have also had to justify why we were overlooking the 30 other countries with dictators just as bad.

We didn't exactly become a surrogate of the UN Security Council ... we just decided to do whatever we wanted absent their approval. That's why a lot of other countries were not happy with us or with the war itself, and why I was personally pissed when it turned out that we were wrong. Had we been right and found a large cache of dangerous weapons, at least we could have thumbed our nose at the world and said, "See, we told you so." Instead, they are doing that to us ... and I hate being wrong. My nationalistic pride is kind of sensitive that way.

That's a big reason why my vote for Bush in 2000 has dissolved into a complete lack of trust at the present time. Finding out in retrospect that the intel regarding the WMD may have not been handled with the utmost respect for objective decision-making really upset me.

I saw it as a news clip from a speech and I probably paraphrased it. I can't locate it either but I know I heard it. I probably shouldn't have included it without verification but I think we all know he has said these things.

I think Bush is a tremendous leader. He is not bending to the ever changing winds of public opinion. He steadfastly believes what he is doing is the right thing and that history will recognize this. He is bringing freedom and liberty to a country in the Middle East. This gives these people hope of a better life. None of the countrys in the Middle East have true freedom and liberty which, in my opinion, is why they breed terrorists who hate and resent those countrys that do. When freedom and liberty take hold in the Middle East through Iraq, it will spread throughout the region, bringing hope and prosperity to the people. There will be no place for terrorists there as we know them today. By reducing and elimitating the terrorist threat, Bush is doing his constitutional duty by defending and protecting the US.

[SonomaCat]

I truly wish I could be as optimistic as you Stevicat ... and generous in my assessment of the leadership skills and decision-making abilities of our President.

[BWahlberg]

BAC you make a strong point, Bush made America look like a bunch a jackasses spearheading a cause while belittling those who wouldn't agree (mainly France) while we were wrong the whole time, and it seemed that we knew we were wrong the whole time.

[GOKATS]

BAC you make a strong point, Bush made America look like a bunch a jackasses spearheading a cause while belittling those who wouldn't agree (mainly France) while we were wrong the whole time, and it seemed that we knew we were wrong the whole time.

I usually stay away from this crap, but you are the the pontifical personification of the liberal base Missoula/UM self-annointed "Peace Capitol of the World" mentality.

My 5 generation Montana family is built on those who served our country, and we have lost some ( and others suffered and still suffer today).

Either you are from French ancestry (which I wouldn't personally fault you for), or you're you're one of the typical Kerry crowd. Sorry America didn't buy into the "Heinz Solution".

BAC, if this smack I'm sorry. Delete it at will.

[SonomaCat]

It's not smack, it's just the pontifical personification of the self-annointed "Best Patriots of the World" mentality.

One can disagree with the actions of the President without being a supporter of either France or John Kerry ... although supporting France or John Kerry was probably the wiser move in retrospect (especially for people whose families are built on those who served our country ... like Kerry did). But to each his own.

We really try to avoid deleting anything unless it really crosses over the line, so there's no chance that I would have any desire to delete anything you write unless you are threatening someone or something similarly disturbing (good posters have a lot of leeway ... others have so little credibility that they are on a short leash). However, for political discussions, it is always better to have more content-based discussion and less characterizations of the people making the comments. Characterizing people is simply a weak rhetorical approach as it makes one appear as though they can't speak to a topic on a high level and instead have to go for cheaper shots. That being said, we all slip from time to time out of frustration.

[briannell]

how about this?

Weapons caches found, bombers caught
December 28, 2005


TIKRIT, Iraq (Army News Service, Dec. 28, 2005) – Three weapons caches were discovered and destroyed by Iraqi and U.S. Soldiers Dec. 27 in north central Iraq.

Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team discovered a large cache of mortar rounds and artillery fuses while patrolling near Hawijah.

Nearly 400 mortar rounds of various types and sizes, along with 250 lbs. of explosive propellant, 878 artillery fuses, 1,900 rounds of small arms ammunition, a Russian-made anti-tank missile and an anti-personnel mine were blown up by an explosive ordnance disposal team at the site in a controlled detonation.

Iraqi and U.S. Soldiers, operating near Bayji uncovered and destroyed two weapons caches.

