AN EMAIL FROM THE FRONT

andrew sullivan ^ | Wednesday, April 14, 2004 | in iraq

[safeasthebanks]

Coop and I are still waiting, little man.....

While your at it (or not at it), how about a little proof behind your assertion that Bush said "Iraq was closely linked to Al Quaeda"?

Tick, tick, tick, tick

[Joe_October]

...now need to put up or shut up after a year on the ground ...

Yea, there hasn't been any resistance in Iraq to impede Rumsfeld from searching Iraq personally. And, there hasn't been any distractions at home or abroad to slow them down.

Everyone knows that the President and everyone in the military should stop doing the responsible thing and get right on answering the idiotic questions of people who will never be satisfied.

Hey, let's have another bogus commission, that will stop soldiers from dying!

[Joe_October]

.... You're absolutely right. Americans at home were never asked to sacrifice anything for this war....

Uh, we were asked to stop crying like whiny babies.

And to stop helping our enemies. When they were burning those bodies on television, they were doing that for the "peace lovers" in the US.

Here's the Hint: If everyone in the US said that under no circumstances will the US flich or back down. That we will spend every penny of our treasury and kill every Iraqi if necessary, the terrorists will give up and let Iraq flourish. The terrorists only continue because they believe TERROR (hence the name terrorists) will help them make their case. When it is clear that will not work, they will stop.

Not only do we prominently broadcast the crying of those that they seek, we poll it and put it in a nice package for them to evaluate.

That thing running down your back that helps you stand. It's call a spine. Try using it some time.

[CSM]

I'm assuming that you know I didn't post the phrase of contention.......We are on the same side.

Another commission, great idea!

[Joe_October]

Indeed we are of a like mind.

My (feeble) sarchasm was meant to support your point.

Even if I didn't agree with what the President did, I would be ashamed of myself to be harming the heroes in the military for some political gain. Then, even if we disagreed, we would be on the same "side". I have no trouble with those who think something corrupt is up. But, their methods will not uncover corruption, it will only aid our enemies.

We had a vote, they lost. Get the job done. Come home. Have a parade. Eat some food. Dance. Then, have a commission and debate what went wrong.

Since we've had the commission, there will be no need for one later. When the job is done and more are dead from our lack of resolve, there will be no one interested in finding out what went wrong (if anything).

So, if I was a HONEST lying rat vermin Leftist and I wanted the truth, I would be quiet and help get the job done, so I could find the truth.

[CSM]

"So, if I was a HONEST lying rat vermin Leftist and I wanted the truth, I would be quiet and help get the job done, so I could find the truth."

Their interest is not in finding the truth, it is in slamming our President in the name of "supporting our troops".

I certainly am no Bush bot, but considering my fellow soldiers I will support the president 100%, it is the only way to ensure victory!

[Alberta's Child]

I think it's long past time for you to stop making excuses for Mr. Perle's incompetence.

The number he quoted in a 2002 interview with David Corn of The Nation was 40,000. That's not even close to 200,000 -- and is even smaller than the size of the New York City police department during the early 1990s.

[CSM]

"Tick, tick, tick, tick"

Add me to the list of those waiting for an answer. However, in my part of the waiting room, I only hear crickets.

Chirp, chirp, chirp and chirp........

[Kleon]

Don't wait up. He's been banned.

[CSM]

I never made excuses for Mr. Perle. In fact, I don't know "jack" about him or his quotes. I was commenting on the quotes you provided to me. If you wanted to use the 40,000 number as your point of reference, you should have provided that information.

I didn't say that your quotes were wrong, I said they were vague and incapable of proving your assertion. If you feel that my comments are not valid, address them instead of pointing at me and crying that I am making excuses for Mr. Perle. If you want me to consider other information, then provide it.

To provide data, then to whine that I didn't address it properly isn't a way to build credibility either!

[CSM]

I'm surprised. If I recall correctly, his account was an established one. Maybe a sleeper troll!

[Alberta's Child]

Like I said in an earlier post -- you can't have it both ways. If Saddam Hussein was truly the threat he was supposed to be, then the decision by this administration to seek U.N. approval was an act of gross malfeasance in its duty to protect the United States.

