If you accept the premise that we needed to go in when we did, which is obviously a highly questionable notion, on the timing alone, then the question then is, was this war and its ensuing occupation managed as efficiently as one expect and demands from the situation?

Clearly not. What's galling to me is the arrogance displayed by certain folks in the administration- Rumsfield and Wolfowitz in particular- even at a time when they were so patently screwing the pooch over there.

On the other hand, I don't think it's possible to have managed this in such a manner that success would have resulted. It was botched, yes, but assuming you're already in Iraq, I think you're already screwed.

For instance- not stopping the looting quicker was a mistake. I don't think stopping it would have prevented the insurgency, though.

I really don't think there was any possible way to achieve what we want over there, except by some miracle. Which is one reason it was such a mistake to get involved in the first place. Creating an American style democracy "within a year" in Iraq was fantasy from the get go. Impossible.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"I'm beginning to think that the Dems should have nominated somebody who was completely anonymous"

Great observation with an impossible outcome. During their primaries, every democratic candidates message was the same; 'nominate me, I'm a bigger pussy than the other guy'

Never in the history of American Politics has their been a larger assembly of 'leaders' of sissy-ass liberals who so perfectly defined the feminization of the American Male than the debates of the 2004 democratic presidential primaries......

......so they wise up and nominate the guy who appears to be less of a pussy than the others. But there's a problem;

He's a scumbag.

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

"SH had pleny of opportunities to avert this and he didn't which is not to say he is entirely responsible."

No, SH is 100% responsible. Who else can be blamed?

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

--- No, SH is 100% responsible. Who else can be blamed?

The U.S. for shitty intelligence and Bush for reckless abandon.

"I'm frankly amazed that anybody other than the most hardcore partisan would consider voting for Bush."
- - And those 50 million+ "hardcore partisans" are frankly amazed that anyone could possibly consider a world with John Kerry as president to be anything other than a total nightmare.

"The war is a disaster"
- - In your opinion.

"he's left Afghanistan in a rocky state"
- - Afghanistan was a toilet before. It's a safer toilet now.

"the job market is still abysmal, and every indication out of the White House is that he's asleep at the wheel."
- - Jobs are rebounding and what indications make you think he's asleep at the wheel?

"Yet, despite this and real questions about the content of his character throughout the years"
- - Huh?? what questions? You mean Kitty Kelley's absolutely uncorroborated claim that he used cocaine? or the fact that he, like virtually every priveleged kid in America, stayed out of Viet Nam? I worry about Kerry, who was against the war until he decided to join the military and then wanted to emulate Kennedy, so he volunteered for combat. Then he came back and told bald-faced lies about attrocities that he claimed to have seen and admits to having committed... WTF?

"he's leading Kerry in current polls."
- - I think Kerry is leading Kerry in the polls. No one had yet figured out who he is or what his positions are.

"And the argument that none of this is his fault only goes far, not to mention is substantively incorrect."
- - None of what? I'd love to rebut, but I don't see a point being made here.

"the Repubs have managed, as they are efficient at doing, to make this a referendum about Kerry rather than a referendum about Bush's pathetic performance."
- - Funny thing about that, and many of us said it a long time ago: Just not being Bush isn't going to get anyone elected.

"Well, at the end of the day they can just blame Clinton, despite the fact that I don't know too many people who didn't do quite well under Clinton."
- - I did very poorly under Clinton, and even poorer as a result of the post-Clinton meltdown. Clinton inherited the dot-com stuff, which took the economy skyward, and then dropped it on it's butt. Clinton had nothing to do with the economic upturn (if you'd care to rebut, please list all the Clinton economic programs and what they did for us) and also did nothing to ameliorate the inevitable collapse of same.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"The U.S. for shitty intelligence and Bush for reckless abandon."

That's deep!

Meanwhile, the entire international community had the exact same intelligence and the agreement was UNANIMOUS that Hussein had WMDs (there is still every reason to believe that he had them and simply shipped them to Syria before the hostilities began) and that he must be stopped.

