Closely examining Iraq war assertions

…. assertions such as “Bush has created more terrorists!” and “the terror threat has risen since the Iraq war!” Aslan over at Logic Times takes a closer look at those assertions and makes the case that they don’t have much basis in reality.

Consider it a must-read.

(Hat tip: Stephen Green)

More/Related: Mick Stockinger at UNCoRRELATED examines the “Bush lied about WMD!” fallacy, and predicts that the left may be in for an October surprise that would blow all their blatherings about “NO WMD!” out of the water. (Hat tip: ST reader Fat Tone)

45 Responses to "Closely examining Iraq war assertions"

Maimonides says:

February 14, 2006 at 10:57 am

So Aslan basically says that by putting our soldiers in harms way in Iraq, they can bear the brunt of the damage from “terrorists” (I’m too sick with the flu to get into the usual semantics game about the differences between terrorists and insurgents, but I’m thinking it!) is a great policy decision.

And another conservative heard about the very alleged “proof” of wmds. We’ve heard it before, and as most conservatives will fail to remember, one of the reasons ME analysts that the Administration said we needed to be careful about the invasion is that if there were any WMDs, they might be moved out of the country. But hey, that kind of thinking was so 2002.
Maimonides says:

February 14, 2006 at 10:58 am

Correction (darn flu)

“ME analysts that the Administration ignored“
Adam says:

February 14, 2006 at 10:59 am

The article works too hard to convince the up equals down. Iraq was governed by a brutal dictator before we invaded. Since, this population of people divided by religious sectarianism has spawned new terrorists.

True, they are not attacking this country, but that isn’t evidence that they do not exist. Before the invasion, the people of Iraq were not terrorists. Now, some have become terrorists. They are focused on their own country and the foreign forces that are there rather than planning attacks here.

Why plan an attack on a US target when you have plenty of US targets in your own country? The logic just doesn’t work.
Lindata says:

February 14, 2006 at 11:11 am

There were no terrorist attacks in the United States from 1993 until 2001. So we actually will not know if Bush is more effective than Clinton in the United States until 2009. As for overseas, attacks and deaths are up, even if you ignor Iraq.

On the other hand, a lot of the 1 Billion Muslims are pretty annoyed with us.

The rest is rationalization.
Colin says:

February 14, 2006 at 11:23 am

Are you sure the article isn’t a parody of rw thought? Because I laughed out loud at this statement:

There [have] been [no attacks] in America after September 11th and the Iraqis are undoubtedly delighted to have exchanged a brutal dictatorship for liberty and the occasional car bomb.

Yes, I’m certain they are “delighted”. They are so delighted that they attack our soldiers, and one another, every day.
Colin says:

February 14, 2006 at 11:27 am

Please don’t submit posts twice. First time commenters are on moderation intially. Your post was released. –ST
Baklava says:

February 14, 2006 at 12:52 pm

Colin wrote, “They are so delighted that they attack our soldiers, and one another, every day.

The “they” that you are referring to is not Iraqi’s. There are so many sources of information that show that the normal everyday Iraqi isn’t the one doing these things. The normal everyday Iraqi aren’t the “insurgents”.

I hope you can understand Colin that there have been estimates that have put the insurgents over 50% from foriegn countries (Syria, Iran, etc). There are some people who are Iraqi’s acting as insurgents but it isn’t the general population like it was in Vietnam. There was a 5 week period in Vietnam where we lost more soldiers than the two years we’ve spent in Iraq. Every life is valuable but cutting and running because someone has targetted us is not an acceptable solution. There are 24 million Iraqi’s who were freed and will remain free and the women will continue to learn and vote if we do this right.
Baklava says:

February 14, 2006 at 1:08 pm

maim wrote, “But hey, that kind of thinking was so 2002.”

If they were moved they were moved, and it applies still. I think your kind of thinking is muddy the water thinking. Why would 3 years passing change the fact that they may have been moved? In closed societies like Syria and Iran we have a tough enough time gathering intelligence for 3 years to have given us a good “feel” as to whether they are there or not.

And one thing is clear to me. This single issue will hanunt Democrats for over a decade if stockpiles are found. Democrats banking on using their “speculation” that Iraq had no WMD’s over the intelligence agencies of the U.S., Germany, Britian, France and Russia isn’t smart thinkin’ I’m thinkin’. Take this Saddam trial for instance. I’m not sure why this tactical decision by the Democrats continues to be their decision. It is absolutely mind boggingly dumb.
Baklava says:

February 14, 2006 at 1:10 pm

Adam with amazing lack of perception wrote, “Before the invasion, the people of Iraq were not terrorists. Now, some have become terrorists.

