NO

no With 5000 dead several trillion of dollars later it was not worth it. Bush and the republicans could have contolled sadam husein but decided to forgo afghastain and go to iraq.now these same republicans want to get back in office and create more wars. Iraq did not want us there in the first place and it to bad our soldiers had to die in this battle

It was worth it to someone,for as many posters here say from time to time on different subjects"follow the money".

yeah really! which administration virtualy privatized the us military?

You RNN people are still licking your wounds in disbelief that Bush won after you all were so shure he would be forced to fail, aren't you?. Surprise!

Buddy: Nobody "ever" forced Bush "the Legacy" to fail. This phony Harvard MBA with a Economics Degree is unparelled in the fine arts of failure and bankruptcy.
All one has to do is to look back at Iraq a few short years ago when the Wesley Clark NO FLY ZONE had Saddam fully contained within a tiny sector of his country and Iraqi missiles had a total range of 200kilometers at best.
WOW! Saddam couldn't even deliver a weapon as far as the closest shores of the Meditterenean .
Enter Bush the genius. He leaves Osama and his crew when they were within earshot- for what?
the whole world knew that this action was an optional diversion from the MISSION OSAMA- WANTED: DEAD OR ALIVE!
what did Bush do with his opprtunity?
He turned a $50billion dollar virtual stroll in the park into a $2trillion dollar cluster fork- losing 5,000 troops and a 100,000 wounded after Saddem the object of his obsession surrendered.
The nation of Iraq besides losing 100,000 of its people many of those innocents still don't have an adequate water or energy grid and they are oneswho must remain in that appalling desert heat licking their wounds and remembering how things used to be before Bush and fundamentalist PNAC knuckleheads began their carnival barking and side show carnival acts at their expense. Shock & Awe... Abu ghereb... NO WATER! NO ELECTRICITY! NO WAY OUT!
What a horrific shame. What a tradegy.
Thank god that our sons and daughters are no longer hostages- STOP LOSS UNITS of that assinine regime of bankrupt thieves and liars who forgot not only the mission that America approved but, their obligations to humanity as well.

Taking in into consideration the "positives" that have come out of the war i still firmly believe that the overall financial and human cost of the war was still not worth it.

After all was said and done, it sure was worth sticking it out to the end despite the super liberals in Congress and RNN's family of posters trying to sabotage the war effort, any which way they could that only elongated the agony for both sides and caused more unnecessary casualties than would have been, primarily giving the enemy hope that we would be forced to quit prematurely thus motivating them to fight even harder. Actions by the Democratic Left Congress to cut funding and leave our fighting forces high and dry was only one example of the stupidity that almost snatched victory from the impending jaws of defeat.......just as had been purposely engineered by the left in Vietnam.

".....back at Iraq a few short years ago when the Wesley Clark NO FLY ZONE had Saddam fully contained within a tiny sector of his country and Iraqi missiles had a total range of 200kilometers at best."

----------------------------------------CAN"T YOU EVER GET ANYTHING RIGHT JOHN???



Wesley Clark, 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, discusses Saddam's WMD:

WESLEY CLARK: He does have weapons of mass destruction.

MILES O'BRIEN: And you could say that categorically?

WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely.

MILES O'BRIEN: All right, well, where are, where is, they've been there a long time and thus far we've got 12 empty casings. Where are all these weapons?

WESLEY CLARK: There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is. People in Iraq do. The scientists know some of it. Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations. There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this.

Wesley Clark, Democratic Presidential Candidate
During an interview on CNN
January 18, 2003

Saddam's Dangerous Friends:

What a Pentagon review of 600,000 Iraqi documents tells us.

03/24/2008

This ought to be big news. Throughout the early and mid-1990s, Saddam Hussein actively supported an influential terrorist group headed by the man who is now al Qaeda's second-in-command, according to an exhaustive study issued last week by the Pentagon. "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives." According to the Pentagon study, Egyptian Islamic Jihad was one of many jihadist groups that Iraq's former dictator funded, trained, equipped, and armed.

The study was commissioned by the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia, and produced by analysts at the Institute for Defense Analyses, a federally funded military think tank. It is entitled "Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents." The study is based on a review of some 600,000 documents captured in postwar Iraq. Those "documents" include letters, memos, computer files, audiotapes, and videotapes produced by Saddam Hussein's regime, especially his intelligence services. The analysis section of the study covers 59 pages. The appendices, which include copies of some of the captured documents and translations, put the entire study at approximately 1,600 pages.

An abstract that describes the study reads, in part:

Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance
of and, in some way, a 'de facto' link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam's use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime."

Among the study's other notable findings:

In 1993, as Osama bin Laden's fighters battled Americans in Somalia, Saddam Hussein personally ordered the formation of an Iraqi terrorist group to join the battle there.

For more than two decades, the Iraqi regime trained non-Iraqi jihadists in training camps throughout Iraq.

According to a 1993 internal Iraqi intelligence memo, the regime was supporting a secret Islamic Palestinian organization dedicated to "armed jihad against the Americans and Western interests."

In the 1990s, Iraq's military intelligence directorate trained and equipped "Sudanese fighters."

In 1998, the Iraqi regime offered "financial and moral support" to a new group of jihadists in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.

In 2002, the year before the war began, the Iraqi regime hosted in Iraq a series of 13 conferences for non-Iraqi jihadist groups.

That same year, a branch of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) issued hundreds of Iraqi passports for known terrorists.

There is much, much more. Documents reveal that the regime stockpiled bombmaking materials in Iraqi embassies around the world and targeted Western journalists for assassination. In July 2001, an Iraqi Intelligence agent described an al Qaeda affiliate in Bahrain, the Army of Muhammad, as "under the wings of bin Laden." Although the organization "is an offshoot of bin Laden," the fact that it has a different name "can be a way of camouflaging the organization." The agent is told to deal with the al Qaeda group according to "priorities previously established."
In describing the relations between the Army of Muhammad and the Iraqi regime, the authors of the Pentagon study come to this conclusion: "Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda--as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision."

As I said, this ought to be big news. And, in a way, it was. A headline in the New York Times, a cursory item in the Washington Post, and stories on NPR and ABC News reported that the study showed no links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

How can a study offering an unprecedented look into the closed regime of a brutal dictator, with over 1,600 pages of "strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism," in the words of its authors, receive a wave-of-the-hand dismissal from America's most prestigious news outlets? All it took was a leak to a gullible reporter, one misleading line in the study's executive summary, a boneheaded Pentagon press office, an incompetent White House, and widespread journalistic negligence.

On Monday, March 10, 2008, Warren P. Strobel, a reporter from the McClatchy News Service first reported that the new Pentagon study was coming. "An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network." McClatchy is a newspaper chain that serves
many of America's largest cities. The national security reporters in its Washington bureau have earned a reputation as reliable outlets for anti-Bush administration spin on intelligence. Strobel quoted a "U.S. official familiar with the report" who told him that the search of Iraqi documents yielded no evidence of a "direct operational link" between Iraq and al Qaeda. Strobel used the rest of the article to attempt to demonstrate that this undermined the Bush administration's prewar claims with regard to Iraq and terrorism.

With the study not scheduled for release for two more days, this article shaped subsequent coverage, which was no doubt the leaker's purpose. Stories from other media outlets tracked McClatchy very closely but began to incorporate a highly misleading phrase taken from the executive summary: "This study found no 'smoking gun' (i.e. direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda." This is how the Washington Post wrote it up:

An examination of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents, audio and video records collected by U.S. forces since the March 2003 invasion has concluded that there is 'no smoking gun' supporting the Bush administration's prewar assertion of an 'operational relationship' between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorist network, sources familiar with the study said."

Much of the confusion might have been avoided if the Bush administration had done anything to promote the study. An early version of the Pentagon study was provided to National Security Adviser Steve Hadley more than a year ago, before November 2006. In recent weeks, as the Pentagon handled the rollout of the study, Hadley was tasked with briefing President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. It's unclear whether he shared the study with President Bush, and NSC officials did not respond to repeated requests for comment. But sources close to Cheney say the vice president was blindsided.

After the erroneous report from McClatchy, two officials involved with the study became very concerned about the misreporting of its contents. One of them said in an interview that he found the media coverage of the study "disappointing." Another, James Lacey, expressed his concern in an email to Karen Finn in the Pentagon press office, who was handling the rollout of the study. On Tuesday, the day before it was scheduled for release, Lacey wrote: "1. The story has been leaked. 2. ABC News is doing a story based on the executive summary tonight. 3. The Washington Post is doing a story based on rumors they heard from ABC News. The document is being misrepresented. I recommend we put [it] out and on a website immediately."

Finn declined, saying that members of Congress had not been told the study was coming. "Despite the leak, there are Congressional notifications and then an official public release. This should not be posted on the web until these actions are complete."

Still under the misimpression that the Pentagon study undermined the case for war, McClatchy's Warren Strobel saw this bureaucratic infighting as a conspiracy to suppress the study:

The Pentagon on Wednesday canceled plans for broad public release of a study that found no pre-Iraq war link between late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the al Qaida terrorist network. . . . The reversal highlighted the politically sensitive nature of its conclusions, which were first reported Monday by McClatchy.

In making their case for invading Iraq in 2002 and 2003, President Bush and his top national security aides claimed that Saddam's regime had ties to Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

But the study, based on more than 600,000 captured documents, including audio and video files, found that while Saddam sponsored terrorism, particularly against opponents of his regime and against Israel, there was no evidence of an al Qaida link.

An examination of the rest of the study makes the White House decision to ignore the Pentagon study even more curious. The first section explores "Terror as an Instrument of State Power" and describes documents detailing Fedayeen Saddam terrorist training camps in Iraq. Graduates of the terror training camps would be dispatched to sensitive sites to carry out their assassinations and bombings. In May 1999, the regime plotted an operation code named "Blessed July" in which the top graduates of the terrorist training courses would be sent to London, Iran, and Kurdistan to conduct assassinations and bombings.

A separate set of documents presents, according to the Pentagon study, "evidence of logistical preparation for terrorist operations in other nations, including those in the West." In one letter, a director of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) responds to a request from Saddam for an inventory of weapons stockpiled in Iraqi embassies throughout the world. The terrorist tools include missile launchers and missiles, "American missile launchers," explosive materials, TNT, plastic explosive charges, Kalashnikov rifles, and "booby-trapped suitcases."

The July 2002 Iraqi memo describes how these weapons were distributed to the operatives in embassies.

Between the year 2000 and 2002     explosive materials were transported to embassies outside Iraq for special work, upon the approval of the Director of the Iraqi Intelligence Service. The responsibility for these materials is in the hands of heads of stations. Some of these materials were transported in the political mail carriers [Diplomatic Pouch]. Some of these materials were transported by car in booby-trapped briefcases.

Saddam also recruited non-Iraqi jihadists to serve as suicide bombers on behalf of the Iraqi regime. According to the study, captured documents "indicate that as early as January 1998, the scheduling of suicide volunteers was routine enough to warrant not only a national-level policy letter but a formal schedule--during summer vacation--built around maximizing availability of Arab citizens in Iraq on Saddam-funded scholarships."

