As Tongsen Park, Saddam's bag man, was sentenced last week, Claudia Rosett noted that 2.5 million given him by Iraq was unaccounted for. (Someone got bags of money, we don't know who).

We do know that France, Russia, and Canada were bribed to oppose anything against Iraq. In the case of Russia and France many billions were at stake in future oil contracts.

Sanctions were completely evaded through oil-for-food - Saddam could get what he wanted - the UNSC was toothless and bribed.

Anyone who thinks Iraq was "contained" is nuts.

Oh but Jay -- Bush lied and people died.
Cue the vitriol....

Inconvenient Truth #7: Bush and Company have lied to us and deceived us from the beginning and continue to do so on an almost daily basis.

Inconvenient Truth #8: We're fighting the wrong war in the wrong place as the Taliban regenerates, rearms, rests and prepares to wreak havoc once against in Afghanistan.

Inconvenient Truth #9. OBL continues to guide and direct the real terrorists and has been conveniently forgotten by the war cabal in the White House.

Dont forget more soldiers have died under Klinton in 'peacetime, than under W.

Lets not forget he still had al-shmoud misles that far exceeded U.N. restrictions. (term "restrictions" used VERY loosely).

Hans Blix states in his book "Disarming Iraq" aid quoteds on page 112 of the Butler report says, "My gut feelings, which I kept to myself, suggested to me that Iraq still engaged in prohibited activities and retained prohibited items, and that it had the documents to prove it."

Gee, wonder why he never told the UN about his concerns?

Hugh:

nconvenient Truth #8: We're fighting the wrong war in the wrong place as the Taliban regenerates, rearms, rests and prepares to wreak havoc once against in Afghanistan.

Inconvenient Truth #9. OBL continues to guide and direct the real terrorists and has been conveniently forgotten by the war cabal in the White House.
Posted by: Hugh at February 26, 2007 06:52 AM

OK, I'll bite.

Just when will Rep[rehensible] Murtha and his ilk recommend pulling all troops out of Iraq and redeploy them to Afghanistan (vice Okinawa) track down OBL (as if that will magically stop the jihadist-cut-throat) and string him up from the nearest tree.

Oh wait, the ACLU will file suit, we better arraign him before the 9th circuit court. That will ensure he gets a speedy get out of jail free card.

http://terryfrank.net/?p=1506
http://terryfrank.net/?p=1514
http://terryfrank.net/?p=1517 Documentation of Saddam's uranium stockpiles

Gee, Hugh, thanks for confirming my point that for some people, history began the day George W. Bush became president. Everything prior to that is irrelevant, it seems.

J.

It's 5+ years now Jay for god's sake. It's a freaking mess and it isn't getting better and the right's hero cowboy president has completely f***** it up. At some point in time you war warriors (god frobid we should label you a republican so this will have to do) have to start holding this cabal responsible. Oh I forgot, you folks only want to hold Bill Clinton responsible.

Jay, the left will never agree with your points, truth and all. Their hatred for GW and the military is greater then their ability to reason. Hugh is a great example. Great post. ww

Hugh,
The difference is that people hold Clinton accountable for doing nothing. People hold Bush accountable for doing something. Even if you don't like the way Bush has handled things, there is still a better chance that a problem can be resolved if somebody is doing something. Please review Lorie's post below on "The Day in the Life of a Leftist".

Funny, Hugh, I thought the point I was making was that Bill Clinton was RIGHT on Iraq -- at least as far as his words and some of his deeds. I'm not blaming him for it in the least.

You are also fixated on a point I'm not arguing here. You're saying you don't like HOW it's been done. I'm talking WHETHER it should have been done.

Or are you just trying to pull your standard schtick of changing the subject?

J.

I still think several well placed bullets could have done the same job as invasion did.

The extreme lefties will never acknowledge what happen before the shrub became president. Same as to the extreme righties, they would rather blame Clinton as that is easier than thinking.

Fact remains we are in a war that is unlike any type of warfare most people have seen before. I don't like the way this administration has gone about fighting it, but the fact remains, we have a President who is fighting it. Not someone who would kiss the terrorists ass.

Granted 63% of Americans want our troops home from Iraq, and I am one of the 63%. However, we need to win this war, we just need better leadership on how to do so.

This so called surge, why in the hell didn't they surge at the beginning? As every military leader will tell you, you go with over whelming power, kick ass, and leave. After that the dipo's can sit down and do their job. But our poor leadership does not understand that not only Iraq but the majority of the middle east is tribes, they have been fighting amongst them selves for many years. And they will still be fighting amongst themselves after we leave.

Overwhelming power, you mean like in Mogadishu? Oops, the only thing overwhelming there was the cut n run strategy.

Gianni,

I mean the 500 to 600K troops Shinski (sp) who at the time was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said what was needed for the job.

Well, for speaking up against the poor leadership, he was cast aside. The other generals then shut up and did what they were told to do.

If you read my post again, where did I say about cutting and running? I said we need to win this war, and the lousey leadership we now have is unable to do it.

