"I am still confused as to why they chose to lie"

[Arrian]

By the way, I second this part of MtG's rant:

It would be nice, especially for those who are still members of Bushie's Bootlicker Brigade, if this was just a case of propaganda during wartime, as opposed to just one more piece of a systemic pattern of playing so fast and loose with reality that it's not clear that our fearless leaders having a ****ing clue what's going on, or what they're even doing.

Through many different actions and statements, this Admin has shown itself to be dangerously out of touch with reality. That disconnect lead directly to things like the invasion of Iraq (dubious in and of itself) and the cluster**** of an occupation/reconstruction effort that followed. It's the pattern.

So is it just another thing to pile on? Yes. But not because we're a bunch of irrational haters. Because we have very sound reasons for being pissed off at the Bushies, and this is YET ANOTHER example of the sort of bull**** that they've been pulling for the past, what, 4-5 years?

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian
The point, Ogie, is that my example included being CORRECT about it (whatever it is) being propoganda, as is the case with the subject of this thread. Your example of Slaughtermeyer's 9/11 beliefs, on the other hand, doesn't fit because the evidence does not - and never has - supported his accusations.

You're smarter than this.

-Arrian

My point is correctness doesn't enter into the equation except to the extent of outlandish believability. In the absence of any proof one must always look at both sides and their motivations. You'll pardon then the critical eye that simlarly gets cast on the same critics despite their martyring cries of 'not in the face'.

[Ned]

Just for the record, I think our major mistake was Iraq War I, staying around afterwords, and imposing sanctions and inspections on Saddam. That inevitably got us both the WOT and the second Gulf war. We are stuck in quicksand now because of Bush I. Bush II's mismanagement of the occuppation made things worse, but resistance in Iraq was inevitable.

We need to get out of the ME entirely, but in as graceful a manner as possible, leaving behind stable governments able to defend themselves.

[Arrian]

You don't need my pardon - cast your eye any way you please.

The facts, as I see them as applicable to this thread, are these:

1) People who called bull**** on the these propoganda jobs were, initially at least, called all manner of things.

2) It turns out those people were right.

3) When this is pointed out, the remaining defenders of the Bush Admin and/or rightwingers in general pop up to say "duh, wartime propoganda!" and throw out some new accusations (e.g. "grow up!").

Hence my little discussion of "traitors." Now, for whatever reason this bothered you, even if it wasn't in any way aimed at you. Hey, it's a free country...

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ned
Just for the record, I think our major mistake was Iraq War I, staying around afterwords, and imposing sanctions and inspections on Saddam. That inevitably got us both the WOT and the second Gulf war. We are stuck in quicksand now because of Bush I. Bush II's mismanagement of the occuppation made things worse, but resistance in Iraq was inevitable.

We need to get out of the ME entirely, but in as graceful a manner as possible, leaving behind stable governments able to defend themselves.

Unfortunately, I don't know that "graceful" is a term that could possibly apply to a US exit from the region.

I do wish we could simply disengage from the ME, but I'm also not sure it's possible... at least not until the region means less to our economy. And even if we suddenly didn't care as much about oil, there is still the question of Israel. They're our ally, and so long as we back them, demogagues in the ME will scream for our blood.

-Arrian

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
OTOH if you are advocating for troop removal and claiming the war lost a priori info from field commanders (ones which you can not be bothered to spend the time required to actually listen to or worse yet claim regardless of what they say you think them liars) then I would label you as either Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader.

Listening to Petraeus (who I don't think is either dumb or a liar by any means) is not at all encouraging. Yes we're making some progress, but things could get worse before they get better and we'll need a huge commitment for a long but indefinite period of time. Meanwhile, the Iraqi government is starting to slowly try to get it's **** halfway together, but rather than being a national unity government, they're a bunch of partisan hacks with narrow interests and they think legislation is a zero-sum game.

That about right? Not a bad assessment six months in, but not at all encouraging after more than four years in.

[Arrian]

It does sound like we (FINALLY) have reasonably competant people in charge. The problem is that it's so late, with so much damage already done.

The question is do we stick it out. On the one hand, it's not MY ass on the line. So I'm rather hesitant to blithely claim that we can't "cut and run." Add to that (cost in blood) the cost in $$, which is significant.

On the other, if it really is possible that something good can be salvaged from this mess, then it seems like the right thing to see it through. That remains quite an "if" though.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian
You don't need my pardon - cast your eye any way you please.

The facts, as I see them as applicable to this thread, are these:

1) People who called bull**** on the these propoganda jobs were, initially at least, called all manner of things.

2) It turns out those people were right.

