Posted on 05/24/2004 3:40:03 PM PDT by Howlin
Speech begins at 8:00 P.M. EDT; carried on MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, and CSPAN.
Speaking of the 9/11 commission, anybody hear Kerrey on O'Reilly.
He was really pointing the finger at Clinton for not taking out OBL in 1998.
Actually, I guess he was putting more of the blame on Tenet, but he said that if we had acted in the late 90's we could have prevented 9/11.
Whether that's true or not (even post 9/11 look at the furor over a pre-emptive strike), but it may give us a hint at what the Commission's report will be.
Sound advice. Morris also got Helms and Lott their election victories. He knows his stuff, but will go where he's wanted. Judging by his many columns, particularly today's, he clearly not in the Clinton camp.
They will apparently have the ability to ask us to leave, but not the ability to control our forces.
It seems total sovereignty is correct, as it is a constitutional authority.
The recognition by the U.N. will seal the deal.
As they say in Mexico, amigo, "!AMBOS!" (Both!!!)
That's the downside of the big state-small state deal that led to the electoral college and the House and Senate makeup. You get a-holes like Biden and Daschle that only have to fool a relatively small group of people and suddenly they are as powerful anyone else in the Senate. Every loser in NY/TX/CA etc etc probably gets double their votes.
No complaints about the system (big fan of the electoral college these days) but something I think about nonetheless.
____________________________________________
Today: May 24, 2004 at 15:31:59 PDT
WASHINGTON (AP) - In the months before the invasion of Iraq, some senior faculty members at the Army War College predicted several of the problems the Bush administration is facing more than a year into the occupation.
A paper, "Reconstructing Iraq: Insights, Challenges, and Missions for Military Forces in a Post-Conflict Scenario," was published in February 2003, written by Conrad C. Crane and Andrew Terrill for the college's Strategic Studies Institute.
Parts of it seem prescient, suggesting that any U.S. occupation would face increasing resistance as time passed. The authors suggested the occupation would have roughly a year of goodwill before resentment mounted. The U.S.-led invasion began in March 2003.
"After the first year, the possibility of a serious uprising may increase should severe disillusionment set in and Iraqis begin to draw parallels between U.S. actions and historical examples of Western imperialism," the authors wrote.
The paper also predicted U.S. forces would face suicide bombings and resistance tactics aimed at eroding public support for the occupation.
"Any expansion of terrorism or guerrilla activity against U.S. troops in Iraq will undoubtedly require a forceful American response. Such U.S actions could involve a dramatic escalation in the numbers of arrests, interrogations, and detentions of local Iraqis. While such actions do improve security and force protection, they seldom win friends among the local citizenry. Individuals alienated from the U.S. occupation could well have their hostility deepened and increased by these acts," the paper warned.
The dangers in Iraq are magnified by the fact that most Americans have little understanding of the society there, the report said.
One piece of advice from the authors was not followed, when occupation forces disbanded the Iraqi regular army.
"To tear apart the army in the war's aftermath could lead to the destruction of one of the only forces for unity within the society," the report said. "Breaking up large elements of the army also raises the possibility that demobilized soldiers could affiliate with ethnic or tribal militias."
With the exception of disbanding the Army, the U.S. government generally seems to be following the reconstruction strategy described in the paper, rebuilding infrastructure and setting up police forces.
"The possibility of the United States winning the war and losing the peace in Iraq is real and serious," it warned. "Rehabilitating Iraq will consequently be an important challenge that threatens to consume huge amounts of resources without guaranteed results."
---
On the Net:
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2003/reconirq/reconirq.htm
--
Currently, Iraq has no knowledge of how to deal with their oil distribution, exploration, futures, management or anything else. Guess who does? They work for us. Hallburton. And they have CONTRACTS. Guess who doesn't have contracts? France, Germany, Russia, China. Iraq can kick us out, but we will take our marbles with us. You cant pump oil with a camel.
Perle is wrong and he fails to even acknowledge one of the main causes for the Iraqi theatre, that being the confluence of terrorists and WMD.
We still have not found the WMD. The notion that we conquer Baghdad and go home leaving Al Qaeda, the PLF, Ansar al Islam and there boss Zarqawi free reign to in Iraq with access to Sarin and Anthrax is beyond stupid, way beyond.
Of course, and they will not ask us to leave, because it would be suicide for them, and we have had a big hand as to who is in the interim government. We could not afford for it to be otherwise.
Mike Savage is a pyrite conservative.
His fans are fooled.
Remember when the press said that Enron would be the defining story of the Bush presidency? They will keep the prison story alive as long as they think they can get traction on it, and then, after it has faded, the Rats on some TV news show will drag it out and throw it up again when they get cornered and can't think of anything relevant in response to a question about Iraq.
Pukin Dog, coincidentally I believe Zinni and Clancy will be on Hannity and Colmes in a few minutes. I wonder if I should watch or just turn the damn TV off.
Morris predicted Hillarys defeat, nuff said.
Off topic:
GREAT story about a true American hero, one of our soldiers in Iraq. It's worth opening the excerpted link.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1141546/posts
The ensuing chaos and blood shed and probable civil war in an abrupt exit is far more serious, then allowing the perps to get a respite. That is why there is a consensus that we are rather "stuck" in Iraq at present. And on that, there is a consensus, except for the kooks.
It was great. I saw his dad once many years ago when he visited troops, but he had already left office. This is the first time I have seen a sitting President up close like this. I went when they first opened the doors...almost three hours before the speech, and folks were already lining up. Everyone got there early, and everyone was very excited. He is incredible sincere when he goes around and says hello and shakes hands aferwards. Thanked everyone, and you could really sense he meant it.
He also presented a Volunteer of the Year award to one of the spouses here. No fanfare, no cameras (other than the families!); he could care less about the reporters. Clearly he was just a sincere fellow thanking someone for what they have done to support our troops and their nation.
I can think of former occupants of the WH who would try and make every presentation a photo op for themselves.
at the turnover on June 30,
1. Iraq will have FULL sovereignty.
2. Iraq will award the oil contracts.
3. Iraq will decide about how much information to release on the UN Oil scandal.
4. The UN will have to help because it is the right thing to do, and France and Germany can't pressure the US to grant contracts in order for help.
.......But the press herd is too dull-witted to notice this.
Water wet.
Sky blue.
Trees pretty.
:)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.