The second section of the Pentagon study concerns "State Relationships with Terrorist Groups." An IIS document dated March 18, 1993, lists nine terrorist "organizations that our agency [IIS] cooperates with and have relations with various elements in many parts of the Arab world and who also have the expertise to carry out assignments" on behalf of the regime. Several well-known Palestinian terrorist organizations make the list, including Abu Nidal's Fatah-Revolutionary Council and Abu Abbas's Palestinian Liberation Front. Another group, the secret "Renewal and Jihad Organization" is described this way in the Iraqi memo:

It believes in armed jihad against the Americans and Western interests. They also believe our leader [Saddam Hussein], may God protect him, is the true leader in the war against the infidels. The organization's leaders live in Jordan     when they visited Iraq two months ago they demonstrated a willingness to carry out operations against American interests at any time."

Other groups listed in the Iraqi memo include the "Islamic Scholars Group" and the "Pakistan Scholars Group. "

There are two terrorist organizations on the Iraqi Intelligence list that deserve special consideration: the Afghani Islamic Party of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad of Ayman al Zawahiri.

This IIS document provides this description of the Afghani Islamic Party:

It was founded in 1974 when its leader [Gulbuddin Hekmatyar] escaped from Afghanistan to Pakistan. It is considered one of the extreme political religious movements against the West, and one of the strongest Sunni parties in Afghanistan. The organization relies on financial support from Iraq and we have had good relations with Hikmatyar since 1989.

In his book Holy War, Inc., Peter Bergen, a terrorism analyst who has long been skeptical of Iraq-al Qaeda connections, describes Hekmatyar as Osama bin Laden's "alter ego." Bergen writes: "Bin Laden and Hekmatyar worked closely together. During the early 1990s al-Qaeda's training camps in the Khost region of eastern Afghanistan were situated in an area controlled by Hekmatyar's party."

It's worth dwelling for a moment on that set of facts. An internal Iraqi Intelligence document reports that Iraqis have "good relations" with Hekmatyar and that his organization "relies on financial support from Iraq." At precisely the same time, Hekmatyar "worked closely" with Osama bin Laden and his Afghani Islamic Party hosted "al Qaeda's terrorist training camps" in eastern Afghanistan.

The IIS document also reveals that Saddam was funding another close ally of bin Laden, the EIJ organization of Ayman al Zawahiri.

In a meeting in the Sudan we agreed to renew our relations with the Islamic Jihad Organization in Egypt. Our information on the group is as follows:

It was established in 1979.

Its goal is to apply the Islamic shari'a law and establish Islamic rule.

It is considered one of the most brutal Egyptian organizations. It carried out numerous successful operations, including the assassination of [Egyptian President Anwar] Sadat.

We have previously met with the organization's representative and we agreed on a plan to carry out commando operations against the Egyptian regime.

Zawahiri arrived in Afghanistan in the mid-1980s, and "from the start he concentrated his efforts on getting close to bin Laden," according to Lawrence Wright, in The Looming Tower. The leaders of EIJ quickly became leaders of bin Laden's organizations. "He soon succeeded in placing trusted members of Islamic Jihad in key positions around bin Laden," Wright reported in the definitive profile of Zawahiri, published in the New Yorker in September 2002. "According to the Islamist attorney Montasser al-Zayat, 'Zawahiri completely controlled bin Laden. The largest share of bin Laden's financial support went to Zawahiri and the Jihad organization."

Later, Wright describes the founding of al Qaeda.

Toward the end of 1989, a meeting took place in the Afghan town of Khost at a mujahideen camp. A Sudanese fighter named Jamal al-Fadl was among the participants, and he later testified about the event in a New York courtroom during one of the trials connected with the 1998 bombing of the American embassies in East Africa. According to Fadl, the meeting was attended by ten men--four or five of them Egyptians, including Zawahiri. Fadl told the court that the chairman of the meeting, an Iraqi known as Abu Ayoub, proposed the formation of a new organization that would wage jihad beyond the borders of Afghanistan. There was some dispute about the name, but ultimately the new organization came to be called Al Qaeda--the Base. The alliance was conceived as a loose affiliation among individual mujahideen and established groups, and was dominated by Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The ultimate boss, however, was Osama bin Laden, who held the checkbook.

Once again, it's worth dwelling on these facts for a moment. In 1989, Ayman al Zawahiri attended the founding meeting of al Qaeda. He was literally present at the creation, and his EIJ "dominated" the new organization headed by Osama bin Laden.

In the early 1990s, Zawahiri and bin Laden moved their operations to Sudan. After a fundraising trip to the United States in the spring of 1993, Zawahiri returned to Sudan where, again according to Wright, he "began working more closely with bin Laden, and most of the Egyptian members of Islamic Jihad went on the Al Qaeda payroll." Although some members of EIJ were skeptical of bin Laden and his global aspirations, Zawahiri sought a de facto merger with al Qaeda. One of his top assistants would later say Zawahiri had told him that "joining with bin Laden [was] the only solution to keeping the Jihad organization alive."

Again, at precisely the same time Zawahiri was "joining with bin Laden," the spring of 1993, he was being funded by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. As Zawahiri's jihadists trained in al Qaeda camps in Sudan, his representative to Iraq was planning "commando operations" against the Egyptian government with the IIS.

Another captured Iraqi document from early 1993 "reports on contact with a large number of terrorist groups in the region, including those that maintained an office or liaison in Iraq." In the same folder is a memo from Saddam Hussein to a member of his Revolutionary Council ordering the formation of "a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil, especially Somalia." A second memo to the director of the IIS, instructs him to revise the plan for "operations inside Somalia."

More recently, captured "annual reports" of the IIS reveal support for terrorist organizations in the months leading up the U.S. invasion in March 2003. According to the Pentagon study, "the IIS hosted thirteen conferences in 2002 for a number of Palestinian and other organizations, including delegations from the Islamic Jihad Movement and the Director General for the Popular Movement for the Liberation of al-Ahwaz." The same annual report "also notes that among the 699 passports, renewals and other official documentation that the IIS issued, many were issued to known members of terrorist organizations."

The Pentagon study goes on to describe captured documents that instruct the IIS to maintain contact with all manner of Arab movement and others that "reveal that later IIS activities went beyond just maintaining contact." Throughout the 1990s, the Iraqi regime's General Military Intelligence Directorate "was training Sudanese fighters inside Iraq."

The second section of the Pentagon study also discusses captured documents related to the Islamic Resistance organization in Kurdistan from 1998 and 1999. The documents show that the Iraqi regime provided "financial and moral support" to members of the group, which would later become part of the al Qaeda affiliate in the region, Ansar al Islam.

The third section of the Pentagon study is called "Iraq and Terrorism: Three Cases." One of the cases is that of the Army of Muhammad, the al Qaeda affiliate in Bahrain. A series of memoranda order an Iraqi Intelligence operative in Bahrain to explore a relationship with its leaders. On July 9, 2001, the agent reports back: "Information available to us is that the group is under the wings of bin Laden. They receive their directions from Yemen. Their objectives are the same as bin Laden." Later, he lists the organization's objectives.

Jihad in the name of God

Striking the embassies and other Jewish and American interests anywhere in the world.

Attacking the American and British military bases in the Arab land.

Striking American embassies and interests unless the Americans pull out their forces from the Arab lands and discontinue their support for Israel.

Disrupting oil exports [to] the Americans from Arab countries and threatening tankers carrying oil to them.

A separate memo reveals that the Army of Muhammad has requested assistance from Iraq. The study authors summarize the response by writing, "the local IIS station has been told to deal with them in accordance with priorities previously established. The IIS agent goes on to inform the Director that 'this organization is an offshoot of bin Laden, but that their objectives are similar but with different names that can be a way of camouflaging the organization.'"

We never learn what those "previous priorities" were and thus what, if anything, came of these talks. But it is instructive that the operative in Bahrain understood the importance of disguising relations with al Qaeda and that the director of IIS, knowing that the group was affiliated with bin Laden and sought to attack Americans, seemed more interested in continuing the relationship than in ending it.

The fourth and final section of the Pentagon study is called "The Business of Terror." The authors write: "An example of indirect cooperation is the movement led by Osama bin Laden. During the 1990s, both Saddam and bin Laden wanted the West, particularly the United States, out of Muslim lands (or in the view of Saddam, the "Arab nation").  .  .  .  In pursuit of their own separate but surprisingly 'parallel' visions, Saddam and bin Laden often found a common enemy in the United States."

They further note that Saddam's security organizations and bin Laden's network

were recruiting within the same demographic, spouting much of the same rhetoric, and promoting a common historical narrative that promised a return to a glorious past. That these movements (pan-Arab and pan-Islamic) had many similarities and strategic parallels does not mean they saw themselves in that light. Nevertheless, these similarities created more than just the appearance of cooperation. Common interests, even without common cause, increased the aggregate terror threat.

As much as we have learned from this impressive collection of documents, it is only a fraction of what we will know in 10, 20, or 50 years. The authors themselves acknowledge the limits of their work.

In fact, there are several captured Iraqi documents that have been authenticated by the U.S. government that were not included in the study but add to the picture it sketches. One document, authenticated by the Defense Intelligence Agency and first reported on 60 Minutes, is dated March 28, 1992. It describes Osama bin Laden as an Iraqi intelligence asset "in good contact" with the IIS station in Syria.

Another Iraqi document, this one from the mid-1990s, was first reported in the New York Times on June 25, 2004. Authenticated by a Pentagon and intelligence working group, the document was titled "Iraqi Effort to Cooperate with Saudi Opposition Groups and Individuals." The working group concluded that it "corroborates and expands on previous reporting" on contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. It revealed that a Sudanese government official met with Uday Hussein and the director of the IIS in 1994 and reported that bin Laden was willing to meet in Sudan. Bin Laden, according to the Iraqi document, was then "approached by our side" after "presidential approval" for the liaison was given. The former head of Iraqi Intelligence Directorate 4 met with bin Laden on February 19, 1995. The document further states that bin Laden "had some reservations about being labeled an Iraqi operative"--a comment that suggests the possibility had been discussed.

Bin Laden requested that Iraq's state-run television network broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda, and the document indicates that the Iraqis agreed to do this. The al Qaeda leader also proposed "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. There is no Iraqi response provided in the documents. When bin Laden left Sudan for Afghanistan in May 1996, the Iraqis sought "other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of his current location." The IIS memo directs that "cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement."

In another instance, the new Pentagon study makes reference to captured documents detailing the Iraqi relationship with Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda affiliate in the Philippines founded by Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law. But the Pentagon study does not mention the most significant element of those documents, first reported in these pages. In a memo from Ambassador Salah Samarmad to the Secondary Policy Directorate of the Iraqi Foreign Ministry, we learn that the Iraqi regime had been funding and equipping Abu Sayyaf, which had been responsible for a series of high-profile kidnappings. The Iraqi operative informs Baghdad that such support had been suspended. "The kidnappers were formerly (from the previous year) receiving money and purchasing combat weapons. >From now on we (IIS) are not giving them this opportunity and are not on speaking terms with them." That support would resume soon enough, and shortly before the war a high-ranking Iraqi diplomat named Hisham Hussein would be expelled from the Philippines after his cell phone number appeared on an Abu Sayyaf cell phone used to detonate a bomb.