See my previous comment to Colin..
Robert says:

February 14, 2006 at 1:11 pm

Baklava,

Are you saying the US wasn’t able to secure Iraq from foreign insurgents?
Why/ how is that?
I say we (as the most powerful military and economic country in the world) can do better.

As for “cut and run”, I totally agree with your point.
Didn’t we learn anything from the (cut and run) Reagan Presidency?
peteathome says:

February 14, 2006 at 1:11 pm

With most of our energies being spent on Iraq Bin Laden has been free for the last 4 years to periodically spit on the USA.

I’m sorry, but that is a disgrace and I blame the President for this.
Larry says:

February 14, 2006 at 1:12 pm

There are lots of serious logical problems with the Logic Times piece and the assumptions on which it is based. This is a response to the primary evidence that he uses to support his point.

Test 1) Casualty Percentage

Your argument is statistically useless because
you are not compensating at all for differences
between wars. For instance, a higher percentage
of the population of the U.S. was involved in
the Civil War than were involved in other wars.
The number of troops involved in a conflict (both
absolute numbers and as a percentage of the forces
fighting) would also be a more useful statistic
than merely taking a percentage of the population.

Your essay is dated 12/27/05, but the numbers for
your casualty counts seems low. From 2003 through
Feb 2006, there have been 2268 U.S. deaths and
16,653 U.S. casualties confirmed by the DoD.
The numbers you use (257 and 658) are quite
out of date and certainly do not reflect the casualty
numbers as of December 2005.

As with most statistics, the true story is really
not evident in the numbers and often the
numbers are used to obscure more interesting
and important facts. One could say that the
Defense Department study that shows inadequate
body armor is responsible for many casualties
is saying that the casualty level is “too high”.
(DefenseTech http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002068.html
and the NY Times have articles on this DoD study
and Sen Johnson from South Dakota has some questions
about this http://johnson.senate.gov/~johnson/releases/200601/2006111444.html.

In addition, you might want to look at other
battle statistics such as the number of casualties that
cannot return to active duty, the number that
are from National Guard units (a number that is
significantly different for this conflict than
it was for any earlier war).

Test 2) Zero civilian casualties in the U.S. since the Iraq War

This is true, but it is a mostly meaningless statistic
because it does not measure the level of terrorism
or the number of terrorists, it only measures the number
of terror attacks in the U.S. since 2003. The same
statistical misuse could be applied to other three year
periods with similarly useless conclusions. Between 1995
and 1998, there were 0 civilian casualties due to terrorist
attacks on U.S. soil.

The State Department Report “Patterns of Global Terrorism”
is issued every year to report on incidences and trends in
global terrorism. It was issued every year until 2003 when
the State Department was embarassed by a miscalculation that
led them to loudly trumpet that terrorist incidents was down
when it in fact had risen.

To support my point that 1995 – 1997 can be equated using your
metrics to 2003 -2006, there were no terrorist incidents
in the U.S. in 1995. From the report “In most countries,
the level of international terrorism in 1995 continued
the downward trend of recent years, and there were
fewer terrorist acts that caused deaths last year
than in the previous year.” That’s good news.
From the 1996 report “During 1996 there were 296 acts
of international terrorism, the lowest annual total in
25 years and 144 fewer than in 1995.” Fewer is good.
From the 1997 report “During 1997 there were 304 acts
of international terrorism, eight more than occurred
during 1996, but one of the lowest annual totals
recorded since 1971.” Ok, that’s not good news, but still
no attacks on U.S. soil.
1998 was better: “There were 273 international
terrorist attacks during 1998, a drop from the 304
attacks we recorded the previous year and the lowest
annual total since 1971.”
In 1999, the Patterns of Global Terrorism report does have
a mention of North America, but the context was a thwarted
smuggling incident. “International terrorist attacks in
North America are relatively rare. In 1999 the United States
and Canada cooperated in investigating a noteworthy incident
involving the smuggling of explosives from Canada
into Washington St.”

2002 incidents were down, but in 2003 they were up. 2004 report
was not released after the 2003 embarassment and 2005 numbers
have not yet been collected or released. For 2004 and 2005
we must rely on reports from NGO’s and what military
information is available. Terrorism analysts have said that
the increase in incidents has been significant because the
techniques and tools are more similar to those being used
in Iraq and Afghanistan, so their conclusion is that Iraq
and Afghanistan are serving as “proving grounds” for
techniques and tools.

To use one of your patterns of logic, it is inconsistent
to say that foreign fighters are coming into Iraq to cause
trouble, but there is no increase in terrorists or terrorism.

Test 3) Civilian casualties are too high.

