1. Marty said:

I read this and thought the only thing missing was a definition for how you use the word "democrats." For example, Senators Lugar, Hagel, Roberts, McCane, are all Republicans, and they fit many of your points. The are many, many democrats that voted for the war, voted for the billions, and have been complaining since day one that force protection, troop numbers and equipment were inadequate, and the lack of a Phase IV plan in incredible. It was Rumsfeld and other Neo-cons that objected to further troops called for by McCane, Biden, Lieberman, and others. Maybe you should use the name Kennedy instead of democrats, so that you can come a bit closer to what is. Many Republicans and many democrats have been lock step on the central action taken in Iraq, and you shall see that many Neo-cons will be seeking an earlier withdrawal than you imagine.

Support for the 'war' and 'an exit strategy' is Military Action and War 101. No sane war plan is made without an exit strategy, which is why military experts are still scratching their heads as to what Bush et al were thinking.

As you say, there are many "Democrats call[ing] for more troop to be sent" and do want to pay for them!! The Republicans in charge refused to send troops cause they could not pay for them absent taxes, and they cannot go to China and Japan for more money/loans.

As to an invasion of Iran, I must have missed it, when did Republicans adopt an invasion policy for Iran?

2. Susan said:

**No one claimed that the Iraqis were humiliated because they were inconvenienced with roadblocks and searches on election day**

Of course not! We all know about double standards ; -)) and what is bad for one, surely is not bad for another.

**No one is calling for confidence building measures to satisfy the terrorists.**
Only Israel is maintained to that standard,right? And if they do not comply, oh my!!

3. Ted said:

It has been my contention that the invasion of Iraq was part of the war on terror as it is called. The purpose of the invasion was to start the process of transforming the ME. If the US were to retreat before dealing with the rest o the ME all would be lost. They must stay to complete the job. You will see that Syria comes next and then. There is no question that the US spend $200 billion just to liberate Iraq. The game plan was much bigger.

While many Republicans such as you mention aren't totally supportive,amd many Democrats such as Liberman are, the parties in general take the position I referred to.

Why must there be an exit strategy? The only strategy necessary is to win. The US did not have an exit strategy in WWI. They are still in Europe. They must stay in the ME to complete the job or all gains will be lost.

4. BobW said:

Sholom Marty,

One major reason the administration did not want additional troops was because of something going on other than combat operations. Besides the combat, the Rumsfeld transitional plan is being exercised. One aspect is to use up the activated National Guard and some reserve units. They are too expensive to maintain in reserve. Rumsfeld is hated for all this. Look for the dissolution of the military's reserve components as we know them today.

Kol tuv,
BobW

5. Marty said:

Yes, BobW, you are correct, but the point Ted made was that it was democrats who did not want to fund the force required, not Republicans. It was Rumsfeldian hubris that put our military at such high risk and delayed victory, not democrats.

As to your comment Ted: I have no doubt that our invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with WMD or Saddam (a footnote), and that, as you assert, it was part of a larger design, and that is the evil.

In a democracy like ours the people should not be defrauded into war.

Straight question: If we were told the truth, do you think Americans would have approved it?

6. BobW said:

Shalom Marty,

Re Para 1; I thought Ted meant the overall party, ie the Democrats; not individuals. Personally, I believe the war to be bipartisam, notwithstanding allowances for home district campaign preparations.

Re Para 4; Yes; the first major strategic objective was to ensure world petrol remained dollar denominated and not transition to the Euro. The 2d major strategic objective was to gain control of the OPEC Vienna pricing mechanism. The great fortunes of America supported this. The rest of the population could not decipher the truth.

Kol tuv,
BobW

7. Ligneus said:

Marty. You can't say the war had nothing to do with WMD or Saddam, they were for sure part of the reason. And how can you say the larger design was evil just because you didn't know about it? The WMD angle was admittedly emphasised as it was the simplest of the various reasons as well as a valid one to go to war. Remember too it was Saddam's non-compliance with was it 17 UN resolutions that was the real casus belli here. Saddam could have openly let the inspectors in any time and that would have been that. The main reason for his intransigence was that behind the scenes France and Russia said they'd use their vetos in the Security Council to prevent the US going to war. And we all know now why they were against it.

As for the more complex reasons, well it is a bit of a problem in a democracy getting across much more than sound bites, even now see how many people still oppose what the US is doing. FDR had the same problem in 1940 until the Pearl Harbor attack which led the lunatic Hitler into declaring war on the US, before that it was politically impossible for Roosevelt to side openly with Britain.

I do believe the more complex reasons should have been laid out openly, I believe the American people would have understood, at least those with more than a 10 minute attention span and those who don't automatically oppose war under any circumstance. But for anyone interested enough, the info was out there. See for instance this article on Paul Wolfowitz in the NYT Magazine in 2002.

http://www.bintjbeil.com/articles/en/020922_keller.html

8. Ligneus said:

See if this link works for the Paul Wolfowitz article.