What's happening here is obvious. Military historians and terrorism analysts are engaged in a good faith effort to review the captured documents from the Iraqi regime and provide a dispassionate, fact-based examination of Saddam Hussein's long support of jihadist terrorism. Most reporters don't care. They are trapped in a world where the Bush administration lied to the country about an Iraq-al Qaeda connection, and no amount of evidence to the contrary--not even the words of the fallen Iraqi regime itself--can convince them to reexamine their mistaken assumptions.

Bush administration officials, meanwhile, tell us that the Iraq war is the central front in the war on terror and that American national security depends on winning there. And yet they are too busy or too tired or too lazy to correct these fundamental misperceptions about the case for war, the most important decision of the Bush presidency.

What good is the truth if nobody knows it?

Was the Iraq War Worth It?

Only to biased progressive and liberal news and media outlets like RNN.

During the Bush administration, scumbags like Richard French politicized the military deaths in Afganistan and Iraq, for political brownie points.

When it was politicaly convienent for Richard French, he portrayed himself as a patriotic sympathathizer and supporter of the troops in Iraq and Afganistan. He even had the audacity to print the pictures of KIA-deceased service men and women, for his own personal political agenda.

As soon as Obama was elected presideant,Richard French's fake troop soliderity and military death grandstanding was self silenced.

Richard French didnt even mention the fact, that this week, Pres Obama is responsible for more US millitary death in Afganistan, in only his first 18 months, than Pres Bush was in 8 years.

How come no more KIA pictures at the end of 'your show' Richard?

Because its not politically correct anymore, Richard?

Richard French is dishonarable.

"Consequences of a Controlled Populace


Education in the United States has become an exercise in government and corporate brainwashing, used to achieve a citizenry devoid of analytical and free-thinking minds. The purpose, quite simply, is to retain the class warfare structure that has marked American society for decades. Education has become a tool used to make the wealthy richer and the poor more indigent. It is now a mechanism to separate the have nots from the haves, the higher castes from the untouchables. As it stands today, though certainly being eviscerated more and more daily, education is making of the masses impotent creatures of indifference, happily droned into complacency and deprived of a knowledge that once served to curtail the power of the elite that run the nation.

The result is the age of corporatism, the age of unfettered and unaccountable power and the control of the masses through media manipulation, societal fabrication and education eradication. As the world slowly passes through the sands of time the people of the United States, those living inside what has become a most hated geopolitical entity, are seeing the result of being dumbed down and of letting incompetents, warmongers, profiteers and deranged zealots run unfettered and unopposed, ransacking the globe, its people and land in the process.

Today we see the ramifications of a citizenry that has allowed itself to be made ignorant through its submission to those in power whose purposeful malfeasance continues to destroy the very essence of knowledge that grants freedom to enslaved minds. Iraq and the coming disaster in the Middle East are a consequence to the decimation of education in the United States. George W. Bush is a consequence of the dumbing down of America, to which he owes his very position perched like the vulture he is atop the dying tree of America that has been contaminated by his inept and infected claws smeared in human blood.

Those in power have succeeded in making the masses a herd of sheep following the shepherd straight into the slaughterhouse, unaware of the destiny that awaits them nor of their role in the furthering of death, destruction and violence now gripping the world. Like a deer caught in headlights, the masses are hypnotized, unable to see beyond the sight of their own meeting with a fate conditioned into our brains from infancy that is destroying freedom, knowledge and our ability to question the evils being done in our name. America today and the world tomorrow are a manifestation of this truth.

Ignorance has replaced knowledge, resulting in power running amok, incapable of being restrained, mutating and growing, feeding off our inability to escape the debacle currently gripping our collective mind."

"Ignorance has replaced knowledge, resulting in power running amok, incapable of being restrained, mutating and growing, feeding off our inability to escape the debacle currently gripping our collective mind." - robert

Robert, Excellent analogy. This describes Pelosi and the rest of the Obama Administration perfectly.

General Anthony Zinni, USMC, (Ret.) Remarks at CDI Board of Directors Dinner, May 12, 2004 http://tinyurl.com/8ldmo

I think the first mistake that was made was misjudging the success of containment. I heard the president say, not too long ago, I believe it was with the interview with Tim Russert that ... I'm not sure ... but at some point I heard him say that "containment did not work." That's not true.

So to say containment didn't work, I think is not only wrong from the experiences we had then, but the proof is in the pudding, in what kind of military our troops faced when we went in there.

The third mistake, I think was one we repeated from Vietnam, we had to create a false rationale for going in to get public support. The books were cooked, in my mind. The intelligence was not there. I testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee one month before the war, and Senator Lugar asked me: "General Zinni, do you feel the threat from Saddam Hussein is imminent?" I said: "No, not at all. It was not an imminent threat. Not even close. Not grave, gathering, imminent, serious, severe, mildly upsetting, none of those."
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?documentid=2208&from_page=../index.cfm


-----------------------------------


Gen. Anthony Zinni, USMC, (Ret.) Remarks at CDI Board of Directors Dinner, May 12, 2004 http://tinyurl.com/8ldmo
The sixth mistake, and maybe the biggest one, was propping up and trusting the exiles, the infamous "Gucci Guerillas" from London. We bought into their intelligence reports. To the credit of the CIA, they didn't buy into it, so I guess the Defense Department created its own boutique intelligence agency to vet them. And we ended up with a group that fed us bad information. That led us to believe that we would be welcomed with flowers in the streets; that led us to believe that this would be a cakewalk.

When I testified before Congress in 1998, after a grilling from Senator McCain and all those wonderful senators supported the Iraqi Liberation Act, and I told them that these guys are not credible and they are going to lead us into something they we will regret. At that time, they were pushing a plan that Central Command would supply air support and special forces, and we would put it into Iraq, and they would pied piper their way up to Baghdad and the whole place would fall apart. This plan was created by two senate staffers and a retired General. I happened to be the commander of central command, nobody bothered to ask me about how my troops would be used. And they were a little bit upset about me being upset about this.
These exiles did not have credibility inside the country or in the region. Not only did they not have credibility, it was clear that the information they were providing us many times was not correct and accurate. We believed in them. We also brought them in with us and deemed them into the governing council and the reception by Iraqis has been, to say the least, has not been great.
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?documentid=2208&from_page=../index.cfm

Why Iraq Was a Mistake
By Lt. General GREGORY NEWBOLD, Retired
http://tinyurl.com/p4j93 Apr. 09, 2006
From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq--an unnecessary war.

Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. And I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable.

But I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat--al-Qaeda.

I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy. Until now, I have resisted speaking out in public. I've been silent long enough.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1181629,00.html

Mike G:

I wish I were that smart,I have posted this before.Here is the true and capable author.

The Dumbing Down of America

By Manuel Valenzuela

10/12/06 "Information Clearing House"

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15280.htm

Roberts-Consequences of a Controlled Populace is virtually correct except for one small detail. It takes 2 or 3 generations to dumb down the populace.

Only the politicly ignorant, and those devoid of analytical and free-thinking minds would equate, (the previous 2-3 generations of the dumbing down of America) with one 8 year presidential term.

fred: We are already well into the 2nd generation of dumbing down which began to take hold in the 70-s/80's with the promotions of crass profane behaviors, unintellible ebonics, 2ND LANGUAGES, and hygienic sloppiness that was evolved out of the necessity of 2wage earner households across the nation.
America slept while lulled into the false euphoria of Womens Lib and spendable income per capita has not budged a single inch since then.
America slept with anybody and everything with the advent of the DIVORCE LAWYER trade and THE PILL that removed responciblity for one's actions for so many.
Americans were dumbed down by governments wars FOR FALSE SECURITY against it's own populace DRUG CRIMINALIZATION, PROPERTY SEIZURES, SURCHARGES, INCARCERATION,...
The male population has been nearly totally castrated and stripped of even the most basic and natural rights in raising and protection of family that are now mandated for animals. Still asleep?
Bush was such an abomination to the rational mind and civilized societys the whole world over that it will take at least one decade to recover.

And many, many more than that if the bankers are still intent on collecting indentured servitude tuition rates to this and the next generation for a good viable college education that will open the door to a job with THE CORPORATION.

"I owe allegience to the bank, that owns, sells, and thinks for me in these nighted states of Am-euro. I will no longer see, hear or think evil of my masters. I sign her on the dotted line to allow THE CORPORATION to invade my privacy, track my whereabouts, and monitor my thoughts without reservation."
Oh WOW! I haven't even signed the work contract and already they are handing me a lifetime bracelet, and corporate phone that must be kept on my person at all times. Gee, I must be important. Duh!

Buddy & Bill F: WATCH THIS BEFORE READING FURTHER-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=locIxsfpgp4&a=GxdCwVVULXf9s60gYnrAQlDZ3kIidlCo&playnext=1

Professional assassin Leon reluctantly takes care of 12-year-old Mathilda, a neighbor whose parents are killed, and teaches her his trade.
---------------------

This is what the war in Iraq has done to children, it is permanently etched in their minds, and can surface anywhere, at any time. The only thing that could make it worse- is when you compound the situation by adding like minded trained adults with "know-how".

Before Bush invaded Iraq everyone there knew who their oppressor was, IT WAS SADDAM and their angers were kept local to internal secular uprisings and Saddam was fully pinned down and under our control by the No Fly Zone.
NOW? AFTER WHAT THEY HAVE SEEN AND WHAT WAS DONE IN OUR NAME... AND WHAT THEY HAVE LEARNED...

...FEELING UNCOMFORTABLE?

THE IRAQ "OCCUPATION" A $2 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT- TO INSURE THAT OUR INSECURITY AND DISCOMFORT WITH PEOPLE OF THE ARAB RACE LASTS FOR DECADES.

WHAT CONTAINMANT???

FAILED POLICY MADE WAR NECESSARY:

Wednesday, Oct. 13, 2004

For over ten years, the U.S. played a game with Saddam Hussein. The U.S. strategy was to keep the Middle East dictator in a "box." The so-called box included U.N sanctions, and round-the-clock air cover patrolling the northern and southern areas of Iraq.

For the entire decade of the 1990s the U.S. spent billions of dollars keeping nearly one-third its entire military strength around Baghdad.

FAILED POLICY MADE WAR NECESSARY:


Up to five nuclear carrier battle groups, with over 100 warships, patrolled the Gulf region. Carriers, cruisers, destroyers, frigates, submarines and a wide variety of support vessels stayed within striking distance of Iraq.

Nearly 500 combat aircraft flew from bases in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. The aircraft included both U.S. and U.K. fighters, bombers, tankers and support aircraft.

F-15s, F-16s, F-14s, F-18s, B-1s, B-52s, B-2s, A-10s, and F-117 stealth fighters dropped tons of bombs on Iraq.

The U.S. dedicated its front line reconnaissance U-2 spy planes, electronic warfare planes, radar planes, and space based satellite surveillance all upon Iraq for ten years. Unmanned aerial vehicles flew regular spy missions while manned aircraft struck at Iraq almost on a daily basis.

The Clinton administration fired nearly 500 cruise missiles at Saddam at various times during the 1990s. The most intense Clinton air strikes were called "Monica Storm" instead of the official title of "Desert Fox" because of the suspicious timing of the attacks.

At any one point, over 100,000 troops were in the region keeping the box in place. The cost was enormous.

AMERICA ATTACKED

When the terrorists struck America on 9/11 the U.S. air defense was flying missions in Iraq. While front line combat planes patrolled over Basra, the U.S. could not muster fighters to cover New York City and Washington D.C.