Once again, your numbers fall into the categoriy of lies
known as statistics (of the categories “Lies, damn lies
and statistics”) Taking the average deaths over the reign
of Saddam Hussein is meaningless because the months were
no where near equal or average because large casualties
were caused in short periods of time. For instance, in the
time period where Iraq was our ally against Iran and Donald
Rumsfeld was shaking hands with Saddam. Or in the time
when we encouraged the Kurds to rise up against Saddam and
then left them to be gassed and strafed with helicopter
gunships before stepping in.

Test 4) destroyed infrastructure

Your rebuttal does not mention infrastructure, only
civilians killed.

Consider that the water and electrical systems are
do not operate at pre-war levels even three years
after the end of major combat operations.
By all credible accounts, the only stable area is
the “Green Zone” and that is continually being tested.
Rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure and society was left
to people with little or no experience and the result
was that billions of dollars of reconstruction funds
have been lost and a country that was once the largest
producer of concrete in the world had concrete barriers
imported for the Green Zone wall.

Test 5) Iraq war costs too much…

You make the same mistake here as you did with the casualty
count. Simply dividing the cost by the population does not
tell us anything interesting or useful about the cost of the
war. Aside from the obvious mistake in comparing the cost of
Iraq now with other conflicts when we know that Iraq is no
where near over, you ignore the costs shared by other countries.
We did not win WW2 alone and we did not win the Gulf War alone.
Compared to those two conflicts (and the Revolutionary War
and WW1 and Afghanistan) we are prosecuting this war nearly
alone. We are bearing the bulk of the cost and the military
commitment that does not even compare to Gulf War I or Afghanistan.

Test 6) It hurts the U.S. economy…

Your graphs show a misleading and naieve view of what the
U.S. economy is, but that is not surprising because that is
how this administration views it.

The fact that you have not included any of the trade deficit
numbers or current accounts balance. We are also seeing
inverted yield curve for the first time in more than five
years and the economy isn’t growing at the rate it was
then, so some people are concerned at this news.

If you look at the Beige Book numbers for the last four
or five years, you will see that the growth in the economy
is largely the increase in defense and related spending.
Before 2003, the surest signs that the administration had
already decided to go to war were the spending reflected
in the 2002 quarters and the pre-positioning of troops.

Test 7) The Iraqi economy has been destroyed…

Of course, the language in the IMF statement is all relative
and only in the context of 2004 and 2005. That the economy
of Iraq is far below anticipated levels, let alone pre-war
levels is still true. That the oil industry is still well
below anticipated and pre-war levels is still true. That
unemployment is still epidemic is not reflected in the IMF
statement. One could look at IMF-World Bank interests and
say that Paul Wolfowitz (now head of the World Bank) would
have some interest in a generic, positive statement about
Iraq, but that would be cynical and require that you
actually read the IMF statement and look for more than
“we’re doing better than the worst year we ever had.”

Test 8) democracy in the middle east is unworkable…

I beleive you misrepresent the argument.
Democracy, imposed through invasion has never, ever
worked and there is little credible reason to believe that
this area would be more receptive to an imposed democracy.

That the elections were held under martial law does not make
me think that this is a budding democracy. That the elections
underrepresent populations is also problematic. It could turn
out to be different, but the constitution and elections held
thus far are not evidence of democracy or self-determination.

Test 9) War on Terror…

Al Quaeda is in Iraq. That much is true. They had no significant
presensce there before the US Invasion, so your logic is a
bit circular. “We have to go to Iraq to fight Al Qaeda. Al
Qaeda will be in Iraq when we invade.”

Of course the “War on Terror” is bigger than any one group,
but considering the Islamist extremism is what you rail against
it would be logical to deal with Saudi Arabia (which is far
more tolerant of Islamist extremists than the secular government
of Iraq under Saddam)

Test 10) The occupation has been bungled…

History does indeed teach us that post war issues are often
as challenging as the war itself. Why did the post-war planning
go unheeded by this administration? Why were people with
little or no experience (of any kind, let alone nation building)
put in positions of power in the CPA?

It is not a secret that post-war scenarios are difficult, but
this administration ignored all the advice it had on that
level.

By the way, the ‘werewolves’ poster you use is not true. You
should check the facts on that situation.

Conclusion:
You assert that anyone who is intellectually honest will
agree with you that the war is going well, but all of your
assertions are subject to debate and few have any valid
statistical or evidentiary value. You claim this is
evidence, but if you are really following logical rigor, you
should call this argument because the extent to which your
assertions prove your point or are even related to your
conclusions is highly suspect.

You claim logical rigor and methodology, but you have
committed terrible logical missteps because you started
out with an intent to prove a point and fit statistics
and anectdotes to serve that purpose. Test 10 illustrates
your preconceived ideology because the evidence (of military
commanders making troop level assessments that are ignored
by the civilian administration and nine billion dollars
unaccounted for in reconstruction funds) clearly points to
incompetence and corruption rather than mere bad luck.

