Senate Regrets the Vote to Enter Iraq

[Iriemon]

How about when we find out it was even worse than we thought?

Interestingly, the basis for his statement in Jan 2004 that Iraq may have been more dangerous was the opposite reason the Administration argued Iraq was dangerous:

DK: Tom, an imminent threat is a political judgment. It’s not a technical judgment. I think Baghdad was actually becoming more dangerous in the last two years than even we realized. Saddam was not controlling the society any longer. In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened.

David Kay: Exclusive interview - Nightly News with Brian Williams - MSNBC.com

This was in early 2004. It would be interesting to see what Kay things after the last 3 years.

 

[Navy Pride]

Tell me who is benefitting from this alleged freedom...

That remains to be seen but I think it will eventually be the people that are dying the most......The Iraqis.......I can still see that picture of them risking their lives to vote and their ink stained fingers........

I will probably never forget that picture.......We can not "Cut and Run" no matter how badly the left has lost the stomach for the fight....

 

[jujuman13]

Quote by NAVY PRIDE
(The same intelligence that the senate intelligence committee saw and the British to this day stand by........)

The British Prime Minister Teflon Tony Blair will always and has always been in the habit of making 'sound bites', one merely has to look at his career over the last 10 years to see the truth of this. Teflon Tony is by and large seen by the British electorate, as being a Poodle who runs whenever his Master (President Bush) whistles.
The UK has much to thank the US for, so in reality feels an indebtedness to the US, Teflon relies on 'spin' 100% in running his own leadership of the party of which he a leader, namely the (at present ruling party of the UK) Labor (largely a Communist Party).
With regard to supporting the US in both starting and joining the Iraq war, he was counting on what some 70% of Americans were also counting on, namely, a swift conclusion.
Like President Bush, Teflon Tony never gave a single thought to what was going to happen after the war was won.
Neither of them fully realised that installing a democracy where none had existed for well over 30 years and in a country where those who knew what democracy meant were by and large dead, would be extremely difficult.
Yes, I concur with NAVY PRIDE, seeing those people who were outstandingly courageous with ink on their fingers after having voted, against the wishes of the Terrorists as well as under their guns was a truly uplifting sight.
Unfortunately the Gov. they democratically elected is not now nor ever was fully capable of running the country.
What we have now in Iraq, is a CIVIL war, America is not in the business of quelling CIVIL wars, this is best done by the democratically elected Gov. and if they are not capable then whoever poses the the strongest side will eventually win.
My own thoughts are that Iraq should be partitioned and that if the US is to support any side it should support the Kurds.
Quote by NAVY PRIDE
(Yeah and N ancy Pelosi is going to restore integrity By giving coimmitte leaderships to crooks like Hastings and Murtha and allowing crooks like Jefferson to serve on committees..............aps take off your rose colored glasses)

The only people who can restore integrity in the Political system are the Politicians involved in that system.

Quote by NAVY PRIDE
(there is enough corruption to go around in both parties....)

How very true, and yet this is the first time I have seen NAVY PRIDE publicly admit that the GOP is corrupt.
With those who support the GOP willing to admit that there are failings within the GOP, America stands a reasonable chance of being able to cleanse it's political system of this corruption, likewise if those that support the Democrats do likewise.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

No it is not when the Administration held back all of the intelligence and only shared the portion that backed their claims. That is simply known as MANIPULATING THE TRUTH and that is a whole lot different than "second guessing."

Unfounded, unsubstantiated, unproven liberal lie.

 

[Stinger]

Interestingly, the basis for his statement in Jan 2004 that Iraq may have been more dangerous was the opposite reason the Administration argued Iraq was dangerous:

DK: Tom, an imminent threat is a political judgment. It’s not a technical judgment. I think Baghdad was actually becoming more dangerous in the last two years than even we realized. Saddam was not controlling the society any longer. In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened.

David Kay: Exclusive interview - Nightly News with Brian Williams - MSNBC.com

This was in early 2004. It would be interesting to see what Kay things after the last 3 years.

His arguments added to the reasons. And I have no reason to believe he will think anything different.

 

[cherokee]

By ABC News' count, if the Senators knew then what they know now, only 43 — at most — would still vote to approve the use of force and the measure would be defeated.

Isn't hindsight amazing? If I knew then, what I know now, I would have bought more shares of Google.

:roll:

I hear ya on that.
I wouldnt have asked my first wife to marry me.....:doh

 

[Stinger]

I hear ya on that.
I wouldnt have asked my first wife to marry me.....:doh

Hey there was a survey out last week that said most wives wouldn't marry their husbands again.

 

[jujuman13]

One last push and that’s you finished in Iraq, Mr President - Sunday Times - Times Online

Quote
(I have not heard one remotely plausible game plan for the “Battle of the Surge”. Leaks have indicated that commanders on the ground are strongly opposed to giving the enemy yet more targets. Pentagon chiefs are equally opposed to the cost in men and money of a transient boost in control on the ground. American public opinion and Congress are overwhelmingly against the plan, which Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator, calls “Alice in Wonderland”.)