The years of Clinton neglect of American defense are best summarized by the F-16s from the D.C. National Guard who struggled into the air on that fateful day. There were only two aircraft available because there was no money budgeted to keep any jets on alert.

The two planes that did make it over D.C. were armed only with 300 rounds of "lead" non-explosive ammunition each. Because of the Clinton budget cuts the aircraft could not be armed with missiles or live cannon shells.

The two National Guard pilots were well aware that they might not be able to down a hijacked airliner with the badly planned ammunition load. So they agreed that once they ran out of bullets they would try a suicide dive to ram any airliner.

If anyone questions the bravery or necessity of those who served in the U.S. National Guard then they should reflect upon the two civilian soldier pilots who were willing to sacrifice their lives over Washington D.C. on September 11.

The lesson here is that those who cut defense budgets should also reflect upon what threat they might face - personally - because they were so foolish.

BROKEN BOX

While America suffered under attack, the Iraqi box started to leak. To be sure, the ill thought out policies of Bill Clinton helped Saddam re-arm.

While the U.N. passed a resolution banning arms sales to Baghdad, the U.S. ignored weapons transfers to Iraq from some of its leading allies.

While France voted for the ban on arms sales to Iraq, it does seem that Saddam managed to keep his force of French made Mirage jets in the air for a decade.

Modern jets cannot fly without a fresh supply of spare parts and trained maintenance. Unlike the F-16s of the D.C. National Guard, Saddam's Mirage force was well funded.

The U.N. oil-for-food program provided ample cash to bribe middle-men to provide spare parts fresh from French factories to keep the Iraqi Mirage force active.

Paris turned a blind eye to where the spare Mirage parts were going as long as the money was good. The Clinton adminstration did nothing to stop the violations.

China too voted to support the arms ban on Iraq, and then promptly violated the embargo. The Chinese example, outlined in detail in my book "Deception", included direct assistance from the Clinton Secretary of Defense William J. Perry.

China sold and installed an advanced air defense system; NATO code-named "Tiger Song", for Saddam during the 1990s. The system consisted of American and French made fiber optic parts exported to China as commercial items.

The system originally made its way to Beijing through the direct assistance of William Perry. The trail of evidence shows that Perry worked with Chinese General Ding Henggao and a Chinese defector who later defected back to China.

In fact, the technology transfer was led by Perry's personal "paid" consultant, Dr. Lewis of Stanford University with the assistance of Chinese defector Hua Di. The fiber optic system was sold to a so-called commercial Chinese firm led by the wife General Ding, herself a two-star in the People's Liberation Army.

The Chinese Army took the secure fiber-optic system, converted it for military use and sold it to Iraq where it became the "Tiger Song" air defense network. China also sold a version of Tiger Song to the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The documentation shows that Perry's paid assistant was taking money from the U.S. Defense Dept. and the Chinese Army at the same time. After the GAO wrote a report on the transfer, Hua Di left the U.S. and returned to China.

TIGER SONG

During the late 1990s, the U.S. bombed the Tiger Song system in the Iraqi desert on a regular basis. Saddam's troops used it to shoot missiles, modified by their Chinese contractors, back at the U.S. aircraft.

The Bush administration openly complained about Chinese military sales to Iraq and eventually bombed several sites occupied by Chinese military engineers working for Saddam Hussein.

"We raised earlier in the Administration concerns about what might be going on with Iraq," stated Bush national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on Chinese missile proliferation.

However, the Chinese Army sales to Iraq did not stop. PLA front companies continued to provide camouflage for Beijing as it tried to export more advanced weapons to Iraq.

For example, the harmless sounding Shandong Arts and Craft Company paid a visit to Baghdad. The only problem is that the Shandong Arts and Craft Company is made entirely made up of missile engineers from the PLA Second Artillery Corps. In 2001, the firm acted as a cover for a PLA military delegation to Iraq seeking to sell advanced long-range missile technology to Saddam Hussein.

Today, the threat is gone and with it the U.S. forces. The U.S. now only dedicates one carrier and a small number of aircraft to the Persian Gulf region. We no longer base planes in Saudi Arabia and have few in Turkey and Kuwait.

Squadrons of planes that have not been home in over a decade have returned to U.S. skies to defend America. The U.S. has finally stationed a nuclear carrier group in Pearl Harbor for the first time since World War II. Finally, we are building a long overdue National Missile Defense to protect America from attack.

While many - such as Senator John Kerry - wish to speculate what life would be like with Saddam, it is well worth noting what the world is like without the madman in Baghdad.

Clearly, those who would leave our defense to our U.N. allies in Paris and Beijing are fools not to be trusted with the reigns of power.

Iraq: a work in progress

August 19, 2010

It's been a bumpy road, but Johnny is marching home.

And Janie.

For better or for worse.

Seven years and more than 4,400 combat deaths after the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the last American troops specifically designated for combat in Iraq began the long journey home.

"They're leaving as heroes," Col. John Norris, their commanding officer, told The Washington Post.

"I want them to walk home with pride in their hearts."

Every American who served under arms in Iraq can take pride in what they collectively accomplished: the dispossession of a brutal tyrant and the imposition of a measure of peace on one of the most volatile spots on the planet.

Credit accrues also to George W. Bush, who understood that the long-term presence of Saddam Hussein at the head of the Persian Gulf threatened both regional peace and global economic stability.

He had to go, and history will appreciate that Bush had the guts to arrange his departure.

But if it is true that war is merely politics by other means, the removal of combat troops hands responsibility for achieving a long-haul solution to Iraq's many continuing troubles back to the politicians -- in Washington, in the Gulf region and especially in Baghdad itself.

Many of those in power in Washington now -- Barack Obama especially -- would have abandoned Iraq to the wolves years ago. They opposed the surge strategy championed by Bush and Gen. David Petraeus -- now in command in Afghanistan -- and were made to look foolish indeed by its stunning success.

Whether Iran steps up its efforts to destabilize Iraq remains to be seen -- though Tehran is a principal beneficiary of the post-Saddam status quo, and the 50,000 US troops meant to remain in Iraq for at least another year could help mitigate Iranian mischief.

At the end of the day, the chief threat to eventual peace is the various Iraqi factions now maneuvering for political advantage.

Tensions stemming from the March 7 elections continue to run high, exacerbated by religious sectarianism and secular advantage-seeking.

Optimism, understandably, is in short supply.

Still, to paraphrase Ben Franklin, George W. Bush and the US military returned to the Iraqi people their country -- if they can keep it.

Military can't win in Iraq: General Petraeus Says
March 10, 2007 http://tinyurl.com/2n3l43
AS THE new US commander in Iraq warned there was no military solution to the conflict and the US needed to talk to insurgents, the US Democratic Party leadership has finally bitten the bullet and proposed a deadline for the withdrawal of US combat forces by October next year.
"There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq," General David Petraeus said. "Military action is necessary to help improve security … but it is not sufficient."
Addressing massed ranks of reporters in Baghdad's fortified green zone, General Petraeus said Iraqi leaders would eventually have to sit down and talk with some of the violent factions tearing the country apart.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/military-cant-win-in-iraq-general/2007/03/09/1173166991655.html

No victory in Iraq, says Petraeus
11 September 2008 / http://tinyurl.com/5rkmym
The outgoing commander of US troops in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, has said that he will never declare victory there.
In a BBC interview, Gen Petraeus said that recent security gains were "not irreversible" and that the US still faced a "long struggle".
When asked if US troops could withdraw from Iraqi cities by the middle of next year, he said that would be "doable".
In his next job leading the US Central Command, Gen Petraeus will also oversee operations in Afghanistan.
He said "the trends in Afghanistan have not gone in the right direction... and that has to be addressed".
Afghanistan remained a "hugely important endeavour", he said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7610405.stm

Wednesday, Oct. 13, 2004

For over ten years, the U.S. played a game with Saddam Hussein. The U.S. strategy was to keep the Middle East dictator in a "box." The so-called box included U.N sanctions, and round-the-clock air cover patrolling the northern and southern areas of Iraq.

***For the entire decade of the 1990s the U.S. spent billions of dollars keeping nearly one-third its entire military strength around Baghdad. YOU LIE AGAIN. YOU SHOULD REALLY CHECK THE ACCURACY AND FACTUALITY OF THE STATEMENTS YOU PROVIDE.
----------------------
AMAZING ISN'T IT BILL THAT YOU FAILED TO INCLUDE TO MENTION THAT OUR ENTIRE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET UP UNTIL FROM 1996-2001 WAS ---> $252BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR WHICH INCLUDED EVERYTHING FROM PENSIONS AND HEALTHCARE FOR RETIREES, VA HOSPITALS ETC. and yet too another 42% of that total or $60billion went every year AND STILL GOES into that the maintainance of manning of the permanent based foreign contingent of troops that does nothing else but monitor possible actions while you AND THE AUTHOR so sneakily added THEM into the equation AND WITH THAT "1/3" as you say off the top of your head would amount to --->$80b with no casualties or incurring hostiliities.
BUT, WHEN ALL THE NUMBERS ARE COMPILED FACTUALLY- YOU WILL FIND THAT FOR A MERE ---> $20BILLION PER YEAR SADDAM WAS CONTAINED, AND WE DIDN'T HAVE THE IRAQI PEOPLE OR THE REST OF THE WORLD RAMPING UP THEIR DEFENSES BECAUSE, THEY QUICKLY BECAME DISTRUSTING OUR INTENTIONS ---> THANKS TO DUMBYA- "PREEMPTION", ... MINDLESS OCCUPATION" AND THE INFAMOUS ...BUSH DOCTRINE.

I bring facts to the table,
http://www.dod.mil/execsec/adr95/budget_5.html
...you came to the table again with nothing.

Nothing but hot air and that same old tired warmonger propaganda that was drummed up as excuses and magnified to the "nth degree" by Bush/Cheney to led us into this mess, but, you stopped short in that evaluation too.
Where's Chalabi, or Bush confirming fact vs fiction or hype with deliberate the due diligence before sending our troops and plundering Iraq.
Oh, that's right, all of that information where Bush divulged his full irrevokable intentions to violate the terms of his agreement for Executive Order to the UKs Blair and not Congress are contained in the Downing Street memos.
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html

SO IN ESSENCE BUSH TOTALLY FAILED TO PROTECT AND LOST 10% OF AMERICA WHILE AUCTIONING OFF THE ENTIRE TAB FOR HIS EXCURSION INTO THE QUAGMIRE THAT YOU CLAIM HE WON BUT, NOW REQUIRES PERMANENT OCCUPATION TO MAINTAIN A SHAKY AT BEST STATUS QUO!
IN ADDITION BUSH ADDED TO THE POTENTIAL OF TERRORIZERS A MILLION FOLD. THAT ANYONE OF THOSE MILLIONS OF IRAQI CIVILIANS WHO WERE HARMED IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER CAN EASILY BE RECRUITED TO OBTAIN THEIR POUND OF FLESH.
Gee, I don't know about you but I definitely don't feel safer in this world as left by bush THE LEGACY.

THE LEGACY AND THE TRAIL OF BREADCRUMBS LEADS ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE ENRON AND THE "PRETZEL" THAT COULD HAVE "PRESERVED" AMERICAN HISTORY.