Please rethink your logic on this. It is seriously flawed.
peteathome says:

February 14, 2006 at 1:18 pm

Please Baklava – the weapons labeled as WMDs were never a threat to the USA. These were bulk weapons. It took the Iraquis 100s of flights and days and days to spray the Kurds with their crude biological and chemical weapons.

They are no more WMDs than bullets are.

Why would a terrorist want to ship over a few tons of these crude weapons to the USA for a terrorist attack when it would be much easier to manufacture some more sophisticated ones right here in the USA. Think sarin and the crazed cult folk in Japan.

Bush tried to conflate these crude weapons with real threats like nuclear bombs. If one day some of these “WMDs” are found, I’m sure the administration will claim it justifies dropping bin Laden to overthrow Suddan, but it will still be nonsence. There may have been good reasons to go after him, but the threat of Saddam handing WMDs to terrorists to use against the USA is not one of them.
Baklava says:

February 14, 2006 at 1:34 pm

Robert asked, “Are you saying the US wasn’t able to secure Iraq from foreign insurgents?

I think the generals and soldiers have admitted to this. While Democrats point this out as a Presidential failing and to an extent it is, the plans are drawn up by the Pentagon and were plans before Bush came into office (this is how it works my friend) and the President has clearly and repeatedly given the generals the amount of troops the generals have asked for. Iraq is a large country Robert. While I don’t excuse anyone here you need to understand that this failure only points out leftist failures to understand who the insurgents are and how bitterly vehemently opposed to having a Democracy as a nieghbor Iran and Syria are. Make sense?
Baklava says:

February 14, 2006 at 1:37 pm

peteath wrote, “I’m sorry, but that is a disgrace and I blame the President for this.

Yeah. We know. The pres should’ve single handedly gone to the mountains and found and captured bin Laden.

One thing is clear and that is that during and after the invasion of Iraq, the number of troops in Afghanistan were increased. The left’s INCORRECT claim that we diverted troops to Iraq is factually incorrect and without basis. Lies get half way around the world before the truth gets it’s boots on. And that my friends continues to happen. Fortunately for us the Democrats keep the pattern going and the information war of accusations and then us setting the record straight will continue and the left doesn’t control the media anymore.
Baklava says:

February 14, 2006 at 1:42 pm

Larry asserted incorrectly, “Democracy, imposed through invasion has never, ever
worked

Japan and Germany and all of the countries they overtook like Italy and France don’t exist? Seems that their 7 and 10 year reconstruction after the invasion is overlooked. There are plenty of other examples but this suffices…
peteathome says:

February 14, 2006 at 1:43 pm

Baklava – the critical Intel peronel were removed from Afganistan to Iraq at the height of the search for Bin Laden.
Baklava says:

February 14, 2006 at 1:46 pm

That to my knowledge isn’t true. But I’ll entertain the look at your evidence.
peteathome says:

February 14, 2006 at 2:10 pm

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/WarOnTerror/NSCQuit.asp
Top Nat. Security Council member resigns because he feels Iraq will stress Intel resouces.

Since then, a number of people have “retired” trying to bring this to our attention.

We, of course, don’t have access to the true numbers. I assume they are classified.
Baklava says:

February 14, 2006 at 2:30 pm

I’m sorry the UPI article cited reflects people’s “feelings” and has contradictions.

It said (take note with what I bolded):
WASHINGTON, March 19 (UPI) — The top National Security Council official in the war on terror resigned this week for what a NSC spokesman said were personal reasons, but intelligence sources say the move reflects concern that the looming war with Iraq is hurting the fight against terrorism.

Rand Beers would not comment for this article, but he and several sources close to him are emphatic that the resignation was not a protest against an invasion of Iraq. But the same sources, and other current and former intelligence officials, described a broad consensus [feeling] in the anti-terrorism and intelligence community that an invasion of Iraq would divert critical resources from the war on terror.

Beers has served as the NSC’s senior director for counter-terrorism only since August. The White House said Wednesday that he officially remains on the job and has yet to set a departure date.

Another quote of the article is, “A Senate Intelligence Committee staffer familiar with the resignation agreed that it was not a protest against the war against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein

Also, “led national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to ask Beers twice during an exit interview whether the resignation was a protest against the war with Iraq. The source said that although Beers insisted it was not

The next paragraph is more feelings (opinion by UPI not news)

Later in the article, “But some involved in the fight on terror said that it was dangerous to look too far into one resignation — particularly from an official who has not blamed the war on Iraq.

The next paragraph is more feelings by a an official closely involved reported as news.