And as I stated, we don't need a president who is going to kiss the terrorist ass either. From your comments it sounds like your still blaming Clinton instead of thinking.

And as all good righties really support the troops, the military need people between the ages of 18 to 42. What is stopping you from further supporting the troops?

Why didn't our present leadership think about the wounded vets that would be returning home, and make sure the support for them would be up and running? Oh I know, blame Clinton for that also, right!

People keep harping we should have put 5-600,000 troops in Iraq. You forget that Peeeloshi's drain the swamp tactic has been used with success except it was Slick who used it to drain the military. Over 40% reduction which put America in great danger. We didn't and don't have that many troops to hit the battle field. Slicks drain the military worked to the advantage of every country in the world except the U.S. Peeeloshi's drain the swamp is working backwards, she's filling the swamp with known criminals in high places.

I still have the picture of Hans Blix sitting at the UN trying to squirm out of why his report said Saddam still had all those unaccounted for chemicals. You don't hear much about Hans Blix talking about Iraq's nukes and how those programs were coming right along.

So I assume Hans Blix lied, he was at the center of the whole truth. And everybody knows the UN wouldn't lie, would they?

The point is obviously ABOVE your capabilities. Even when cons try to give Klinton credit, libnuts will disagree.

BTW, do you think there was overwhelming force in Mogadishu in 10-93? How many libs spoke out against that the summer fall fiasco in 93, when more equipment, etc was requested? NONE! See, its easy to Monday morning QB, and thats ALL the libs have, well, besides the cut n run strategy.

Still waiting for some great libs ideas. Bush sucks is not just your primary idea, seems to me it is the only one. 50+ days in office, and all we have is more BS in congress, Dems being more corrupt or vile than anything GOP lately, while many of them seem more interested in campaigning, then doing what they are paid to do.

This so called surge, why in the hell didn't they surge at the beginning? As every military leader will tell you, you go with over whelming power, kick ass, and leave. After that the dipo's can sit down and do their job. But our poor leadership does not understand that not only Iraq but the majority of the middle east is tribes, they have been fighting amongst them selves for many years. And they will still be fighting amongst themselves after we leave.

I agree to get control of a situation.. the force required grows with time - come early and come strong. Don't allow the enemy any hope of winning and you reduce their numbers quickly.

OT:
Congress confirmed General Petraeus. The General believes that a troop surge is required to get the situation in Baghdad under control. He's also stated that he believes that we should know whether or not the surge is going to work by the end of summer. (Note knowing whether it is going to work is not the same is having everything done - it's a direction not a destination).

If you were unhappy prior to the election with the conduct of the war, fine. There's a new General running the show and he's given you a rough point a few months out where we can re-evaluate the progress. Just give the new man and his new plan the few months he's requested.

Inconvenient Truth-Revisited, The brilliant Clinton operation "Desert Fox" effectively removed Saddam as a treat as of 1999.

When you get to blaming Bill Clinton for disbanding the Iraqi Army, wholesale de-baathification, and not committing enough troops to securing the country then wake me up because those things actually have something to do with what is going on in Iraq today.

It never ceases to amaze me how far Bush apologists will go to absolve him of any blame for the awful situation in Iraq.

another inconvienent Truth:

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/

Saddam Hussein offered asylum

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.

Despite repeated demands from Washington, the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden after the August 7 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, demanding proof of his involvement in terrorist activities.

Jay:

Another way to put this:the point is you have no point unless this is just a history lesson. You can choose to live in the past all you want. It's the present that the cowboy president has f***** up more than is even imaginable. Since you war warriors have nothing but a disaster to defend you change the subject Jay. Why don't you folks get just a tad honest and talk about today's mess?

Another way to put this:the point is you have no point unless this is just a history lesson.

Unintended truth, I'm sure.

Shinseki, who came to his position under Clinton, clashed with Rumsfeld over several things including a new expensive artillery system Rumsfeld cancelled.

Rumsfeld thought Shinseki to be an old army officer not in line with his plans to greatly reform the military to fight the coming wars, not the past wars.

Much later, Shinseki made his estimate to Senator Levin of "several hundred thousand troops" needed in Iraq. Talking about a number of 200,000, Abizaid later said that Shinseki had been right.

The number of 600,000 was taken from an early staff report about an existing strategy that was abandoned as impossible as Scrapiron points out. I'm sure this was in some way a holdover from the 1991 war, as was Powell and Shinseki.

In 1991 we had the troops, of course, and Powell also had Japan and the Saudi's to pay for it. This was an easy decision at the time.

We have to say that Shinseki was right about 200,000 needed in Iraq but wrong about the artillery. Sometimes we should listen to those old army officers and sometimes we can't.

Be that as it may, reform was and is greatly needed in the military - a large organization that has always been resistant to change. Artillery is not used much any more.

The change Rumsfeld made to fly sailors in and out to carriers - rather than sail home - almost doubled the "time on station" for those vary expensive groups and greatly increased our effective force at less cost.

But the gap between Shinseki's estimate and the force that went was not nearly as large as some would have us believe.