*Bush violated the strict perameters of his own signed oath for the Executive Privilege that his increased powers. HIS PREEMPTION WAS PREMEDITATED! BLOWING UP CITIES NOT ALLOWING CIVILIANS ADEQUATE TIME TO EVACUATE, AND TARGETING DENSELY POPULATED CIVILIAN AREAS VIOLATED THE GENEVA CONVENTION- ALL OF THIS NEVER ENTERED THIS MANS LAZY WET BRAINED MIND.
IT WAS ALL A QUEST FOR "LEGACY", for a man who always took to the sidelines,and PR dress-up opportunities for his moments in the sun.

You don't have to look too far for Bushies failures. Just look at the $2trillion plus that is gone forever and what a overpowering negative difference it has made to America in lending, jobs and to the 30million plus Americans who have lost everything while BUSH WAS AWOL 1,056 DAYS DURING HIS OWN WAR OF "CHOICE".
Versus the two trillion already spent in Iraq that left a nation and its people devastated, and cost 6,000 American troops their lives another 100,000 wounded as well as the cost to their entire families. And the 30million other American casualties of Bush finance.

Was it worth it? Not by my accounting. Let others judge Bill. You are definitely not qualified to think outside of your box.

ps: There is no need further the lies for our troops. They know they did the job best possible given the leadership and lack of actual support for their mission they were provided by FEARLESS LEADER, ...and of course ROCKY & HIS FRIENDS.

OUR TROOPS PERFORMED MAGNIFICENTLY! ACHIEVED THEIR OBJECTIVE IN RECORD TIME. IT WAS BUSH WHO LEFT THEM AS HOSTAGES FOR HIS ANNUAL DOD BUDGET RAMSOMS, UNPROTECTED, OVEREXTENDED AND AWAY FROM THEIR FAMILIES. PERIOD!

Try doing some real research for once and tell us how many of our troops have come home only to find that they have lost their families, their homes, their health, and their way of life?

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF BUSH MANIACAL MADNESS- INDIFFERENCE TO PLACING THE LIVES OF ENLISTED TROOPS STATIONED IN IRAQ, AND THE PEOPLE OF NEW ORLEANS IN INCREASED MORTAL DANGER("Shoot to kill", AND SELF-ANNOINTING(No Bid Contracting of US Armed Forces responcibilities for "insider" wink and a nod profit on the scales of maximum grand theft, murder etc). THIS NO BID CONTRACTOR WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE OR SO IT SAYS IN PRINT.
*Except, he is no longer here to face trial- He is, we have all come to expect RELOCATED in Dubai- where he fully expects to enjoy immunity from the prosecutions of US LAW. This should never be allowed to happen. A "precedent" must be set that extricates any and all persons and their corporations who have violated and undermined America's security.
This article will tell you- why.
------------------------

Blackwater Reaches Deal on U.S. Export Violations
By JAMES RISEN
Published: August 20, 2010


WASHINGTON — The private security company formerly called Blackwater Worldwide, long plagued by accusations of impropriety, has reached an agreement with the State Department for the company to pay $42 million in fines for hundreds of violations of United States export control regulations.

The violations included *illegal weapons exports to Afghanistan, *making unauthorized proposals to train troops in south Sudan and *providing sniper training for Taiwanese police officers, according to company and government officials familiar with the deal.

The settlement, which has not yet been publicly announced, follows lengthy talks between Blackwater, now called Xe Services, and the State Department that dealt with the violations as an administrative matter, allowing the firm to avoid criminal charges. A company spokeswoman confirmed Friday that a settlement had been reached. The State Department spokesman, Philip J. Crowley, said he could not immediately comment.

***The settlement with the State Department does not resolve other legal troubles still facing Blackwater and its former executives and other personnel. Those include the *indictments of five former executives, including Blackwater’s former president, on weapons and obstruction charges; *a federal investigation into evidence that Blackwater officials sought to bribe Iraqi government officials; *and the arrest of two former Blackwater guards on federal murder charges stemming from the killing of two Afghans last year.

But by paying fines rather than facing criminal charges on the export violations, Blackwater will be able to continue to obtain government contracts. While the company lost its largest federal contract last year to provide diplomatic security for United States Embassy personnel in Baghdad, where the Iraqi government was incensed by killings of Iraqis in one highly publicized case, it still has contracts to provide security for the State Department and the C.I.A. in Afghanistan.

****Blackwater BUSH'S PRIVATIZED ARMY, its reputation tainted in part because of the excessive use of force by some of its personnel in Baghdad, sought for years to extend its reach far beyond the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan.

CHECK THIS OUT, IT'S PRICELESS. -->
*For a time, the company’s founder, Erik Prince, had ambitions to turn Blackwater into an informal arm of the American foreign policy and national security apparatus, ****and "proposed" to the C.I.A. to create a “quick reaction force” that could handle paramilitary operations for the spy agency around the world. He had hopes that Blackwater’s military prowess could be an influential force in regional conflicts around the world. WHO ELSE COULD HAVE GIVEN THIS MAN ACCESS AND THE AUTHORITIZATION TO REACH INTO CIA'S HIGH COMMAND?

Mr. Prince, a former Navy Seals member and the heir to an auto parts fortune, took an interest in Africa, particularly Sudan, and he is said to have wanted Blackwater to step in to help the rebels in southern Sudan, which is predominantly Christian and animist, fight the Sudanese government and the Muslim north, despite United States economic sanctions. MAKES YOU REALLY WONDER WHO WAS THE ACTING PRESIDENT OR WAS BUSH WORKING BEHIND CONGRESSES BACK AGAIN?

Blackwater’s ambitions in Sudan were described in detail by McClatchy newspapers in June.

The settlement with the State Department, involving practices from the days before Blackwater was rebranded as Xe Services, comes as Mr. Prince is trying to shed his ties to Blackwater and its past activities.

He overhauled the company’s management in 2009, changed its name, and has now put the privately held company up for sale. ****He has "just moved with his family to Abu Dhabi" from the United States, a move that colleagues say was a result of his deep anger and frustration over the intense scrutiny he and his firm have received in recent years. HMMMMMMM! JUST LIKE HALLIBURTON! DON'T YOU JUST WONDER WHAT THEY ARE ALL SO SCARED ABOUT AND HIDING?

The State Department export controls require government approval for the transfer of certain types of military technology or knowledge from the United States to other countries. ****But Blackwater began to seek training contracts from foreign governments and other foreign organizations without adhering closely to American regulations. DOESN'T THAT MAKE THEM A "ROGUE OPERATION" ?

The company also shipped automatic weapons and other military equipment for use by its personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan in violation of export controls, and in some cases sought to hide its actions, according to the government. In one incident, Blackwater shipped weapons to Iraq hidden inside containers of dog food.

A federal investigation into the company’s weapons shipments to Iraq led to guilty pleas on criminal charges by two former Blackwater employees who are believed to have cooperated with a broader federal inquiry.

Investigators reportedly looked into whether some of the weapons that were shipped to Iraq were sold on the black market and ended up in the hands of a Kurdish rebel group, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or P.K.K., which Turkey [OUR ALLY] considers a terrorist organization. Turkish officials reportedly complained to the United States about American weapons seized from the group.

In 2008, after a federal investigation of Blackwater’s actions was begun, the company admitted “numerous mistakes” in its adherence to export laws and created an outside board of experts to supervise the firm’s compliance.

Current and former government officials say that the government’s inquiry into some of Blackwater’s export control violations began as part of a federal grand jury investigation in North Carolina, where Blackwater is based. But the matter was apparently shifted to the State Department when the criminal investigation in North Carolina narrowed its focus.

That grand jury handed down the indictments of the five former Blackwater executives earlier this year. That indictment includes charges that Blackwater executives sought to hide evidence that they had given weapons as gifts to King Abdullah of Jordan.

Despite the fines and investigations that have plagued Blackwater, the firm has continued to win contracts from the State Department and the C.I.A.

In June, the State Department awarded Blackwater a $120 million contract to provide security at its regional offices in Afghanistan, while the C.I.A. renewed the firm’s $100 million security contract for its station in Kabul. At the time, the C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, defended the decision, saying that the company had offered the lowest bid and had “cleaned up its act.

"Military can't win in Iraq: General Petraeus Says"


Don't look now Caspian, but the only reason Iraq is stable enough today for an American troop pullout is mainly due to USA military successes thanks to the US military, Petraeus, Crocker and of course President Bush. In 2007, before the surge when Petraeus had been quoted in your article even he didn't realize how successful the surge would be. Lesson #1....old news with old quotes are but a meaningless stagnant moment in time. Its highly dishonest of you to only reflect on what was, or might have been instead of
the successful reality of Iraq today. Then again, if you did you would have to completely shut down your Caspian fantasy show.

We Must Break Out of the Failed 'Saddam Trap'

Commentary
September 05, 2000

|SCOTT RITTER, Scott Ritter is a former weapons inspector for UNSCOM and the author of "Endgame: Solving the Iraqi Problem, Once and For All" (Simon & Schuster, 1999). E-mail: WSRitter@aol.com

While the presidential candidates jockey to define their agendas, there is one issue on which both Al Gore and George W. Bush see eye to eye: Saddam Hussein must go.

While neither candidate has offered a precise plan on how to achieve this goal, it seems clear that regardless of who wins the White House, the next four years will see a continuation of America's decade-long fixation on the president of Iraq.

The problem of Iraq is complex and vexing. Over the past eight years, the Clinton administration was trapped in a Saddam-centric policy of regime removal, which dictated the containment of the Iraqi dictator through economic sanctions regardless of the reality of Iraq's disarmament obligation and the horrific humanitarian cost incurred by the people of Iraq. This policy has been an abject failure, a fact that has prompted much of the international community to start viewing Iraq and its leader more sympathetically. Whoever wins the election in November will face the daunting task of overcoming the Clinton legacy on Iraq: a hopelessly divided Security Council, an impasse on weapons inspections, a degenerating system of economic sanctions, the loss of American credibility and a resurgent Saddam Hussein.

Soon, weapons inspectors from the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) will try to resume inspections of Iraqi weapons facilities. Such inspections were stopped 20 months ago, in the aftermath of Operation Desert Fox and the resultant collapse of UNMOVIC's predecessor organization, the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM). Iraq has rejected any cooperation with UNMOVIC as long as sanctions remain in place. The result is that, yet again, the Security Council will be confronted with a crisis regarding Iraq.

Three of the five permanent members of the Security Council--Russia, France and China--have made no secret of their sympathies toward Iraq and their opposition to America's Iraq policy. The rest of the world appears more inclined to trade with Iraq than continue a pointless and morally bankrupt policy of economic sanctions. The fact that both major presidential candidates couch their justification for the continuation of economic sanctions on the grounds that Saddam Hussein is still in power and not on any sound assessment of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction only further distances their respective positions from the rest of the world.

Was it worth it?

I really rather not answer that. I think of the families of those that died due to this War. How awful they would feel, thinking somehow they died in vain for no worthwhile reason. So I hate that question.

I would rather look toward the future and require our leaders to follow some simple rules before we ever decide to enter into a conflict like this again.

State ALL the main objectives upfront as to why we MUST enter into a conflict. Agree upfront whether those objectives are valid. If those objectives pan out to not be valid or change then the conflict must end.

The first Gulf war with Bush 41 was handled that way and had widespread support by both our country and much of the world. The objective was to drive IRAQ out of Kuwait, period. Bush 41 did not take it on his own to go further or rewrite the rules. Regardless of what some say, I firmly believe Bush 41 did the right thing.