I’m sorry peteathome… I don’t see the evidence for your claim. Can you try again?
PCD says:

February 14, 2006 at 2:46 pm

Bak, notice how the left loves anonymous sources and cites Liberal Advocacy groups as if they are unbiased?
Baklava says:

February 14, 2006 at 2:49 pm

But my problem is that even the source admits the HARD evidence repeatedly is that it wasn’t a resignation due to disagreement with going to Iraq.

Laced in the story are these “experts” opinions and the story line completely got changed and the left will pick that up and run with it contrary to the evidence. They even inserted opinions about WMD’s in the story.
peteathome says:

February 14, 2006 at 2:59 pm

Try the opposite – show that Intel capability in Afganistan wasn’t reduced by the war in Iraq. Expain why Bin Laden is still on the loose if we had put significant resources on his capture.

BTW – I put that link in only to indicate the concern Beer’s had over Intel. I disagree with the rest of the info in the link. It’s not one I would use, generally, but it’s an old story and it is hard to find active links after 3 years.
Baklava says:

February 14, 2006 at 3:12 pm

Why would I have to address the accusation if it is incorrect. General Myers and Franks have BOTH stated when interviewed that the numbers of military personnel in Afghanistan were increased just prior to the invasion of Iraq and they stated the NUMBERS.

That alone is enough evidence to me to show the liberals claims (which by the way are slightly different than yours – the left just claims generally -including John Kerry – that we diverted resources to Iraq) are factually without merit.

It is time for the left to stop with the inaccurate accusations (during a time of war even) and get with the program. Half of the left just wishes we never went but we disposed of Saddam – so what we put him back in power? The other half recognizes that we disposed of Saddam but just want us to leave now. SO what we leave? That would be a mistake. To grant 24 million Iraqi’s their country only to be taken over by force from foriegn influences and bad influences within as well. Women have education and voting and the violence that does exist is not much more than this country if you look at it (just done with firearms as opposed to IED’s)

Sensationalizing each person dying isn’t the solution. The solution is to UNIFY and present to the enemy that we are not even close to buckling and that there is no option other than victory. The left in this country has emboldened the enemy to strike more frequently and harder and that blood is on the hands of the left. Why does the left want more blood?
trrll says:

February 14, 2006 at 3:42 pm

Seems like a pretty foolish argument. We are reducing the terrorist threat because we haven’t yet had another major attack like 9/11. But such major attacks clearly take years of training and preparation. A basic rule of statistics is that you need to collect data for a long period to assess the frequency of rare events. So come back in 20 or 30 years when you are actually in a position to estimate the frequency of major attacks.

But let’s say that our policies are indeed creating more terrorists. Would we really expect to see these beginning terrorists carrying out sophisticated, highly coordinated attacks on American soil like 9/11? Or would we be more likely to observe them “cutting their teeth” with small attacks on targets of opportunity in their own region?
steve says:

February 14, 2006 at 4:14 pm

The UN declared the war in Iraq illegal some time ago. The bush administration has morphed from a tragedy into a farce with Cheney’s shot heard ’round the world. Peace
CavalierX says:

February 14, 2006 at 7:07 pm

>The UN declared the war in Iraq illegal
>some time ago

Was that before or after the UN endorsed the US’s presence there? Please, if you’re going to spout lies, at least make them marginally believable.
Baklava says:

February 14, 2006 at 7:26 pm

The U.N. isn’t the authorizing entity that declares whether or not we are “allowed” to go to war and didn’t for Yugoslavia [during Clinton] or any other previous “illegal” war (U.N. came into existence October 1945).

Q: What formal declaration did the U.N. make Steve saying the war was illegal? Link it !!!
steve says:

February 14, 2006 at 7:44 pm

You cannot, by international law, pre-emptively go to war. You may go to war if your attacked. We were not attacked. We attacked because “maybe” they will attack us in the future, that is illegal. You can believe that it is ok but, all of your wishing ain’t going to make it so. Peace
jim says:

February 14, 2006 at 7:58 pm

Larry’s comment basically destroys the premise of this whole article.

We didn’t need to go into Iraq, as Saddam was safely contained; we went in, and Al Qaeda has expanded, and according to the Bush Administration’s own report, worldwide terrorism has increased.

I thought that Republicans and conservatives were supposed to stand for accountability. It saddens me to continue to see excuses made for this wilfully ignorant manchild of a president.
Baklava says:

February 14, 2006 at 8:05 pm

Instead of answering the simple question Steve, you made another inaccurate statement.

In case you are confused, here is the question again:
What formal declaration did the U.N. make Steve saying the war was illegal? Link it !!!

Now you’ve made an additional incorrect statements you should back up:
Show us all the text/law by the U.N. that states what you stated about preemptive – we’ll be here waiting.