The first find yielded three mortar tubes, a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, more than 60 rocket propelled grenade warheads, a pound of plastic explosives and several hundred rounds of small-arms ammunition. The second, larger cache contained 58 artillery shells, 300 anti-aircraft artillery rounds, 26 mortar tubes, four RPG launchers and 35 lbs. of bulk explosives.

Iraqi and U.S. forces have found dozens of weapons caches since Task Force Band of Brothers began operations during October 2005. Thousands of weapons and explosives have been taken from terrorists and other criminals, preventing an untold number of attacks against the local populace and coalition forces.

Would-be bombers busted

Soldiers disrupted two terrorist bombing operations Dec. 27 in Baqubah, a city 20 miles north of Baghdad.

Two terrorists were detained and another killed during the incidents at a newly emplaced checkpoint.

The first incident occurred just before noon, when Soldiers from the 3rd Infantry Division’s 3rd Brigade Combat Team stopped a suspicious car and detained the driver after discovering the vehicle was being prepared as a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device.

An explosives ordnance disposal team was called to examine the vehicle. No explosives were found, but the car was laced with wiring used to detonate explosives. The car was confiscated and taken to a nearby military base.

Several hours later, a second vehicle tried to run through the checkpoint and was fired at by 3ID troops. The driver was killed in the initial burst of fire and the vehicle came to a quick stop. Two men with AK-47 assault rifles climbed out and were fired on by Soldiers as they attempted to flee.

One of the gunmen successfully evaded capture, but the other was wounded and quickly surrounded. As the Soldiers approached the wounded man, they noticed he was wearing what appeared to be an explosive laden suicide belt.

Soldiers guarded the man until an explosive ordnance disposal team arrived and removed the belt, which contained more than three pounds of plastic explosives. The failed bomber was treated for his wounds and detained.

(Editor’s note; This story contributed by 101st Airborne Division PAO.)

[iaafan]

I believe everything in this story. I say that so these questions don't sound derogatory. How legitimate is the Army News Service? Is it a free and open press? Or is it censured by the brass? Can what it puts out be considered reporting? When we have a tough time believing the so-called independent media, how serious can we take the overall reporting (not just this story) of the Army News Service?

[SonomaCat]

That's good news. We're chipping away at the insurgents' resources. As long as they don't have the ability to obtain more weapons to replace those lost, we are making progress.

So are the people we are fighting in Iraq referred to as terrorists only when they intentionally kill civilians, or are they also terrorists when they just accidentally kill civilians in the act of trying to kill U.S. forces? How about when they are exclusively targeting Iraqi and U.S. forces and avoid civilians altogether? Are they still terrorists? I honestly get confused by the different terminology I hear used to describe the bad guys.

[SonomaCat]

I believe everything in this story. I say that so these questions don't sound derogatory. How legitimate is the Army News Service? Is it a free and open press? Or is it censured by the brass? Can what it puts out be considered reporting? When we have a tough time believing the so-called independent media, how serious can we take the overall reporting (not just this story) of the Army News Service?

At least we have the benefit of knowing the source, and we aren't led to believe that it is an independent news source when in reality it is paid placements of propoganda written by a foreign government (such as what was realized recently in Iraq) or paid pieces posing as independent opinions funded by the domestic government or GOP lobbyists (such as Armstrong Williams being on the White House dole or the guys at the Cato Institute accepting cash from Abramoff).

Knowing the source at least gives us some perspective on how to read it, which is a good start.

[BWahlberg]

It is good news, it's always good news to take away the insurgents weapons they're using to kill Iraqis and troops.

GOKATS, it's funny since I spoke against "the war" you said I must be French. Well then lets look at it.

The French said there were no WMDs in Iraq. The French were correct.

I said Bush made the US look like jackasses to the rest of the world by telling the UN to "shove it" (figured you'd like that phrase since O'Reilly loves it) and that he was wrong about WMDs. Since you assume I'm of French background that means I'm correct, much like the French were about the WMDs right?

[Hell's Bells]

It is good news, it's always good news to take away the insurgents weapons they're using to kill Iraqis and troops.