"Comment from: Mike G [Visitor]
Was it worth it?

I really rather not answer that. I think of the families of those that died due to this War. How awful they would feel, thinking somehow they died in vain for no worthwhile reason. So I hate that question."

I agree but you know its going to asked,and the sad thing, I believe there will be no real"true" answers.

Clinton Praises Saddam's Capture:


By Associated Press Published
December 14, 2003, 12:57 PM CST

WASHINGTON -- Former President Clinton praised the capture of Saddam Hussein and said the ousted Iraqi president finally will answer "for decades of tyranny and murder."

"I am glad he was captured alive so he can be brought before the bar of justice," Clinton said Sunday in a statement.

Clinton saluted U.S. troops, who found the bearded and disheveled former dictator in an underground hide-out on a farm near his hometown, Tikrit. Clinton also congratulated his successor in the White House.

"Saddam Hussein's capture is a tribute to the skill and bravery of our troops and the good work of our intelligence officers," Clinton said. "I know President Bush is very proud of our troops today. I congratulate him and them."

Clinton, who ordered bombing and missile strikes against Iraqi targets in the 1990s, said he hoped the seizure would help bring more stability to the country.

Bill.F:

You may have some company on your opinion.

Editor's note: David Frum writes a weekly column for CNN.com. A resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, he was special assistant to President George W. Bush in 2001-2. He is the author of six books, including "Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again" and the editor of FrumForum.

(CNN) -- Israel may have to retire its title as the only democracy in the Middle East. With Sunday's free and fair national election, Iraq joins the honor roll as one of the very few Islamic democracies.

Other Middle Eastern countries hold elections too, of course. But those elections fall into two broad categories. The first category is the blatantly rigged: Iran, most spectacularly, but also Algeria, Egypt, and Yemen, among others. In the second category, elections are more or less honest -- but fail to exert much control over the actions of the government: Lebanon, Morocco, and Jordan.

In Iraq, despite violence, votes are honestly counted. Once counted, votes decide who rules. For all the country's well-known problems, that record is a remarkable achievement.

The brave Iraqi democrat Nibras Kazimi posted this firsthand account on his important blog, Talisman Gate:

"I voted. It felt great, but the greatest thing about it was how normal it felt; elections have become a ho-hum, commonplace occurrence. That's quite a feat for a country with Iraq's past and current challenges. The voting procedure itself was very well organized and speedy. The election site had seven polling stations, with about 400 registered voters allowed to vote there. Everyone's name was posted outside, along with information about what polling station they were supposed to use. Once inside, IDs were checked against name lists, and one had to sign next [to] one's name to indicate that this name has voted. All in all, there are reasonable mechanisms in place to contain incidents of fraud. ...




"The Western media is hyperventilating about mortars and katyushas. ... This was a logistical failure for the jihadists; hardly any successful suicide bombers or sniper attacks near the polling stations. Lobbing mortars indiscriminately around Baghdad is BS intimidation. It certainly didn't deter voters.

"The fact that the security authorities allowed vehicular traffic around 11 AM was both surprising and bold. It showed confidence in their security precautions, and the fact that there were no car bombs shows that they were right."

Iraq's elected government has consolidated power over the whole country, including the formerly Iranian-run southern city of Basra. It has presided over a remarkable decline in violence.

The Brookings Institute's Iraq index estimates that there were 34,500 Iraqi civilian casualties in 2006. In 2009, 2,800 Iraqi civilians died violently.

Attacks on coalition forces have dwindled from almost 2,000 per week at the end of 2006 to a little over 100 per week.

Iraq is not yet a stable place -- but a future of stability seems at last at hand. Maybe the surest sign of success is that those who once opposed the surge are now scrambling to grab credit for it. Iraq "could be one of the great achievements of this administration," boasted Vice President Joe Biden to CNN's Larry King last month. Next we'll hear how we owe the Marshall Plan and the Panama Canal to the Obama administration. Well, that's not how those who were there remember it.

A stable Western-oriented Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors would be a great prize. If that future does take hold, we'll learn the answer to another great question.

Speaking on the eve of war in 2003, President George W. Bush told the guests at the American Enterprise Institute's annual dinner that he discerned "hopeful signs of a desire for freedom in the Middle East. Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the 'freedom gap' so their peoples can fully share in the progress of our times.

"Leaders in the region speak of a new Arab charter that champions internal reform, greater politics participation, economic openness, and free trade. And from Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward politics reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region."

Will he be vindicated?

In the January issue of the Journal of Democracy, Larry Diamond offers grounds for hope that the answer may be yes. Diamond, an expert on democracy-building who served with the Coalition Provisional Authority, itemizes the indicators of growing yearning for self-rule in the Middle East. He notes surveys in which 80 percent of Arabs across the region agree that democracy is the best form of government and would be good for their own country.

Of all the obstacles to Arab democracy -- religion, culture, geopolitics -- the most important is geological: oil.

Oil states tend to be undemocratic states, because control of the state so directly translates into control of the nation's wealth. When the price of oil rises, the value of power rises with it. It's not a coincidence that oil states from Russia to Venezuela to Iran have turned to more repressive and hard-line policies since the price of oil began to rise in 2001. By contrast, the 1986 collapse in the price of oil is widely cited as a decisive factor in the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Iraq's future will depend on its success overcoming "the curse of oil." America's next contribution to Middle Eastern democracy may be an energy policy that finally lifts this curse.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of David Frum.

The Truth About Iraq:

As Christopher Hitchens has written, Iraq was “ruined and tortured and collapsing” long before America’s Abrams tanks thundered into Baghdad. “Tortured” is the operative word. Indeed, this is one of the very reasons why Saddam’s regime fell so swiftly. Saddam’s reign turned one of the Arab world’s most prosperous and promising states into a vast torture chamber. John Burns of The New York Times, writing before the war, concluded that “figures of a million dead Iraqis, in war and through terror, may not be far from the mark.” Saddam poisoned and starved his people; he imprisoned children for not joining his paramilitary gangs; he used Iraq’s oil wealth to reward his cronies, destroy his enemies, erect a gangster regime and acquire a vast arsenal of conventional and unconventional weapons. With those weapons he made war on four of his neighbors, killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, terrorized the region, turned the Persian Gulf into a giant ecological disaster area and threatened America.

“Iraq was headed straight for implosion and failure, both as a state and a society, well before 2003,” Hitchens argues. “The United States had to face the alarming fact that a ruined Iraq was in its future whether it intervened or not.”

"I agree but you know its going to asked,and the sad thing, I believe there will be no real"true" answers." -Robert

Robert, your response actually does answer the question. If in the end we don't have true consensus, then perhaps our reasons for going were not as valid as they should have been. Take WWII for example. So many more lives were lost then in IRAQ, yet regardless of politics, nobody would ever dare to even pose the question. "Was it worth it?" We know for a fact it was.

Its highly dishonest of you to only reflect on what was, or might have been instead of
the successful reality of Iraq today.

---------------

Bill prove me wrong.

The only reason the Surge worked in Baghdad was because we let civil war break out and took the Shite side which are loyal to Iran.

It was a genocide ethnic cleansing of Sunni Arabs who used to rule Iraq.

Bush and Cheney made Iran much stronger by invading Iraq which was the wrong country.

If you don't think our troops leaving Iraq is just for SHOW, then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.


Sincerely,
Usama bin Forgotten , al Qaeda & September 11, 2001

========================

Colin Powell in four-letter neo-con 'crazies' row
12 September 2004 / http://tinyurl.com/83u3by
A furious row has broken out over claims in a new book by BBC broadcaster James Naughtie that US Secretary of State Colin Powell described neo-conservatives in the Bush administration as 'fucking crazies' during the build-up to war in Iraq.
Powell's extraordinary outburst is alleged to have taken place during a telephone conversation with Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. The two became close friends during the intense negotiations in the summer of 2002 to build an international coalition for intervention via the United Nations. The 'crazies' are said to be Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/sep/12/Iraqandthemedia.politicsphilosophyandsociety

"The only reason the Surge worked in Baghdad......."


The surge was a resounding success not only in Baghdad but throughout the entire Iraq as Petraeus, Bush and Crocker promised. Bottom line: The surge worked, Bush and the USA military won it all, you and yours lost! End of story.

But the reality is that some of the intelligence was right. There's no question that Saddam Hussein had the intention of having such weapons, and he was retaining the capability to have such weapons.

What we got wrong, dead-wrong, was that there were actual stockpiles of chemical weapons and biological weapons and the mobile labs that became so famous. And the reality is, all of that was gone.

Were we deceived in believing it was there by Saddam Hussein or those who had other motives for wanting us to believe that? I don't know. But it was something that we believed and our intelligence community believed.

The intelligence community made that case to me, to the president, to the secretary of defense, to the vice president, to all of us, to the Congress. And everything we presented was consistent with what the intelligence community was telling us.

But he also indicated, as I did, in my Feb. 5th presentation of 2003, that there were human rights violations, there were other violations of U.N. resolutions, there was terrorist activity.

But let there be no doubt where we are now is I'm very pleased that Saddam Hussein is gone and that regime is gone and these kinds of questions will never be discussed again. Because no matter how this political process unfolds over the next six to eight months, I don't see any outcome that will produce a regime that is going to be interested in weapons of mass destruction or threatening its neighbors or doing the kinds of things that Saddam Hussein had been doing for the last 20 or 30 years..

Powell on Iraq, Domestic Spying and Baseball:

Former Secretary of State Visits 'This Week'

Dec. 25, 2005

Pre-War Intelligence


But the reality is that some of the intelligence was right. There's no question that Saddam Hussein had the intention of having such weapons, and he was retaining the capability to have such weapons.

What we got wrong, dead-wrong, was that there were actual stockpiles of chemical weapons and biological weapons and the mobile labs that became so famous. And the reality is, all of that was gone.

Were we deceived in believing it was there by Saddam Hussein or those who had other motives for wanting us to believe that? I don't know. But it was something that we believed and our intelligence community believed.

The intelligence community made that case to me, to the president, to the secretary of defense, to the vice president, to all of us, to the Congress. And everything we presented was consistent with what the intelligence community was telling us.

But he also indicated, as I did, in my Feb. 5th presentation of 2003, that there were human rights violations, there were other violations of U.N. resolutions, there was terrorist activity.

But let there be no doubt where we are now is I'm very pleased that Saddam Hussein is gone and that regime is gone and these kinds of questions will never be discussed again. Because no matter how this political process unfolds over the next six to eight months, I don't see any outcome that will produce a regime that is going to be interested in weapons of mass destruction or threatening its neighbors or doing the kinds of things that Saddam Hussein had been doing for the last 20 or 30 years..

The surge worked, Bush and the USA military won it all, you and yours lost! End of story.

--------------------

How come over 90% of Iraqis hate Bush and hate the United States?

Our soldiers cannot roam the country freely and most Iraqis feel unsafe.

=======================

Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice Tell The Truth About Iraq in Feb. July 2001 / Iraq was no threat to any country and contained
http://tinyurl.com/2fhgd8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0wbpKCdkkQ&feature=related

"How come over 90% of Iraqis hate Bush and hate the United States?

Our soldiers cannot roam the country freely and most Iraqis feel unsafe."