BTW, Did Afghanistan attack us? Did Yugoslavia? The answers are no and you have egg on your face with every post but dont’ know it.
Baklava says:

February 14, 2006 at 8:10 pm

Jim didn’t add to the discussion but chose to attack with his words instead.

Jim’s second paragraph sounds like he wishes that Saddam were still in power. That’s fine. That’s a valid opinion. But he isn’t in power and we aren’t going back in time. Are you going to be stuck on this issue for another 3 years and just be mad that we disposed of Saddam? Why?

Do you recognize that others have a differing opinion than yours on that subject? Is it ok Jim that others have a different opinion and are happy that Saddam has been disposed of and the country is free and women can learn and vote?
Baklava says:

February 14, 2006 at 8:29 pm

Baklava may taste good but ST looks good.

JT inaccurately wrote, “I see Baklava has not addressed any of the points made by “Larry”.

I chose one to address and I guess you missed it

Will you address it?

Your third paragraph (besides being unneccessary) tried to characterize how I think/feel and you are off the mark badly. And… I’m more qualified to talk about how I feel/think than you are so you set yourself up for failure. It’s a poor debate tactic on your part. You only show your own failings to understand someone else’s point of view.

I’d like to see your answer. I’ll come back to see.

Bak, “JT” won’t be returning. –ST
Baklava says:

February 14, 2006 at 8:31 pm
jim says:

February 14, 2006 at 9:59 pm

Jim’s second paragraph sounds like he wishes that Saddam were still in power.

That’s not my wish. What I wish is that we weren’t wasting soldiers’ bodies and lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars there. That’s not worth the removal of a contained and disarmed dictator, when we’re already fighting a war in Afghanistan on top of it.

That’s fine. That’s a valid opinion. But he isn’t in power and we aren’t going back in time. Are you going to be stuck on this issue for another 3 years and just be mad that we disposed of Saddam? Why?

Because I want accountability. Inexcusable mistakes were made, and continues to be made everyday in the planning of this war, the funding of it, the supplying of the soldiers who fight it, the way military contractors are allowed to pad their bills, etc. etc. – and we’re supposed to just forget about it, rather than hold someone accountable?

The first stage of fixing a mistake, is admitting the mistake. Until the Bush administration gets there, and at least fires Rumsfeld for his gross incompetence in the prosecution of this war, our situation in Iraq will only continue to get worse.

Is it ok Jim that others have a different opinion and are happy that Saddam has been disposed of and the country is free and women can learn and vote?

Sure it is ok with me that others have a different opinion. It is also my duty to argue against opinions which I feel are unfounded in facts, and which are allowing some in our nation to continue to blind themselves to the horrible reality of our situation.

Some ideologically uncomfortbale history for you: We in the US *put* Saddam in power, and sold him military arms which he used to oppress his country. Bush Sr. even stopped the UN from censuring Saddam when he gassed his people – because he was our ally.

The only reason Saddam was removed, is he stopped doing what we told him. Our government could care less what he did to his peasants – that’s just the latest in a series of moving goalposts.

I’m sorry if this hurts your opinion. If you think I’m wrong, please prove me wrong with facts.
Baklava says:

February 14, 2006 at 10:23 pm

Jim wrote, “That’s not my wish. What I wish is that we weren’t wasting soldiers’ bodies and lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars there. That’s not worth the removal of a contained and disarmed dictator, when we’re already fighting a war in Afghanistan on top of it.

I’m glad you clarified [see what I bolded]. Sounds like you didn’t want the “removal” of Saddam. Am I inaccurate now?

Jim wrote, “Inexcusable mistakes were made, and continues to be made everyday in the planning of this war.

Do you know who plans wars and excutes them? The Pentagon. There are over a 1,000 different scenarios drawn up and simply presented to the President [whoever is in office]. It sounds like you in your zeal to blame have pegged the wrong party for planning incorrectly. Do you Jim have evidence that Bush micromanaged and changed an existing war plan that was presented to him? Or will you admit that your zeal is causing an obsession that helps you get things wrong?

Jim funnily wrote, “the way military contractors are allowed to pad their bills

Why do the left like to attack/accuse incorrectly with no evidence during a time of war? What evidence do you have that contractors are not being pursued by auditors daily? Your accusation is simply a talking point without merit.

The “feeling” I get from your post is that you care more about the past and accusing and blaming than moving forward. What is your idea for moving forward without mentioning Bush, the administration or anyone in his administration or cabinet? I see great potential for the 24 million Iraqi’s. I see great potential in having two Representative Republics in the Middle East. I wonder why you can’t let go of the past as what is done is done and realize some of the successes along with your dissappointments. A perfect war would be no dead people. I don’t know of anyone who thinks things went perfectly. But I do see people who are overwhelmingly negative (like yourself – just my opinion).
brooksfoe says:

February 15, 2006 at 12:58 am

The eternal promise that Saddam’s WMD will someday be found belongs in the same category as the belief by messianic fundamentalists that the End of Days is near. People keep believing it because they want to believe it, and its accumulating failure to occur over months, years, decades, centuries, simply doesn’t register.