GOKATS, it's funny since I spoke against "the war" you said I must be French. Well then lets look at it.

The French said there were no WMDs in Iraq. The French were correct.

I said Bush made the US look like jackasses to the rest of the world by telling the UN to "shove it" (figured you'd like that phrase since O'Reilly loves it) and that he was wrong about WMDs. Since you assume I'm of French background that means I'm correct, much like the French were about the WMDs right?

the french also benefited greatly from "oil for food" enron style managament by sadam, which is kinda ironic if you consiter their security council vote. btw i find it amazing that nobody has mentioned the vast mass graves found in iraq, as well as the modern day iron-maden and wood chippers used to put people in live.

btw wmds were not the only reason bush gave for our going into iraq. yes they were the main reason but not the only. sadam was also a two bit thug

btw go kats your opinion is welcome here

[Ponycat]

It is good news, it's always good news to take away the insurgents weapons they're using to kill Iraqis and troops.

GOKATS, it's funny since I spoke against "the war" you said I must be French. Well then lets look at it.

The French said there were no WMDs in Iraq. The French were correct.

I said Bush made the US look like jackasses to the rest of the world by telling the UN to "shove it" (figured you'd like that phrase since O'Reilly loves it) and that he was wrong about WMDs. Since you assume I'm of French background that means I'm correct, much like the French were about the WMDs right?

The French not wanting to get involved had very little to do with what they thought about WMD's and everything to do with oil. Russia intellegence also thought Iraq had WMD's but didn't want to overthrow Saddam for the same reasons...OIL.

People like to say we went there for OIL which is a little to simplistic but what is worse getting rid of a murdering thug "because of oil" or letting a murdering thug stay in power "because of oil".

Also BAC I'm not sure I follow why you think following Kerry in retrospect would have been a wiser move. From what I remember Kerry was for invading Iraq and all through the campaign said he would stay in Iraq. If my memory is incorrect tell me.

[SonomaCat]

The theoretical retrospective Bush v. Kerry comes down to one thing: who would make better foreign policy decisions. Kerry had to say that he would stay the course in Iraq -- that was the flag waving election year right answer. But he may well have changed the way we did things in Iraq and accelerated the chances for success in the region. Or he could have mucked it up completely. We will never know.

[SonomaCat]

It is good news, it's always good news to take away the insurgents weapons they're using to kill Iraqis and troops.

GOKATS, it's funny since I spoke against "the war" you said I must be French. Well then lets look at it.

The French said there were no WMDs in Iraq. The French were correct.

I said Bush made the US look like jackasses to the rest of the world by telling the UN to "shove it" (figured you'd like that phrase since O'Reilly loves it) and that he was wrong about WMDs. Since you assume I'm of French background that means I'm correct, much like the French were about the WMDs right?

the french also benefited greatly from "oil for food" enron style managament by sadam, which is kinda ironic if you consiter their security council vote. btw i find it amazing that nobody has mentioned the vast mass graves found in iraq, as well as the modern day iron-maden and wood chippers used to put people in live.

btw wmds were not the only reason bush gave for our going into iraq. yes they were the main reason but not the only. sadam was also a two bit thug

btw go kats your opinion is welcome here

Yes, Hell's, everybody knows that Saddam was a bad guy. That has never been in doubt. Are you also in favor of invading every other country that has brutal leaders that murder their own people? Are you campaigning for a sweep of half of Africa for our troops? I know, that takes a nice black and white answer and makes it very complicated, but that's the reality we have to deal with. Could Saddam have been deposed without an invasion? Was the urgency of our invasion necessary, or could we have waited longer, gathered more evidence, and made a more informed set of decisions? Was war our only option?

Of course, in retrospect, these questions are much easier to answer. And it is obvious that we have made a lot of mistakes ... the rest of the world sees this clearly, as do most Americans. That's the reality we must move forward from. Ignoring or dismissing those mistakes without admitting them makes it impossible to move forward in an effective way, and makes us appear like, as ReMax so eloquently put it, jackasses. We need cooperation from the rest of the world in all of our foreign policy, so we can't afford to appear that way.