Purely out of Caspian's fantasy playland and little else. Get with the world of reality for a change, its unhealthy to constantly live in a dream world. You're evidently still in shock that your anti-American, anti-military campaign amounted to a historic win for the Bushmeister.

Obama should thank George Bush:

The mission is still accomplished in Iraq

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

President Obama praised the Iraqi people on Sunday on the occasion of their parliamentary elections. "The future of Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq," Mr. Obama said. That progress is no thanks to him.

Sunday's election was the third since Iraq's liberation in 2003 from Saddam Hussein's dictatorial rule. The event lacked much of the drama of the January 2005 National Assembly election, when the war was hotter and risks were higher. Five years ago, insurgents vowed that they would see to it that the election would fail. "We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology," Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi stated. But the people defied the terrorists, and Iraq's first free election proceeded with little disruption. Eleven months later, the country held another successful election under its new constitution. Six months after that, al-Zarqawi was dead.

The images from Sunday's polling evoked 2005, with long lines of resolute voters, scattered low-level violence and the ubiquitous purple fingers inked to show an individual had voted. But the sense of threat was reduced, and the press coverage was less intense. The most noteworthy factor about the election was the feeling that the process was becoming routine. Iraq is well on the way to being a functioning democracy. The big news was the relative lack of news. Nothing says "mission accomplished" more than a low-key election in a country recently beset by nationwide conflict.

Mr. Obama took the opportunity to reiterate that U.S. troops were meeting their timetable for withdrawal, yet failed to mention that he was executing a policy put in place by the George W. Bush administration. The president is quick to blame his predecessor for various supposed problems he inherited, but the O Force is noticeably stingy when it comes to expressing appreciation for the things the previous administration demonstrably got right. The policies President Bush pursued that then-Sen. Obama opposed, denounced and fought against have made it possible for Mr. Obama effortlessly to preside over the successful conclusion of a hard-fought struggle for freedom.

Last month, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who shepherded the Iraq war authorization through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2002, said that ending the conflict in Iraq would be one of the Obama administration's great achievements. But Mr. Obama's principal contribution to the Iraq effort has been to resist his impulses to pursue the policies he advocated when he was a senator. Had the United States followed the course Mr. Obama was counseling in 2007, there likely would have been no election last weekend, terror would reign in Baghdad, and the Iraqi people's future would be grim. A little gratitude would be appropriate.

Missing George W. Bush:

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Obama channels the former president


Each day of the Obama presidency seems to bring a new, perversely delicious irony. Last week, on the same day that Mr. Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize solely for being the "anti-Bush," former President George W. Bush got a lovely prize of his own: the growing appreciation of the American people.

Public Policy Polling released a new survey that showed that while 50 percent preferred Mr. Obama to Mr. Bush, a stunning 44 percent preferred Mr. Bush to Mr. Obama. Further, a separate poll showed public approval of former Vice President Dick Cheney moving up by 10 points to 39 percent.

Making these poll numbers even more remarkable is Mr. Obama's own free-falling job approval: He's routinely below 50 percent, with some polls showing him as low as 43 percent. A year ago, when Mr. Bush suffered from dismal approval ratings and hope ran high for the changing of the guard to Mr. Obama, the idea of Mr. Bush surpassing Mr. Obama in public popularity was laughable.

Distance from a former president, however, tends to make the heart grow fonder for him. Presidents Truman and Nixon left office under dark clouds of scandal and with abysmal levels of support, but with the passage of time, both have been reassessed far more positively. The same is beginning to happen for Mr. Bush, and a lot faster than it did for Truman and Nixon.

The re-evaluation of Mr. Bush is occurring for two main reasons. 1) The expectations set by Mr. Obama, his campaign, and those who supported him that he would be a kind of Magical Merlin, capable of changing human nature and the interests of nations, were always impossible. He is perceived as failing because there was never any way he could have delivered the lofty, saviorlike promises he made. He is as earth-bound as was Mr. Bush.

And 2) It's quickly dawning on more and more people that the presidency is difficult. This obvious reality is often overlooked until a president leaves office and is replaced by a successor who appears submerged by the responsibilities. It's "the hardest job in the world" for a reason: Every day brings a new, impossible challenge that demands immediate attention; some new, tough decision that must be made; some new, unprecedented problem that needs to be solved. The gig is no picnic, and executive experience matters. In an interview on Sunday's "60 Minutes," when Mr. Obama was asked about making hard decisions, he literally blurted out, "This is really hard."

Mr. Bush's critics never cut him any slack based on the difficulty of the job and the less-than-perfect choices before him.

Mr. Obama acts as if he's the first president to inherit a complicated, dangerous and messy situation. From George Washington, who became the first president out of the ravages of the Revolutionary War, to Mr. Bush, who inherited a nation about to be attacked by a ruthless Islamic terrorist enemy, every president has come to office with a full plate. Mr. Obama behaves as if he's the first one to face intractable challenges. Perhaps this is because in his narcissism, he believed he would be able to melt them away with the sheer force of his persona. He's just now discovering that that is not going to happen.

Over the past year, it has become increasingly clear that on a range of issues, Mr. Bush was right. On the war on terror, he was right about Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, indefinite detention, military tribunals and treating it as a war and not a criminal-justice problem. Mr. Obama seems to recognize how right Mr. Bush was by embracing many of his counterterrorism policies. In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, he channeled Mr. Bush as he justified fighting the terrorist enemy, surging troops in Afghanistan and recognizing the need to smash evil.

On the economy, while Mr. Bush went too wild with federal spending, he cut tax rates twice, leading to 53 consecutive months of job creation and economic growth. The economic crisis that blew up at the tail end of his term has obscured that record, but more people are beginning to see that on balance, he was a decent economic steward.

Given what we've experienced over the past year from the new president - from apologies for America to decisions to add trillions to the deficit and debt and nationalize health care and regulate carbon dioxide and bring Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to New York for trial to failing to improve the unemployment picture - Mr. Bush is looking better and better. Was he perfect? No. Did he make mistakes? Yes, he did, just as all presidents do. But in retrospect, many who derided him are realizing that the presidency is hard, and he did the best he could - and that was pretty good.

Mr. Bush was right. Do you miss him yet? Me too.

Could there be similar news coming from Iraq in the years to come:

"Vietnam’s Vinashin sells 4 ships worth $110 million
Last updated: 8/13/2010 20:00


Vietnam Shipbuilding Industry Group sold four newly-built ships worth almost $110 million, as the government tries to restructure and stabilize the state-owned company that almost went bankrupt due to losses.

The shipbuilder, also known as Vinashin, is trying to complete ongoing ship-building projects, according to a statement on the government’s website"

http://www.thanhniennews.com/2010/Pages/20100814111336.aspx

You're evidently still in shock that your anti-American, anti-military campaign amounted to a historic win for the Bushmeister.

-------------------

Most of the Iraqi citizenry are not better off than when Saddam was in charge.

This is the truth and that is why Bush and America are despised by the masses inside Iraq.

BTW: Obama will never ever leave Iraq and neither will the next president.

"Most of the Iraqi citizenry are not better off than when Saddam was in charge"

Again, your fantastic spin alone. Even around the height of the bloodshed (2007) Iraqis were hopeful and glad to have gotten rid of Saddam the butcher.
(see below for their opinion not yours)
----------------------------------------

MY PROFILE From The Sunday Times March 18, 2007

Iraqis: life is getting better:

MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.

The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.

One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad. But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today.

Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month.

Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?
Violence slashed as troop surge hits Baghdad
By a majority of two to one, Iraqis believe military operations now under way will disarm all militias. More than half say security will improve after a withdrawal of multinational forces.

Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, said the findings pointed to progress. “There is no widespread violence in the four southern provinces and the fact that the picture is more complex than the stereotype usually portrayed is reflected in today’s poll,” she said.

"Could there be similar news coming from Iraq in the years to come:

"Vietnam’s Vinashin sells 4 ships worth $110 million
Last updated: 8/13/2010 20:00 "

I ask this question in relationship of the question"Iraq War: Was It Worth It?"

I have a relative who as I am typing this is still suffering the effects of Vietnam,I know he didn't go through all of his suffering for the building of ships in that country and what will they be saying about Iraq in the future to justify the suffering that has been done to our women and men in uniform ?

" and what will they be saying about Iraq in the future to justify the suffering that has been done to our women and men in uniform ?"


You mean the woman and men in uniform who volunteered for Iraq because they felt it was a noble cause??? Who are you to doubt their honorable service?

BillF:
" and what will they be saying about Iraq in the future to justify the suffering that has been done to our women and men in uniform ?"


You mean the woman and men in uniform who volunteered for Iraq because they felt it was a noble cause??? ****Who are you to doubt their honorable service?
---------------------------
Bill F: There you go perverting someone else's intent w/ another assinine perverse accusation when the statement did not go there.
WHAT WE HAVE CHALLENGING ALL ALONG IS THE LEADERSHIP THAT SENDS AMERICAN TREASURE INTO LIFE VS DEATH SITUATIONS AND THEN LEAVES THEM IN HARMS WAY WITH BOTH ARMS TIED BEHIND THEIR BACKS, AND BOUNDARY LINES THAT THEY CANNOT CROSS.
THE IMC'S MILITARY AND THE POLITICAL LEADERSHIP ALWAYS CHOOSES "THE LETS TAKE CARE OF OUR FUNDRAISERS APPROACH "OCCUPATION"- WITH AMERICAN LIVES AT STAKE, RATHER THAN USE THE HIGH TECH SKILLED STRATEGY AND EFFICIENCY "GET IT OVER, AND BE DONE WITH IT."
MILLIONS OF AMERICAN LIVES AND FAMILIES WERE RUINED BY VIET NAMS LIMITED WARFARE, THE DMZ, AND THE COLLATERAL DAMAGE APPROACHES THAT MADE FORTUNES FOR THE VENDORS. THE VAST MAJORITY OF OUR HOMELESS ARE EX VIETNAM VETS.

THIS BULLSHIT OCCUPATION COST OUR VOLUNTEERS 5,000 LIVES AND WELL OVER 100,000 CASUALTIES. ... the war itself was conducted and ended removing Saddam was the mission and that was all the mission that needed to be accomplished with less than 100 fatalities. SO IT IS VERY EASY TO SAY WITH CONFIDANCE THAT OUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS DID THEIR JOBs- WHILE STATING QUITE EMPHATICALLY THE THE ZIPPERHEADS THAT SENT THEM THERE AND FAILED TO BRING THEM HOME SAFELY AND UNSCATHED FAILED THEIR OBLIGATIONS MISERABLY.

Unfortunatley this is to my point:

Task force: Military suicide prevention efforts inadequate





More on this Story
Story | Army suicides: Poor leadership, not repeat deployments blamed
Story | Military suicides remain high, especially among reservists
Story | Military suicides are causing civilian casualties, too
Story | Tough old soldier battles new enemy: Suicide epidemic
Story | Despite prevention efforts, U.S. military suicides rise
Story | Army suicides expected to rise for 5th straight year


By Barbara Barrett | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — A Defense Department task force devoted to preventing suicide in the military presented a grim picture of the trend Tuesday, with suicides rising at a near steady pace even as commanders apply various balms to soothe a stressed, exhausted fighting force.

The military has nearly 900 suicide prevention programs across 400 military installations worldwide, but in a report released Tuesday, the task force describes the Defense Department's approach as a safety net riddled with holes.