3) When this is pointed out, the remaining defenders of the Bush Admin and/or rightwingers in general pop up to say "duh, wartime propoganda!" and throw out some new accusations (e.g. "grow up!").

Hence my little discussion of "traitors." Now, for whatever reason this bothered you, even if it wasn't in any way aimed at you. Hey, it's a free country...

-Arrian

We of course are referring to two seperate incidents.

You of course refer in specificity to these two incidents of propaganda. And truth be told I don't recall many national figures calling bull**** on either of the stories. I do recall some uproar when Tillman died how some on the left were cheer leading his death saying "he had it coming". But as for the rumor mongers and conspiracy theorists out there I don't recall it. (Could be tho') So my brain fuzzes when it comes to the calls of traitors for those who disbelieved the Tillman or Lynch stories.

OTOH recent stories of Dems calling Rudy engaging in the lowest of (Code words) politics of fear, likewise Repugs in general of engaging in hyper partisanship by calling Dems out on their patriotism etc. or the incident where Dems feign those attacks strikes me as repugnant and a slimey way of evading issues and turning topics to those of their own liking. Such as look at how much Bush screwed up.

[Arrian]

I recall when the first articles came out questioning each incident. And, when they first did, the resounding cry I recall hearing was "goddamned leftists! Why do they hate America?"

Our memories differ, and both are hazy.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Listening to Petraeus (who I don't think is either dumb or a liar by any means) is not at all encouraging. Yes we're making some progress, but things could get worse before they get better and we'll need a huge commitment for a long but indefinite period of time.

If only Speaker and Senate Majority leader would listen. Considering Nancy couldn't be bothered and Harry said he wouldn't believe Petraeus regardless.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi government is starting to slowly try to get it's **** halfway together, but rather than being a national unity government, they're a bunch of partisan hacks with narrow interests and they think legislation is a zero-sum game.

This is the Iraqi govenment, not the US one we're talking about here right?

That about right? Not a bad assessment six months in, but not at all encouraging after more than four years in.

And considering its basically a fresh start/clean slate for Petraeus ..... regardless any meaning drawn at this point is useless until Mid July/August time frame when full compliment of troops will be in play. Until then legislation calling for troop withdrawls and claims of victory or defeat are far premature and simply playing poltics.

[Berzerker]

Just for the record, I think our major mistake was Iraq War I, staying around afterwords, and imposing sanctions and inspections on Saddam. That inevitably got us both the WOT and the second Gulf war. We are stuck in quicksand now because of Bush I.

Yup, and that was the bastard who told Iraqis to rebel shortly before signing a truce with Saddam.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
And considering its basically a fresh start/clean slate for Petraeus ..... regardless any meaning drawn at this point is useless until Mid July/August time frame when full compliment of troops will be in play. Until then legislation calling for troop withdrawls and claims of victory or defeat are far premature and simply playing poltics.

It's not a fresh start/clean slate to the *******s shooting at us and planting bombs. Petraeus inherits a mess, just like Robert E. Lee outside Richmond, or Ridgway in Korea. Change in personnel at the top doesn't mean a thing in terms of the overall war situation.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Remember, "Mission Accomplished," and the insurgents are "desperate," "dead-enders" and "there are no more than 5,000 insurgents" and all that horse****? The so-called surge came after more than two years of denying that the insurgent fighters in Iraq were a major issue.

That's odd. I seem to recall that the Iraqi army was defeated and Saddam deposed. That was the primary mission, and it was accomplished. And at first the insurgents were exactly as described. It didn't take long for that to change, but that doesn't make the initial assessment incorrect even if that assessment was held too long.

Or, lets go back a bit further and remember Iraq "having enough oil to pay for their own reconstruction" (i.e. we'll take their oil and give contracts to our buddies), and becoming "a beacon of democracy" in the mideast?

I think you'll find that discussions about reconstruction occured after "mission accomplished," so we couldn't exactly "go back a bit further" to find those statements.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that the intent was to pay our own contractors to do all the reconstruction. Other than infrastructure we believed the Iraqis would want to rebuild their own houses, businesses, and economy. Like the Kuwaitis did.

...just one more piece of a systemic pattern of playing so fast and loose with reality that it's not clear that our fearless leaders having a ****ing clue what's going on, or what they're even doing.

But MtG sees all, understands all.

I highly doubt (in fact I'd be shocked) that making up this crap about Lynch and Tillman happened anywhere near Rumsfeld's level...

