Posted on 03/10/2006 9:22:46 AM PST by stand4somethin
"In recent weeks prominent conservatives — William F. Buckley, Niall Ferguson, Francis Fukuyama, George Will, to a name only a very few — have, in various ways, suggested that the war in Iraq was either a mistake or unwinnable, or both. The blowing up of the shrine at Samarra, together with subsequent sectarian killings in Baghdad and the failure so far to form an executive branch, were the most recent catalysts that apparently pushed a great number of wearied observers over the edge."
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Democrats never had a nerve to lose.
At least start paying for it from the oil revenues. We do not need to put another 90 Billion dollars.
I agree! Our politicians are spineless and only care about their own personal power NOT what is good for the country.
"Apparently, some so-called Republicans didn't have much nerve to lose either"
Well, I think it is close to time where we claim our success and turn things over to Iraqis. Not quite there yet. I liked the idea of moving troops closer to borders as kind of a perimeter and stop neighboring countries from inducing civil war while the Iraqis themselves figure out what they are gonna do with their country. Definitely we shouldn't tie our success with a vital democracy.
We wouldn't even be discussing this if the democrats hadn't made this a political issue for the last two years.
Wars should not be political, it makes it harder to do what is right.
"At least start paying for it from the oil revenues. We do not need to put another 90 Billion dollars."
Agreed
agree 100%
"We wouldn't even be discussing this if the democrats hadn't made this a political issue for the last two years."
My friend, this is a little niave... the big shot conservatives in Hanson's article are not the types to care a whit what democrats think. We are definitely at some sort of crossroads in Iraq... even some of us conservatives realize that.
Iraq has been an exercise gone awry...unless one is quite naive, its clear that the primary reasons we invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam was, not to liberate Iraqis or to protect America.
Looking at the high level officials in the Administration that pushed for the invasion of Iraq (and had been doing so for years) I think a good case can be made that it was really done to protect Israel...but not from Saddam...but from Iran and Syrian designs on a very weak and vulnerable Saddam
Overthrowing Saddam and helping the Hashemites (i.e. Jordanians) take power in Iraq was a plan put forth as early as 1996 in a Report to the Israeli government from Richard Perle, David Wurmser and Doug Feith called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm"
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right... Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq...To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and constrain those reactions, Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the Cold War which apply well to Israel. If Israel wants to test certain propositions that require a benign American reaction, then the best time to do so is before November, 1996
--from "A Clean Break: A Strategy for Securing the Realm
As you know, Perle later became Rumsfeld's Chairman of Defense Policy Board, Feith became Under-Secretary of Defense to Wolfowitz and Wurmser became Cheney's Mid-East Advisor...all were strong proponents of using the American military to get rid of Saddam.
In 1997, Wurmser expanded on his suggested policy for Israel vis-a-vis Iraq in a Report entitled "Coping with Crumbling States." Far from concluding that Saddam was a menace to Israel...much less the US...the Report argues that Iraq is a crumbling regime and subject to influence from Israel's two main enemies...Iran and Syria
There is no mention in this Report of WMD in Iraq or threats from Saddam or sponsoring terrorism and there is no mention or recommendation regarding democracy in Iraq...the entire paper is devoted to the struggle between Syria, Jordan, Iran and Israel for whatever becomes of Iraq
In 1999, Wurmser changed his tact and began advocating the US take the lead role in the overthrow of Saddam in his book "Why Removing Saddam Matters to U.S./Israel"
In the book, he writes "Iraq's strategic importance to the US derives from a source beyond the pernicious, extortionist character of Saddam's regime. Iraq occupies some of the most strategically blessed and resource-laden territory of the middle east. ... Iraq also has large, proven oil reserves, water, ..." [Note that lack of water is a long-standing Israeli problem.]
Wurmser also notes that Iraq threatens its neighbors but mentions only Israel.
The neocons threw their support behind Ahmed Chalabi...Perle and Wurmer pushed Israel and American Jews to support Chalabi and his INC group in their efforts to overthrow Saddam
Chalabi, who was a favorite of the neocons (Wurmer called him one of "two mentors who guided my understanding of the Middle East" in his 1999 book.
But what about Chalabi? He had been an enemy of Saddam for years...formed the INC in 1992, helped organize an attempted coup against Saddam in 1995. In the late 90's and, especially after 9/11, he found partners in interest in getting rid of Saddam in the Israeli lobby in Washington and the neocons. So, we relied on, funded and suypported Chalabi...yet it was Chalabi's group that provided much of the bogus intelligence that led us to war against Iraq
Despite the fabrication notice, reporting from the INC source regarding Iraqi mobile BW facilities started to be used again several months later in finished intelligence—eventually ending up in the October 2002 NIE and in Secretary Powell’s February 2003 speech to the United Nations Security Council.
WMD Report to the President, March 31, 2005, page 109
Shortly after Defense HUMINT’s initial debriefing of the INC source in February 2002, however, a foreign liaison service and the CIA’s Directorate of Operations (DO) judged him to be a fabricator.
--WMD Report to the President, March 31, 2005, page 85
In May 2004...the U.S. intercepts an Iranian message from an agent in Baghdad to Tehran saying Chalabi had told him the U.S. can read Iran's secret cables...an investigation by the FBI reveals that Chalabi had been passing a huge amount of US secrets to the Iranians...including extremely sensitive information about recent U.S. intercepts of official communications within the Iranian government. The intelligence allegedly shared by Chalabi's group with Tehran also included information on how the United States had deciphered encrypted Iranian messages, U.S. officials said
Finally, in 2004, the Pentagon and White House concluded Chalabi was a fraud and an opportunistic dangerous character and cut off Pentagon funds to him
In the end...America was led into war by a group of intellectuals, who whatever other reasons they may have had, saw a great benefit to Israel...I'm still trying to figure out the benefit to the US...on the basis of lies fed to them by an opportunistic deceptive operator who has now assumed power in the new Iraqi government and proven himself an enemy of America. The war and the elections have clearly strengthened Iran...and, in that sense, the mission accomplished exactly the opposite of what it was designed to do
It's that dang jewish lobby again.
It;s not even that it was political... they actively have undermined us. That's why I've been pushing for some of them to get hauled up on charges.
"Iraq has been an exercise gone awry...unless one is quite naive, its clear that the primary reasons we invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam was, not to liberate Iraqis or to protect America."
This summary was good enough... didn't need the whole rehashed article
"That's why I've been pushing for some of them to get hauled up on charges"
You push for charges, they push for impeachment... two peas in a pod
Completely agree! I'm just trying to figure out if they're grandstanding backstabbers, or backstabbing grandstanders. Not counting the ones who are out and out traitors, aka "DemocRATS."
The earlier version of this thread a couple of hours ago had much more thoughtful responses...
"I agree! Our politicians are spineless and only care about their own personal power NOT what is good for the country."
Bears repeating.
I believe it has not gone awry. It is an extremely difficult process to go from a dictatorship and an brutalized society to a thriving market drive economic system based on the rule of law. To defeat the Islamo-fascists long term requires freely elected governments in the Middle East based on the rule of law. I spend time reading various Iraqi blogs and I get a completely different perspective than presented by the MSM and the left. The best Iraiqi blog is iraqthemodel.com (ITM). Our Brave Warrriors have taken on a noble mission to bring Liberty to Iraq. In time Liberty will spread to Iran, Lebanon and elsewhere. Even though to many it seems dismal, considering its only been three years in the making, it is a remarkable accomplishment. Our Brave Warriors deserve 100% of our support.
i thought I was yelling into the forest alone for the last couple of days but Rush seems to be saying the same kind of things today.
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.