9. Ted Belman said:

Marty
I was aware of our design ever since Bush's speech after 9/11. Rice also expanded on it in her National Security doctrine for the 21st century. When the US went to the UN they had to frame the issue in terms of UN resolutions that Saddam was in violation with. As far as his arguments to Congress and the Senate, I think the administration covered many basis. But I don't think they lied. It was the best guess available. You can't wait to find out the facts. Bush said as much.

On the other hand, anything less then the current policy would not have been an adequate response to 9/11 and all the attacks since the fall of the Shah.

Not only did Roosevelt act to help Gt Britain without the concurrance of the people before Pearl Harbour, but Churchill himself in 1939 when he was the Minister of the Admiralty acted to develope and prepare for the defense of Great Britain when the government was against it. That's what leadership is all about.

10. Marty said:

Lingues, you say: I do believe the more complex reasons should have been laid out openly, I believe the American people would have understood, at least those with more than a 10 minute attention span and those who don't automatically oppose war under any circumstance.

Lingues, yes, that is what was the democratic thing to. It's what a real democracy is supposed to deliver.

It's the lack of faith in Americans and in Bush's designs that prompted deception. I for one do not suffer liars gladly, and expect - regardless if others do not - more from those we pay and elect in matters of war, especially when they sit home on their fat asses and send others to their demise.

That Israel may have benefited from this policy is of no moment here, although I welcome the strategic consequences. Yet, Saddam was a footnote compared to Iran and Syria, and having squandered $billions, lives and limbs on Saddam, and undermined Americans' stomach for war, I wonder whether Bush can now garner the votes that he needs in Congress - or from Americans for that matter - to move where he should have in the first place (IMHO).

I appreciate your own willingness to call it close to what it was, but I find no solace in the fact that Wolfowitz had designs that, in hindsight, one can point to as a place for where, what Bush could have said - as opposed to what he said - may be found.

Although what we say here today changes nothing as to past events, I fear that Americans have become accustomed to the "lie," big or small, as an accetpable way to conduct a democracy. It is not. We who stand with applause for Iraq's baby step toward a so called democracy, give it no meaning if we tolerate fraud in ours.

11. Ligneus said:

Sorry about the link, it worked on the preview but not when posted. Anyone interested will have to copy and paste the URL.

http://www.bintjbeil.com/articles/en/020922_keller.html

12. Ligneus said:

Marty, See what Ted says above, he states the case better than me. And I repeat, because you didn't 'hear' the other reasons neither invalidates them nor means they weren't stated.
And I do wish people would stop repeating the lie meme, it goes under the title propaganda, repeat a thing enough times and it takes on a life of its own. As with the Nigerian yellowcake story when it turned out that Richard Clarke was it? I forget, but anyway the guy who made out the story wasn't true turned out to be lying himself. That didn't stop the constant repetition of the story.
Kind of water under the bridge now anyway, so far so good with the Iraqi election, the left and all the other anti-war, anti-American types can now go into mourning. And if I should wake up one morning and find myself to be Ted Kennedy I'd go and drown myself.
Oops, sorry Ted [Belman], got a bit carried away.

13. Marty said:

Ligneus, you say: Marty, See what Ted says above, he states the case better than me. And I repeat, because you didn't 'hear' the other reasons neither invalidates them nor means they weren't stated.

I did not know this was a courtroom, where every point requires a demurrer or rejection with explanation and argument.

As to the big lie, I have no idea what I said is a lie.

As to Kennedy, which whom you have issues, the good news is that you will not wake up as him.

As to tbe Iraqi election, it's a wonderful baby step in the right direction toward a freer nation than under Saddam. But email me when they let Iraqi Jews in Israel vote, recognize Israel, have laws protecting freedom of religion, speech and press, equal rights for women, right to fair and open trials, and guarantee other fundemental rights that are given people in a real democracy. Then I shall tell you there is hope.

In the meantime, as I have said elsewhere, "having a vote dones not make an election: On Friday, January 28, there was a "landslide municipal election victory [] announced for Hamas. The terrorist group carried seven out of ten Gaza Strip districts, capturing 75 of the 118 council seats."

If voters vote for terrorism, does that make it a democracy? For example, Iran's population votes, is it a democracy? It has the earliest legal voting age in the world -- anyone 15 and older is eligible to vote? Is it a democracy?

Declaring a nation a democracy simply because people vote does not make it a democracy. Ask the Russians, Iranians, Haitians, Yugoslavs (formerly), Indonesians, and the rest.

I am happy that Iraqis are happy, that they voted with success, but I would like to see evidence of a democracy in action over the next years before the verdict is in."