In other news, O.J. says he’s hot on the trail of Nicole’s real killer.
jim says:

February 15, 2006 at 11:59 am

What evidence do you have that contractors are not being pursued by auditors daily?

My evidence is that there is 8.8 BILLION dollars unaccounted for in Iraq. Let me repeat that – unaccounted for. This is US Taxpayer money that was paid out – and no one has any idea what it was paid for.

Last year, I accidentally underpaid my taxes by $1.40 – and got a notice from the IRS asking when I was going to send it in.

You tell me if they’re actually being serious, about finding out where our money went.
jim says:

February 15, 2006 at 12:12 pm

It sounds like you in your zeal to blame have pegged the wrong party for planning incorrectly.Do you Jim have evidence that Bush micromanaged and changed an existing war plan that was presented to him?

The invasion itself wasn’t necessary, but it was executed with skill and excellence. Bush didn’t interfere there.

The many problems we are in stem from the post-invasion phase. These include:

1) cashiering Shinsecki, even before the invasion, for suggesting we needed more soldiers to keep the peace afterwards – which has turned out to be true.

2) not stationing guards to protect any government files, except those in Iraq’s ministry of oil – thus leading Iraqis to conclude that’s all we’re interested in.

3) not planning ahead to keep the peace, by training and shipping in police officers to deal with Iraqis after the collapse of authority.

4) utterly ignoring Colin Powell’s very prescient report, and disbanding the standing Iraqi army, thus filling Iraq with humiliated, broke, angry, unemployed trained soldiers

5) The numerous ways in which Rumsfeld has disrespected the troops, by refusing to get butts moving or fired for body armor, vehicle shielding

I don’t know if Bush interfering here would make things better or worse; but that’s not his only option. His best option would be to fire Rumsfeld yesterday, and get someone competent in his place; but that would require admitting a mistake.

Or will you admit that your zeal is causing an obsession that helps you get things wrong?

Please show what I’ve said that is factually wrong.
jim says:

February 15, 2006 at 12:14 pm

I’m glad you clarified [see what I bolded]. Sounds like you didn’t want the “removal” of Saddam. Am I inaccurate now?

Let’s see – am I accurate in saying that you wanted 2000+ soldiers dead, and 15,000 wounded, and $200 billion spent, with no WMD’s found, and worldwide terrorism increased?

No. I would be twisting your words to say that, wouldn’t I?
tr says:

February 15, 2006 at 12:17 pm

Hey, Baklava. I just don’t understand why you find Al Qaeda and Bin Laden so unimportant.

In case you’ve forgotten, they killed thousands of US citizens in 9/11.

Within a dozen weeks of this attack, President Bush said, “I don’t know where Bin Laden is, and I don’t care” — because he was preparing to invade Iraq. To remind us of who they are, Al Qaeda then attacked our friends and allies in Madrid, London, and Bali (twice!) The Administration said late last year that they know where Bin Laden is but aren’t going to do anything about it.

Meanwhile, we have wasted a trillion dollars (do you have any idea of how much a trillion dollars is?), killed thousands of American kids and tens of thousands of Iraqis, and maimed tens of thousands of American soldiers and countless Iraqis — for nothing! What harm did Iraq ever do America before we invaded their country?

Your President Bush’s Administration stood up and lied to America, talked about “imminent threats” and “mushroom clouds” while knowing all along that Saddam was a tinpot little dictator with a pathetic army that would collapse in a few days, leaving America to face four years and more of costly, demoralizing guerilla warfare.

Bush’s mad obsession with Iraq is a deep, self-inflicted wound in the side of America that bleeds dead American soldiers every day, while Bin Laden, all but forgotten by our Mad King George, walks free to strike again at his pleasure and gloat at us over the airwaves, an inspiration to generations of future terrorists.
jim says:

February 15, 2006 at 12:27 pm

What is your idea for moving forward without mentioning Bush, the administration or anyone in his administration or cabinet?

Well, the problem is that those at the top are making awful decisions. And those decisions will continue to be awful until they are no longer making those decisions.

But, leaving that source of problems aside, here’s what should be done:

a) fire Halliburton for at best gross incompetence, and at worst deliberate and destructive fraud. Ditto for Custer-Battle, and every other proven defrauder of the US.

b) instead of hiring politically-connected US companies to subcontract work to Iraqi companies, hire the Iraqi companies directly – both saving US taxpayer money, and pumping money directly into the Iraqi economy.