To his credit, due to the political pressure being placed upon him by very low polling numbers, the Bush advisors are now telling Bush to start accepting some of this blame and to start acknowledging that mistakes were made. I think this is a good sign. You can't undo what was already done, but at least accepting responsiblity for it (and not pointing fingers at Dems and say, "Well, they didn't fight me hard enough to stop me from making bad decisions, so it is their fault, too") is a very good thing. Having Condi continue to work Europe for some good relations is another positive ... maybe some Bush trips over there in the near future with hat in hand would be positive as well. Diplomacy is a complicated game, and we haven't played it well up until now, but there is almost always time to improve upon that.

We, the American people, as well as the rest of the world, were sold the war under the pretense that there were WMD that we should be worried about, and with a promise that victory would be swift and we would be greeted as liberators and things would be easy (reference nearly every comment Cheney ever made on the war). When neither turned out to be true, public opinion shifted against the President. That's where we stand today.

And of course GoKat's opinion is welcome here ... that's what I said ... even though he's not of the same mind as me on this topic.

[Grizlaw]

I think Bush is a tremendous leader. He is not bending to the ever changing winds of public opinion. He steadfastly believes what he is doing is the right thing and that history will recognize this.

This is a point that a lot of Bush supporters have made in favor of his leadership skills, but I'm not sure I completely buy into its validity. I agree that our leaders should not automatically bend to the whims of the voting public, but I don't think that alone makes a person a great leader. Just to use an extreme example, Saddam Hussein also refused to bend to the will of the Iraqi people when he was in power, but I doubt that many of Bush's supporters would argue that he was a great leader for that reason.

At the end of the day, you're only a great leader if the choices you make turn out to be correct. If a President takes us down a path that turns out to be disastrous, then the fact that he stubbornly refused to consider other paths doesn't make him a great leader. History will decide whether Bush's path has been the correct one, but if the consensus 30 years from now is that Iraq was a mistake, nobody will be praising Bush's leadership skills simply because he refused to listen to others.

--GL

[briannell]

isn't it nice to live in a FREE country that allows all of us to debate these issues without us dying for our opinions

By the way have you noticed that although the news continues to balst the air ways about how unsatisfied the Iraqi people are with the election results, and because of it our soldiers will have to stay there a little longer, they neglect to mention the Iraqis are FREELY protesting. NOT being murdered in droves had they tried to protest when saddam was still in power?

huh? I guess exercising those freedoms they've lacked for generations doesn't seem to be considered progress these days.

the news also neglects to talk about how like 80% of eduacational facilities are up and running again. Hospitals are improved, women aren't being cloistered away by families and honor killed like under Saddam.

I really dislike the media - it's all spin

[SonomaCat]

isn't it nice to live in a FREE country that allows all of us to debate these issues without us dying for our opinions

By the way have you noticed that although the news continues to balst the air ways about how unsatisfied the Iraqi people are with the election results, and because of it our soldiers will have to stay there a little longer, they neglect to mention the Iraqis are FREELY protesting. NOT being murdered in droves had they tried to protest when saddam was still in power?

huh? I guess exercising those freedoms they've lacked for generations doesn't seem to be considered progress these days.

the news also neglects to talk about how like 80% of eduacational facilities are up and running again. Hospitals are improved, women aren't being cloistered away by families and honor killed like under Saddam.

I really dislike the media - it's all spin

Of course, Rebecca, what you are doing is spinning as well. Weren't 100% of the educational facilities up and running before we invaded? And Iraq was never a hotbed of honor killing (those are our allies in Pakistan who get off on that). Iraq was actually quite progressive in its treatment of women (as long as they were in the right political affiliation). There were women in parliament and high government positions. Iraq was a secular country, and not an Islamic theocracy that allowed all the wacky Islamic cave man treatments of women.

Saddam was a brutal dictator, but through that brutality, he was able to maintain a secular society and prevented violence between the religious groups that hated each other and kept the artificially drawn country (thanks UK!) together as one unit. I guess he just monopolized the violence in doing so.

Absent that brutal central authority, a huge challenge arises in keeping everyone from killing each other and civil war breaking out. That's a large part of the violence we are seeing there right now. Twenty years from now, it will be interesting to see how this all resolves itself. In the meantime, it is going to be a very painful process.