John Kerry said so on the floor of the Senate - VEHEMENTLY. Ditto Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein, Hillarity Clinton, Joe Biden, and virtually every other US Senator.

The fact that Hussein had WMDs was not open to conjecture, it was accepted fact. And not just by the US, but by the entire world.

The recklessness was Clinton's for allowing this situation to fester for eight years.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

The question was who else can we blame other than SH.

We can blame everyone that didn't speak out loudly against it, including the senators you mentioned. We can blame Clinton too. But Bush is the Commander in Chief so the buck stops there. I HOPE he would be the first to admit that.

"The question was who else can we blame other than SH."
- - Why? What have you got against placing the blame where it belongs?

"We can blame everyone that didn't speak out loudly against it, including the senators you mentioned. We can blame Clinton too. But Bush is the Commander in Chief so the buck stops there. I'm sure he would be the first to admit that."
- - No, the buck stopped in Baghdad at the Presidential Palace of Saddam Hussein.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

Don't bank on that.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"

"The question was who else can we blame other than SH."
- - Why? What have you got against placing the blame where it belongs?


I don't have anything against placing the blame where it belongs. In my opinion, it belongs with Saddam and our government. It takes two to tango.

trio, I think we mostly agree here. I agree that Bush et al grossly over estimated their ability to control the situation, the reaction in Iraq and the aftermath. More than the Iraqi reaction, I think the missed the boat on the reaction of islamic militants and Iran which may be the biggest mistake. They have been working as hard to disrupt as we have been to build and I don't think they thought about that before and if they did they didn't do a good job.

I still, however, am happy that SH is gone. I think the problem is that we decided we would rebuild the country which we shouldn't have done but then again I guess there was no way to go over there and tell people we intended to leave it a wasteland. I am not even sure that had we signed up France, Germany etc that it would be that different other than spreading the cost.

I know you think I am wrong but I believe that they did think that there was a threat or substantial future threat but that has been argued already.

As for for the rebuilding of Iraq, I just read an article that said that they are redirecting millions to security from reconstruction because someone finally figured out that building systems was stupid if they were just going to be blown up. I think that any "rebuilding" will take 5 to 10 years to make it a viable infastructure.

So then the question is, if this was so incompetently run, why hasn't anybody been punished, or for that matter, why hasn't new management been assigned to clean up this mess. Well this is a lame response but it is the best I got. Who is going to carry out punishment? Who do you punish and what is the punishment. For the people who are really pissed about this the solution is we fire everyone involved and I don't think that is the right move for two reasons. One, it creates instability depending on how deep and wide you make the cut. Second, it sends the wrong message to the country and the world. House cleaning in public doesn't benefit anyone whether government or business. I do agree however that it is time to make some changes and if Bush stays in office I hope he makes some changes, although the top people are safe I am sure.

"SH had pleny of opportunities to avert this and he didn't which is not to say he is entirely responsible."

No, SH is 100% responsible. Who else can be blamed?



CE, In a sense I agree because he ultimately had the ability to comply and stop this. Bush could have never gone in if he had complied with every turn. This raises an interesting question for me; why didn't he comply? A.) He did have something to hide and was stalling, but I admit I can't point to why he was stalling unless you believe he moved items to Syria or ? B.) He was / is dilusional (sp?) and unbalanced and believed he could win the poker game and become the hero for defeating the US. Either option to me makes him a threat and worth destroying, I just think we had a bad plan for the end game.

Where I think there is room for blame is the aftermath. I fault the US for not having a better plan for after we won, I fault the Europeans and others for standing by and not helping us. To me, their inaction has contributed to the mess and by not coming aboard they have made the problem worse and in some cases I believe they didn't help because they wanted to exert power on the US and they had interests to protect with SH.

Are you referring to his entire history, or just the events in 2002-2003? I think the Iraqis did a pretty good job of complying. Security council passed resolution 1441 11/8/2002 imposing tough new arms inspections on Iraq. The inspectors went in on 11/18/2002. Iraq delivered a 12,000 page declaration that it had no WMD's on 12/7/2002. Inspectors found that the Al-Samoud missile had a range that was too long, and ordered them destroyed by 3/1/2003. Missiles began to be destroyed that day.