Quote
(Leaders contemplating defeat far from the front are always tempted to order “one last push”. Thus did Hitler order the battle of the bulge, Nixon the bombing of Cambodia and Reagan the blasting of the Shouf to cover his retreat from Lebanon. A general must pretend to victory even in the jaws of defeat, or his soldiers will not fight. America has 1m men under arms. Surely they are not to be beaten by a few hundred guerrillas in the suburbs of Baghdad? So Bush will tell them to make one last heave, however pointless. He does not want to share his father’s legacy of cutting and running from Iraq.)

Quote
(Such Iraqi government as exists under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, is unable to enforce any law or order any army. For Washington and London to tell him to “bring his militias to heel” is like telling a junior cop to arrest Al Capone.)

Quote
(More US troops in Baghdad will almost certainly spend their time defending surviving Sunni enclaves from Shi’ite ethnic cleansing now pushing west across Baghdad, supported by semi-official Madhist and other death squads. Of all ironies none will be more savage than that US soldiers should lose their lives protecting Sunni Ba’athists from a murderous onslaught by Shi’ite irregulars in league with the police and army.)

Quote
(If it comes to either state of affairs, no outsiders, regional or global, should meddle. Iraq’s next chapter must be written by Iraqis alone. Outsiders have made this country a byword for arrogant and incompetent interventionism. The West’s 2003 assault on Iraq was unprovoked and justified by no overriding threat to western interests. It was a ghastly, gigantic whim, one to which the British government fully subscribed.)

But can President Bush see this, the answer is apparently not.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

I have not heard one remotely plausible game plan for the “Battle of the Surge”.

That's because the President hasn't told you yet. The address to the nation is Wednesday. Complain then.

 

[26 X World Champs]

That's because the President hasn't told you yet. The address to the nation is Wednesday. Complain then.

As if the Bushies haven't leaked out their exact plan to try to convince people in advance to support it...surely you're not that imbecilic, are you?

 

[CurrentAffairs]

As if the Bushies haven't leaked out their exact plan to try to convince people in advance to support it...surely you're not that imbecilic, are you?

Imbecilic? Why do your posts always contain an attack on the other person?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Imbecilic? Why do your posts always contain an attack on the other person?

Huh? Read it again my dear friend? I asked a question...I did not call you imbecilic re that post nor am I in this post. Do you feel imbecilic or inadequate because of what you post? That would be your opinion not mine...

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Huh? Read it again my dear friend? I asked a question...I did not call you imbecilic re that post nor am I in this post. Do you feel imbecilic or inadequate because of what you post? That would be your opinion not mine...

Yes, we all know the trick....make it sound like you are only calling the written post imbecilic ...

"hey, I'm not calling you imbecilic, just the post you wrote"

Give me a break. :roll:

 

[26 X World Champs]

Yes, we all know the trick....make it sound like you are only calling the written post imbecilic ...

"hey, I'm not calling you imbecilic, just the post you wrote"

Give me a break. :roll:

Try reading it again for further clarity...maybe this time you'll have a different opinion of what I wrote...it certainly was not about you specifically...

Originally Posted by 26 X World Champs View Post
As if the Bushies haven't leaked out their exact plan to try to convince people in advance to support it...surely you're not that imbecilic, are you?

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Try reading it again for further clarity...maybe this time you'll have a different opinion of what I wrote...it certainly was not about you specifically...

surely you're not that imbecilic, are you?


It was quite clear.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Huh? Read it again my dear friend? I asked a question...I did not call you imbecilic re that post nor am I in this post. Do you feel imbecilic or inadequate because of what you post? That would be your opinion not mine...

Moderator's Warning:

This is ridiculous, and you know it. You've been on a real tear for the last couple days and you need to knock it off. Do not insult other posters.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Moderator's Warning:

This is ridiculous, and you know it. You've been on a real tear for the last couple days and you need to knock it off. Do not insult other posters.

I strongly disagree. Please take the time to reread my posts and you will see my questions are all rhetorical and are not directed at any individuals. I was clearly stating that certain points of view are imbecilic if adopted by anyone and as my posts indicate I was not calling anyone specifically anything.

I disagree with your warning.

 

[Pragmatist]

Who in their right mind does not regret the Senate vote!

 

[Stinger]

Who in their right mind does not regret the Senate vote!

Anyone who has read the Kay and Duelfer reports, excerpts of which I have already cited.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Dropping in an extra hundred thousand troops or so at the beginning of the war and moving quickly to secure the country would have been genius too.

If you're going to do something as absolutely grave and dangerous as start a war, you should damn well do it right. It might be penny-foolish, but it's pound wise.