A small flicker of intelligent analysis (the 10% that was consequential) shows through the smokescreen... then it's right back to polemic rant:

If we were anywhere near success in Iraq or Afghanistan, it'd be a trivial footnote, but administration incompetence has us heavily committed in two long-running wars against enemies who are far from defeated, with no clear success in sight, and quite likely, no clear success possible after this much ****ing up.

Is Iraq likely to conquer peaceful neighbors or develop weapons of mass destruction any time soon? Is Afghanistan a refuge where OBL and company can freely operate and train terrorists? That sounds like success to me.

Even the Madrid train bombings seem to be vestiges of the old networks and plans AQ had in place before the US invaded. There have been no major AQ operations since. There have been only a couple OBL messages that weren't recorded before AQ was kicked out of Afghanistan. AQ is effectively dead. That sounds like success to me.

Perhaps somebody is expecting the Fairy Godmother to turn the pumpkin into a carriage and the patchwork clothes into a silken gown.

I think most of the emotional reaction is...

Ah, at last a little bit of honesty!

Well, that covers the nine-tenths of that [MtG] rant that were inconsequential, and the one tenth on the mark. Oops, no, the Oracle has more to speak unto the benighted:

If "It wouldn't have mattered who was calling the shots once we were there" then you're essentially saying the current situation is an inevitable result of having invaded.

No, it is that there is nobody who would've made all the hindsight-perfect decisions you now espouse. At best some of the decisions may have been better. Then again, some other decisions might've been worse.

And what the **** do "the Dems" have to do with anything back in 2002 and 2003? "the Dems" weren't the ones setting policy. Bush Sr. was certainly far more effective in handling the gulf war than Bush jr. has been in handling either of his.

Invalid comparison. Once again, both wars were handled brilliantly. The primary difference is that the Kuwaitis were a nearly monolithic society and didn't descend into partisan conflicts. Bush didn't have to rebuild Kuwait, or fight insurgents.

Now to the point raised: who said anything about 2002 and 2003? This is about rebuilding and fighting insurgents. That's 2004 and on.

Bush jr. chose to surround himself with ideologues who insisted that their particular worldview applied everywhere, and who were monumentally ignorant of Iraqi, Iranian and general mideast history, regional politics, ethnic, tribal and religious conflicts. Anyone with actual relevant expertise was to be avoided or minimized (Powell in the latter case), and for local "insight" Bush's cabal chose to rely on a kleptocratic exile with no credibility in-country.

MtG, of course, knows all and sees all. He warned of all these things in advance, before the war was even fought. Oh, wait a minute, he has only taken this position in hindsight.

The Iraqi response to the invasion and occupation and the current situation were far from inevitable, and any number of Republican leaders (past or present) could have handled the situation better. It's just typical of Bushies' Bootlickers that any criticism of the monumental incompetence of this administration is turned into a partisan issue, or else becomes a "your people would have been even worse, so our performance is not subject to question, neener neener neener."

Except, once again, you can't point to any one person or group (including yourself) who had all the "right" answers before the hindsight kicked in.

And when did any of this become an issue of "the monumental incompetence of this administration?" You admit that the stories prolly had nothing to do with Rummy or anyone at that level. Who keeps cranking up the propaganda machine every time a story comes out? Look in the mirror.

[Arrian]

Once again, both wars were handled brilliantly.

What the **** good is it if you are brilliant at war but utterly incompetant at anything else?

As far as I'm concerned, the occupation/reconstruction is PART OF THE WAR. By starting the war, we signed up for the occupation & reconstruction. Except, of course, we didn't plan for it. At all. The people in charge had no ****ing idea what they were doing.

Would I have done better? I actually think so, yes, because I would've assumed the worst and tried to plan for it. These jokers assumed the best-case scenario. Would the Arrian administration have succeeded in turning Iraq into a stable, not-unfriendly-to-us democracy? That I won't claim, because it's not clear to me that such a thing was ever possible (and, ultimately, that was the reason I wasn't pro-war).

And I said this stuff* BEFORE the war. So I'm pissed off, ok?

* - "this stuff" being along the lines of "they don't have a reconstruction plan to speak of and that's really bad." Specific criticisms can only be hindsight because none of us knew exactly what the Admin's plan, or lack thereof, was in advance.

-Arrian

[rah]

Heck, I'm a repug and liked how they handled the intial part of the conflict, but even I'm embarassed about the lack of a subsequent plan and the general incompentance shown since. But I still believe that we shouldn't cut and run since we're responsible for the current status. And predicting what would happen after the initial conflict really shouldn't have been that hard.
But how long and under what conditions we finally do leave is tough to determine. Can we really head off a civil war? Can we miminize the ethnic retaliations? I am pessimistic at this point but not willing to totally give up yet.