Last year, 309 men and women slipped through.

In 2008, 267 service members committed suicide. In 2007, the number was 224.

However, the task force also gave a message of hope: Prevention efforts can work, members said, and suicidal behavior after combat deployment isn't normal.

"Having any of our nation's warriors die by suicide is not acceptable — not now, not ever," said Army Maj. Gen. Philip Volpe, a physician and co-chairman of the Department of Defense Task Force on the Prevention of Suicide by Members of the Armed Forces.

Among the task force's findings:



The military doesn't have enough behavioral specialists and suicide prevention officers, and that those need better training.


Suicide prevention programs aren't streamlined across services.


Service members still encounter discriminatory and humiliating experiences when seeking psychiatric help.


Unit-level leaders especially struggle with how to assist the men and women under their guidance.

The numbers of suicides have increased almost steadily since the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan began, and task force members said Tuesday they were unable to pinpoint exactly why the trend continues despite prevention work being done so far.

"We don't have enough data to answer that question," said David Litts, a retired Air Force colonel and task force member.

But the task force found much to be concerned about. Volpe described a "supply-and-demand mismatch" that hurts a service member's ability to spend enough time back home to become reengaged with the community and their personal lives.

The report suggests either growing the size of the military or reducing mission demand.

It suggests establishing a policy office under the Secretary of Defense to streamline suicide prevention programs.

The report also recommends working more closely with military family members and improving communications between unit-level leaders and the men and women under their care.

The report found suicide investigations aren't now standardized. Task force members recommended learning more about suicide victims' last hours and days.

But mostly, the task force said, the military must look at mental health and well being as part of an overall approach to fitness — one that includes social, physical, spiritual and psychological wellness.

Individual installations are developing their own programs to combat suicide.

As of July, the Army's Fort Bragg, N.C., for instance, had four confirmed suicides, with two others under investigation. The base had six suicides in 2009, 13 in 2008 and 10 in 2007.

Another Army base, Fort Campbell, Ky., reported 14 suicides in 2009, 12 in 2008 and nine in 2007. Of the military's branches, the Army has the highest number of suicides: 160 soldiers killed themselves in 2009.

Fort Bragg has begun using role-playing scenarios to train soldiers on how to help friends in despair.

Bonnie Carroll, an advocate for military survivors and co-chairwoman of the task force, said Tuesday she found hope watching young Marine recruits in training at Parris Island, S.C. There, she said, recruits are being told they should be as quick to call in support for personal problems as they would for air support during combat.

"And who's your front line?" Carroll asked. "Your buddy

"Bill F: There you go perverting someone else's intent w/ another assinine perverse accusation when the statement did not go there."


Hey shumck! So where did his post go??? Not one word mentioned suicide prevention. What it purposely inferred was that these brave soles were forced to serve in Iraq when nothing could be further from the truth as the very last military draft was for the Vietnam War......But of course, no one knew that better than you who fled like chicken little to "avoid military service", as you stated your friends advised you to. One can only wonder how you managed to pull that one off! How do you live with yourself and at the same time try to justify your cowardly actions with anti-war, anti-American propaganda every chance you get? You're only fooling yourself and no one else, we know what your motives are.

CBS' BOGUS VET-SUICIDE STATS
ITS 'SCANDAL' NUMBERS DON'T ADD UP:


THERE'S "startling" and "stunning" news of a "hidden epidemic" of veteran suicides. So claimed CBS News in two reports last week.

Most of the airtime went for heart-rending interviews with wives of vets who had killed themselves. But CBS also provided statistics that it said showed that "veterans were more than twice as likely to commit suicide in 2005 than non-vets."

Problem is, we have absolutely no way of verifying the CBS data nor how the network claims it collected the info. CBS News admits to collecting the data itself, rather than relying on an independent outside party. It also concedes its rate is "much higher" than that in an uncompleted Department of Veterans Affairs study.

So somebody isn't telling the truth. And the evidence is overwhelming that it's CBS.

One hint of an agenda is the two "veterans' activists" CBS interviewed for the segments - hardly disinterested parties. One is also very much an antiwar activist, a fact that CBS failed to disclose. In all, the networks stacked three commentators hyping its claims against one (from the VA) questioning them.

But the most devastating evidence of the network's nefariousness lies in out- side studies, both individually and combined. For example, CBS put special emphasis on vets of the current wars.

"One age group stood out," it said: "veterans age 20 through 24, those who have served during the War on Terror. They had the highest suicide rate among all veterans, estimated between two and four times higher than civilians the same age."

CBS said the suicide rate of these young vets was 22.9 to 31.9 per 100,000 people.

Which looks very strange next to the data on active-duty soldiers in the War on Terror. Last month, the Army released a report finding that the suicide rate among these GIs in 2006 was 17.3 per 100,000 troops - rather lower than CBS's rate for veterans. Why would soldiers who were recently on active duty be killing themselves at a much higher rate than those still serving?

More important still, the Army study corrected for some key demographic facts - notably, that the military is largely male and that men are much likelier to commit suicide than women are. Among civilians who match the overall age, gender and race profile of the U.S. Army, the suicide rate was 19 per 100,000 - higher than for the troops.

So, even if CBS's numbers for younger vets' suicides hold up, the rate isn't twice the relevant civilian one - let alone the "two to four times higher" that CBS claimed.

Another problem shows up when you look at the repeated studies of the 700,000 or so vets of first Gulf War - which have found no increased suicide rate. The same is true of a massive 2004 study of Vietnam vets.

That is, a solid body of work shows no "extra" suicides among vets of the only previous two major U.S. wars of the last half-century - yet CBS claims a massive increase among vets generally. For the networks' numbers to hold up, there'd have to be a vast jump in suicides among vets who never saw combat.

And since suicide rates among 'Nam and Gulf vets match those the general population, CBS's numbers translate to higher suicide rates for peacetime vets than for wartime ones.

Which contradicts a powerful implication of the CBS presentation - namely, that posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a major cause of these suicides. (That's what those interviews with the wives helped show.)

Now, PTSD is quite real; I suffered it after my trial by fire in two fights and the wrong end of a nasty ambush in Ramadi, Iraq, all within two days. But multiple research groups have found that PTSD is way down the list of factors that drive both veteran and active-duty suicides.

In fact, a huge VA study of more than 800,000 subjects (released just weeks ago) compared suicide rates of depressed veterans with or without a PTSD diagnosis. It found a suicide rate of 68.16 per 100,000 person years for those with PTSD versus a rate of 90.66 for those without PTSD. (The researchers theorized that this was because PTSD sufferers are likelier to get treatment, including psychotherapy.)

As for long-term effects of experiencing combat, a 1998 study of Vietnam vets concluded: "The traumatic experience of combat makes only a small contribution to the report of current physical health problems."

Ultimately, there's no credible evidence of any increased suicide rate for vets or evidence that PTSD is anything but a minor factor in the suicides that do occur. (And if you don't believe that, CBS has some documents on President Bush's National Guard service they'd like to sell you . . . )

Of course, suicide is always a tragedy; whatever the rate among veterans, it would be good to reduce it. But success will require an agenda that puts the well-being of these heroes above crass media sensationalism and political causes.

Marine commandant predicts that Marines will be in Afghanistan for 'a few years' to come:

Conway also said intelligence intercepts suggest that Taliban fighters have been encouraged by the talk of the U.S. beginning to withdraw troops next year.

August 24, 2010 | Associated Press


It will likely be a few years before Afghanistan is secure enough for the U.S. Marines to leave, Commandant Gen. James Conway said Tuesday, adding his voice to a growing chorus of military leaders warning of a long fight ahead.

Afghan war commander Gen. David Petraeus and other senior officers have recently said that considerable time will be needed before Afghan troops can take over the fight.

But Conway's blunt assessment was the first of its kind to come from a service chief since President Barack Obama announced that U.S. troops will begin leaving Afghanistan in July 2011. Last fall, Obama said that security conditions will determine how many forces can leave and how fast.

Conway also said intelligence intercepts suggest that Taliban fighters have been encouraged by the talk of the U.S. beginning to withdraw troops next year.

"In some ways, we think right now it's probably giving our enemy sustenance," Conway said of the 2011 deadline. "We think that he may be saying to himself ... 'Hey, you know, we only have to hold out for so long.'"

But, Conway quickly added, the perception that the U.S. is pulling out completely is likely to work in America's favor after the deadline passes, when Marines are still fighting insurgents. Taliban morale is likely to drop when "come the fall we're still there hammering them like we have been," he said.

"I think it could be very good for us in that context, in terms of the enemy psyche," he said.

The Marines have been at the forefront of America's toughest fights in the Afghanistan war, including attempts to oust the Taliban from the farming hamlets of Marjah in Helmand province.

Conway, known for his candor, is planning to retire this fall after 40 years in the Marines.

"Though I certainly believe some American unit somewhere in Afghanistan will turn over responsibilities to Afghan security forces in 2011, I do not think they will be Marines," he told reporters in his opening remarks at a Pentagon news conference.

Noting that Helmand and Kandahar are considered the "birthplace" of the Taliban, Conway said, "I honestly think it will be a few years before conditions on the ground are such that turnover will be possible for us."

Conway said he wants to prepare Marines for the likelihood that the war will continue past the 2011 deadline. He recently returned from a trip to Afghanistan, where he said morale was high because Marines "can sense conditions are turning their direction."

Conway also said he believes that the Afghanistan government's effort to reconcile with low-level Taliban foot soldiers could be a "game changer" in the war.

But "when that will come remains to be seen," Conway said.

When asked about a proposal in Congress to lift the military's ban on openly gay service members, Conway said he still opposes such a move. He said that Marines in particular recruit "pretty macho" young Americans, many of whom have religious objections to sharing a room with a gay person.

But if the law changes, the Marine Corps will "deal" with it and not drag its feet, he said.

"We've got a war to fight," he said, "and we need to, if the law changes, implement (it) and get on with it."

"Not one word mentioned suicide prevention."

"Bonnie Carroll, an advocate for military survivors and co-chairwoman of the task force, said Tuesday she found hope watching young Marine recruits in training at Parris Island, S.C. There, she said, recruits are being told they should be as quick to call in support for personal problems as they would for air support during combat."

Bill.F:

The New York Post?

Bill.F

Fox News?

Robert Said:
"and what will they be saying about Iraq in the future to justify the suffering that has been done to our women and men in uniform?"

Bill F.Answered:
"You mean the woman and men in uniform who volunteered for Iraq because they felt it was a noble cause??? Who are you to doubt their honorable service?"


As still contend, regarding your original disingenuous post regarding America's finest and bravest, who volunteered for Iraq and are still volunteering for both wars as we post because they believe in the mission, and my original rebuttal to the above, where does it mention suicide in the post, "Vietnam’s Vinashin sells 4 ships worth $110 million", where you made the comments above that I had a major problem with??? Your second article "Military suicide prevention efforts inadequate", which had absolutely nothing to with the article I originally commented on, was obviously thrown in as a cover-up.

"Bill.F:

The New York Post?"
"Fox News"?


Unlike you I always show the Site/Url where I extract my information so anyone can check it out for accuracy if so desired, and as required by RNNTV posting rules but selectively followed. You see, I have nothing to hide in the information I post and neither does Fox nor the Post.