[CSM]

I think you make a great point here. I would add, tho', that this "appeasement" attitude seems to be GWB's style. It has never, and will never, be rewarded by the left. Let TK write the education bill so TK can bloviate on about how bad GWB is for education. Get 50+ nations to join us in Iraq, yet the left screams unilateralists. Between the two of us, we could probably name 50 different instances of that happening, yet he will not change.

I agree, if SH was the threat claimed (I believe that he has been a threat since the early 90's) that we should have pre-emptively acted much quicker.

My point is that you can't claim that the start of the war in March was a political start to ensure a win in 2004, and forget that the delay was caused by another attempt to appease the leftists.......

[Alberta's Child]

I'll add one more item to your list . . .

Back in 1991 when the first Bush administration was seeking Congressional approval for a resolution to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait (basically, to change the original "Operation Desert Shield" to "Operation Desert Storm"), Congress held a series of hearings in which a bunch of completely fraudulent testimony was provided by people who turned out to be family members of the staff of the Kuwaiti embassy in Washington, D.C. Remember all those stories about Iraqi soldiers going through Kuwaiti hospitals and removing all the babies from the incubators?

[Alberta's Child]

If you wanted to use the 40,000 number as your point of reference, you should have provided that information.

I didn't originally intend to use the 40,000 number as my point of reference. In fact, I had no original point of reference -- Perle's estimated from one month to the next changed from 40,000 to 80,000 to 0, and anything in between. The one thing they had in common is that they were substantially less than what we have there now, and even more substantially less than the 200,000+ that the military brass in the Pentagon were estimating back in 2003.

Looking back on it, I would expect nothing less from some think-tank jackass who wouldn't recognize the difference between a military uniform and the uniform of a UPS driver.

[Alberta's Child]

My point is that you can't claim that the start of the war in March was a political start to ensure a win in 2004, and forget that the delay was caused by another attempt to appease the leftists.

Your responses to my assertion about the March start date actually reinforce my point. The administration origanally wanted to go into Iraq in 2002 -- for the exact same reasons I mentioned.

If you need further evidence of the role that the 2004 election is playing in this whole thing, just look at how adamant the Bush administration is about the June 30th transition date. There is no way in hell they want the U.S. military to be taking casualties to any great extent during the months leading up to the election.

[dennisw]

P.S. Does it bother you that our leaders lie to us for the reasons for war?

There weren't any lies. Just multiple reasons for going into Iraq. Above and beyond WMD.

[CSM]

You misunderstand the June 30 date. All that date will be is a handover of soveriegnty. We will still have troops on the ground, we will still be "running things". This act of soveriegnty with protection will allow the Iraqi's to write a full constitution, hold elections, set up a government, etc.

I have no expectation that there will be no further fighting after June 30. In fact, it may even increase as the insurgents see their last gasp opportunities.

[reagandemocrat]

Your words regarding the CIC "Our President did. the traitorous incompetent is in the White House" are, sir, reprehensible. Please turn in your passport, revoke your American citizenship, and kiss my ass.

RD

[Pox]

"I also know that Iraq had none before the war"

Excuse me, but this particular line is unbelievably arrogant. Your entire diatribe in this thread is a specious and myopic, not to mention amnesic.

I suggest you do a little more research on the plethora of reasons our administration outlined as our reasons to clean up the Iraq debacle that had festered for over a decade. WMD's were a large part of it, but by no means the "only" reason we embarked upon the path to war. To suggest otherwise directly contrasts explicit statements to the contrary made repeatedly by the administration in the lead-up to hostilities.

While WMD's, specifically "Ready to Use" "munitions", may not have turned up, YET, there has been ample evidence of the WMD programs SH had been running and the "basics" to reconstitute those programs have been uncovered.

It's not difficult to understand that once the absurd sanctions were lifted by the demonstrably corrupt UN, undoubtedly to be pushed by both Russia and France, SH would have immediately restarted his WMD programs. Are you so naive as to believe that SH would have simply been "marginalized" and harmless?

9-11 changed opened the eyes of many people in this country, and it is understood that the "status-quo" is no longer acceptable in the Middle East. The world economy as well as security is now focusing on events in that region, and to simply allow the festering Islamic Fundamentalism, that we helped bring about mind you (in the fight against the USSR in Afghanistan), to continue to grow unabated was tantamount to eventual suicide for Western Civilization, if not the world.

No, I'm sorry, your view of events is overly-simplistic and unrealistic, IMO.