The decisions to use fewer soldiers and to use tens of thousands of mercenaries (2nd largest crew of foreigners- less than the US, but more than the Brits) and other associated ideas were to help soften the impact of the cost on the American electorate. However, when the war stretched out beyond the "days, weeks or months" that Rumsfeld repeatedly predicted, the extra costs of going in cheap became apparent.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

LOL! I believe that the Democrats are at fault to some extent for not researching the intelligence more before voting to support this piece-of-$hit war.

Oh hell yes they are!

The info about what a piss poor idea the invasion was and how dodgy the case for war was were all readily available to anyone with access to Google.
Folks with professional staffers and researchers have absolutely no call to use the excuse of ignorance.

Even thought GWB has said he is above making a major decision about war into a political affair (eg the res of Rumsfeld) he had no problem whatsoever with making the most important decision about of the war into the political affair of the mid-term elections in 2002. The Dems (and others) were also too stupid and/or spineless to stand up for what was right.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

It is very easy to second guess the administration on the war after the fact.........

I can attest that it was pretty damn easy before hand as well.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Anyone who has read the Kay and Duelfer reports, excerpts of which I have already cited.

I missed the part where the reports showed that invading Iraq has made us more safe.
We freed up thousands of tons of armament including radiological material that were previously under the control of the Iraqi military for the terrorists' black market.
Now these things have gone from potentially making their way into the hands of terrorists to actually being in the hands of terrorists.

All you've done is show that Hussein was losing control of Iraqis society.

[xpt the hospitals. Apparently no one received treatment for even the sniffles w/o Hussein's personal approval- how else could Zarqawi visiting a Dr 'prove' that Hussein was willing to relinquish expensive weapons to people outside his control? lol]
​

What's missing from your equation is the part that shows invading was an appropriate response to the situation. Just because there's a problem, it doesn't mean that all courses of action are equally preferable.

Invading Iraq was not helpful to our situation. It actually caused what we went to war to prevent - the proliferation of dangerous weapon in the hands of terrorists who would do harm to the US.
​

 

[Stinger]

I missed the part where the reports showed that invading Iraq has made us more safe.

I quoted them specifically.

We freed up thousands of tons of armament for the black market

Like there wasn't that out there already.

including radiological material that were previously under the control of the Iraqi military.

Saddam's secret police, oh how comforting.

Now these things have gone from potentially making their way into the terrorists channels to actually being the terrorist channels.

Really which terrorist have obtained nuclear materials from Iraq?

What missing from your equation is the part that shows invading was an appropriate response to the situation.

No it's not read the statements from the finders of fact I've already posted.

What was your plan to deal with Saddam in light of the fact that we now know he was even more dangerous than we had even imagined?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I quoted them specifically.

The ISG reports do not address that at all.
If you actually think that the ISG reports address how invading Iraq has made us more safe, please cite the exact language.

Like there wasn't that out there already.

Yes, exactly like that.

Saddam's secret police, oh how comforting.

Better them than in the hands of terrorists who would do harm to the US. Because, as I'm sure you remember (because I have pointed it out to you repeatedly) Hussein wasn't likely to attack the US directly or by proxy. Assuredly, some of folks who now have this weaponry do intend to attack the US.
I'm not sure why you see this as a helpful turn of events.

Really which terrorist have obtained nuclear materials from Iraq?

I don't know. We do know that Iraqi radiological material has shown up in scrapyards around the world. IIRC, you posted a link or two to that effect.
Further there are many instances of the thousands of tons of armament that were previously under the control of the Iraqi govt now being used by insurgents and terrorists to attack US military personnel. I assume you are aware of these ongoing attacks.

No it's not read the statements from the finders of fact I've already posted.

And again, I have read the ISG reports in their entireties. I have read them many, many times and made copious notes.
However, there's nothing in the ISG reports that says invading was the appropriate response. These reports discuss only the facts, not the implications of the facts. There is a rather large difference between the facts and the implications of the facts.

What was your plan to deal with Saddam in light of the fact that we now know he was even more dangerous than we had even imagined?

Actually, if you will read Dr. Kay's comments you'll see that the danger wasn't from Hussein, but from Hussein's crumbling grip on Iraq.

By John D. Banusiewicz
American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, Jan. 29, 2004 - The man who spent eight months leading the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq told senators here Jan. 28 that although no such weapons have been found, he believes Iraq may have been "even more dangerous than we thought" before Saddam Hussein was removed from power.
​

Please note that Hussein ≠ Iraq.
Further...

Individuals were out for their own protection, and in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated...​

And...

Saddam was not controlling the society any longer. In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened.​

Please note that Hussein ≠ Iraq.
This doesn't describe Hussein marketing weapons, this describes rogue actors w/in Iraq marketing the weapons for their own profit.

We didn't have to go to war. We had time to revamp sanctions etc while we fixed Afghanistan and applied various other pressures and tactics.
That's the heart of the mistake of invading Iraq- we didn't have to. We went to war when we didn't have to.

War's far too serious to be made when it's optional.