The Iraqis steadfastly claimed that there were no WMD's. They allowed the inspectors back in, and provided all the documentation that was requested. I have NO DOUBT that they did NOT open the doors of the presidential palaces with open arms and smiles, but they did allow access.

The US Congress authorized an attack on 10/11/2002 -- well before the UN even got the inspectors back in. Everyone knew the invasion was a forgeone conclusion, including Saddam. We were going in no matter what, even though they did try and comply.

"A.) He did have something to hide and was stalling, but I admit I can't point to why he was stalling unless you believe he moved items to Syria or ? B.) He was / is dilusional (sp?) and unbalanced and believed he could win the poker game and become the hero for defeating the US. Either option to me makes him a threat and worth destroying"
- - I think it was both.

"I fault the US for not having a better plan for after we won"
- - Definitely. We knew the "war" was going to last all of fifteen minutes, so why weren't we prepared for victory?

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"it belongs with Saddam and our government. It takes two to tango."

So you blame the US for WWII as well?

Yeah it takes two, a butt and a foot...

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

With out going to the details of dates etc. My point is that if I were SH and didn't have a reason to hide and I was being threatened with being diposed or killed, my wealth taken away and my country (not to mention the the destruction of my country and loss of life of my people) I would do all that was asked and not played silly games of saying no to the palace. I also, had I been ordered to destroy my weapons, would have made sure that there was an accounting for every one of them. If you get audited by the IRS you can't say "I promise I paid all the taxes I owed but I just don't have any proof"

The Iraqis steadfastly claimed that there were no WMD's: Not sure that carries much wait. Sort of like a guy on death row saying he is innocent isnt' it?

The US Congress authorized an attack on 10/11/2002 -- well before the UN even got the inspectors back in. Everyone knew the invasion was a forgeone conclusion, including Saddam. I disagree, authorization doesn't mean it is a foregone conclusion.

That's all well and good, but we're back to trying to prove a negative -- that is, that something doesn't exist. I don't believe that is possible, so it seems as though it would have been impossible for the Iraqis to compy completely, based on what our government wanted.

I'd imagine that some weapons were destroyed during air raids during Gulf War I, if you had a weapons depot with a few chemical rounds in it that was hit by a 2000lb bomb, how the heck are you going to prove anything? You have a record that the thing rolled off the assembly line, but you've got no proof of its destruction other than a smoking hole in the ground.

I think the Iraqis did what they could to comply, but it was an impossible task based on the qualifications which were placed on them. We were going to attack no matter what they said.

You have a record that the thing rolled off the assembly line, but you've got no proof of its destruction other than a smoking hole in the ground. I see your point and think it is valid but also think that they could have done a better job by making everything wide open. The perception to the world was that he was dodging and being deceptive. He should have said, "wherever you want to go at any time is fine"


I think the Iraqis did what they could to comply That is where the difference is. You trust them more than I did. I thought / think that the lied about a great many things and found guilt in their behavior. Ultimately though, I can't show any evidence they were lying so that leads me to believe he was unstable and not thinking clearly (besides the other clues like torture and genocide I mean:) which was a good reason he shouldn't be ruling.



Just read this which is sort of interesting for what it is worth: http://apnews.myway.com/...40917/D855CLS02.html

Fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein did not have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, but left signs that he had idle programs he someday hoped to revive, the top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq concludes in a draft report due out soon.

According to people familiar with the 1,500-page report, the head of the Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer, will find that Saddam was importing banned materials, working on unmanned aerial vehicles in violation of U.N. agreements and maintaining a dual-use industrial sector that could produce weapons.

Duelfer also says Iraq only had small research and development programs for chemical and biological weapons.

As Duelfer puts the finishing touches on his report, he concludes Saddam had intentions of restarting weapons programs at some point, after suspicion and inspections from the international community waned.

After a year and a half in Iraq, however, the United States has found no weapons of mass destruction - its chief argument for going to war and overthrowing the regime.