This also puts an Iraqi face directly on the reconstruction, and lessens anger directed at outsiders.

c) get the lights turned back on, and the rest of the infrastructure working

d) bulldoze Abu Ghraib. Have only trained police and trained jail guards in charge of Iraqi troops.

e) Fire Iranian spy Chalabi.

I wonder why you can’t let go of the past as what is done is done and realize some of the successes along with your dissappointments.

Because a) the successes are not worth what they’ve been bought with, and b) accountability for mistakes is the only possible way to move on from mistakes.

A perfect war would be no dead people.

A good war, would be one that was fought against an actual current enemy, and which at least left us safer than before it.

I don’t know of anyone who thinks things went perfectly. But I do see people who are overwhelmingly negative (like yourself – just my opinion).

It doesn’t make me happy to think we’re in a predicament. I just look at it, and that’s what I see.

I think if Clinton had made this much of a hash of things, all the conservatives and Republicans in the country would be howling for his head – and rightfully so.
jim says:

February 15, 2006 at 12:29 pm

Oops, typo or Freudian slip – “d) …Have only trained police and trained jail guards in charge of Iraqi troops.” – I meant to say “prisoners”.
Robert says:

February 15, 2006 at 2:24 pm

Wow jim, nice job.

You spanked that Baklave person good.

Every point you made, he tried to counterpoint with obfuscation. Nice job ripping through his straw men and telling it like it is.

Kudos to you!!
Baklava says:

February 15, 2006 at 8:53 pm

Jim wrote in backwards fashion, “My evidence is that there is 8.8 BILLION dollars unaccounted for in Iraq

That does not mean that auditors aren’t pursuing these isssues. Your initial assertion stands invalidated. Your intitial assertion/accusation was, “the way military contractors are allowed to pad their bills

I take issue with the word “allowed” because auditors working around the clock to NOT allow padding. Therefore Jim’s assertion to me is incorrect. It’s like using the word “target” when saying “targeting journalists”. Words mean things and Jim’s phrases and assertions are bunk because of the words he is using.

Last federal fiscal year the U.S. government didn’t know where or who got 24 Billion. Jim asked, “You tell me if they’re actually being serious, about finding out where our money went.

I don’t know Jim if people are “serious” but there are people who’se jobs are dedicated to these efforts and while I say “YES” they are failing …. again.. the words you are using when you are making your assertions makes your assertions bunk.

Your 12:12 post was a good attempt and I applaud your attempt. It was a reasonable attempt at giving your views which liberals have lately seemed to abandon. I don’t share your views on the responsible parties as the “experts” have been allowed to make the decisions during and after the invasion in my view. I do not think that Bush is micromanaging and making the decisions. I view this as normal government decision making flaws. Nobody is perfect and when there are a multitude of “experts” weighing in in government and making decisions you’ll see decisions that the U.S. people wish weren’t made. I think there are pros and cons to the Iraqi army argument. I’m not sure of your qualifications Jim but I’m not convinced either way and I see your list as part of your obsession and lack of realization that the government will make decisions all the time and during war people will get hurt and killed. In general I believe DIFFERENTLY than you. I believe that this reconstruction is going better than I thought it would and better than past precedents with countries like Japan and Germany even. If we pass the 7 year mark for reconstruction in Japan maybe I’ll think differently. This is why I mentioned no war is perfect and this is why I think my view based on realism and past precedent shows that my realistic expectations has me thinking that you’ll be talking till you’re blue in the face but unable to convince many that your argument is the best. Robert was already convinced. Maybe someday he’ll see what conservatives are trying to say. Maybe not. I was once liberals and converted in 1991 and had the same obsessive pattern of making inaccurate accusations based on my faulty premises.

Jim wrote in response to my question if I was accurate with a deflection argument, “Let’s see – am I accurate in saying that you wanted 2000+ soldiers dead, and 15,000 wounded, and $200 billion spent, with no WMD’s found, and worldwide terrorism increased?

I could ask Jim, where did I state that as any of my wants. But the ORIGINAL QUESTION STILL STANDS.

In my 10:23 PM post I wrote:

Jim wrote, “That’s not my wish. What I wish is that we weren’t wasting soldiers’ bodies and lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars there. That’s not worth the removal of a contained and disarmed dictator, when we’re already fighting a war in Afghanistan on top of it.

I’m glad you clarified [see what I bolded]. Sounds like you didn’t want the “removal” of Saddam. Am I inaccurate now?

Now Jim. Please tell me that you weren’t saying that you “didn’t want the ‘removal’ of Saddam. Where am I wrong in my statement. I believe I’m correct based on what I bolded.

Comments are closed.