Had we gone in through Turkey, the total number of troops would have been about two thirds of Shinseki's estimate, from the start.

Personally, I doubt Clinton would have gone to war with Saddam in 2003. It would have been more of tooing and froing, brinkmanship tactics s and an additional UN resolution, As Saddam knew he didn't have any WMD, he would have ultimately backed down using one of the back channels that Bush/Cheney would have none of..The difference is that even though Clinton supported Bush on the invasion, he really didn't want to go to war.. Bush/ Cheney did..

Barney:

Inconvenient Truth-Revisited, The brilliant Clinton operation "Desert Fox" effectively removed Saddam as a treat as of 1999.

The Pentagon says:

To strike military and security targets in Iraq that contribute to Iraq's ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction.

What weapons of mass destruction? I thought Bush lied about this? Right?

Madeline Albright:

The weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the president explained very clearly to the American people that this is the threat of the 21st century.

I'm confused.

I remember us all questioning the timing of this event...you know, when impeachment hearings began against Clinton.

Nonetheless, it did go well, except:

Apart from apparently degrading Iraq's missile programs, the air attacks did little to affect Baghdad's other WMD programs. For example, General Zinni remarked after the operation concluded that the ease with which chemical and biological agents could be manufactured, particularly for use by terrorists, made bombing dual-use facilities a waste of time. Degrading such a capability was virtually impossible, according to General Zinni, if "they're that easy to . . . establish."

Yet when DESERT FOX ended a mere 70 hours after it began, Saddam remained firmly in power--minus some of his infrastructure--and the Iraqi dictator could claim to his people and to the world that once again, he had withstood an onslaught from the most powerful form of America's and the West's armed might--airpower. The status of Iraq's WMD programs would remain a mystery and these programs were now beyond the scrutiny of the UN. Moreover, DESERT FOX lacked clear political goals, an omission for which no amount of firepower could compensate. Despite the militarily effective, if brief, application of airpower, Saddam Hussein not only survived, he succeeded in ending UN inspections and retained both the intent and capability to restart his WMD programs once sanctions either collapsed or were lifted. Only the fall of Baghdad in 2003 to coalition forces ended once and for all the threat from Saddam's murderous regime and his quest for weapons of mass destruction.

Most of my information on this inconvenient truth came from here.

So, what is Bush's excuse now? Why hasn't this administration finished the job in Afghanistan?

WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 -- President Bush has decided to send an unusually tough message to one of his most important allies, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the president of Pakistan, warning him that the newly Democratic Congress could cut aid to his country unless his forces become far more aggressive in hunting down operatives with Al Qaeda, senior administration officials say.

Are you telling me that it took a change in power (the Dems) to force Bush to get tough on terrorism?

"Dont forget more soldiers have died under Klinton in 'peacetime, than under W."

That's actually a convenient falsehood if you add up every active duty military that died under Clinton (any cause), the number is 7,500 (1,213 + 1,075 + 1,040 + 974 + 817 + 827 + 796 + 758). With Bush, just through 2005 it's 6,966 (891 + 999 + 1228 + 1897 + 1951). In 2006, only counting US military deaths in Iraq, the number is 821, so that's 7,787, and it probably undercounts total deaths by at least 1000 (all causes) for 2006. Clinton's tally for the comparable time period is 5,946.

Also, note the trends. Fewer soldiers died each year under Clinton with the exception of 1998. With Bush, it's just the opposite. More soldiers die every successive year.

Barney: "Why hasn't this administration finished the job in Afghanistan?"

Make up your mind Barney. Be a hawk, be a dove. But your embarrassing yourself.

Joe,

The decreasing death rate under Clinton can easily be explained by his consistent reduction in force size. Law of Averages and all that.

The point remains that Clinton's whole time in office was during 'peace time' and we've been at war for most of Bush's time in office.

It still puts Clinton in a pretty bad light and/or Bush in a pretty good light. Take your pick.

"Are you telling me that it took a change in power (the Dems) to force Bush to get tough on terrorism?"

Not really. It took a change in power to prove to the world that the democrats aren't tough on terrorism.

"So, what is Bush's excuse now? Why hasn't this administration finished the job in Afghanistan?"

Geesh. Dude, seriously. Your anal-rectal inversion on the reality of how things work is terribly apparent, here.

Why didn't FDR finish off the Germans in time for Xmas '44?

Heck, why didn't FDR take out Hirohito in 42? They attacked us, the Germans didn't, right? Who should we have focused on?

Why didn't LBJ finish off the No. Vietnamese?

Why didn't US Grant knock off the Rebs in 1863?

Why? Shit takes time. In your plastic-fantastic, fault Bush for everything, insta-solution world, do you not understand, or do you totally and completely ignore the fact that as history progresses, as the world becomes more complicated, we can't gauge current success on the the rate of success from the past?

When people say that Iraq/Afghanistan has lasted longer than WWII they completely ignore/overlook that fact that we don't have a specific nation-state to target. Were there an Al-Qaeda-stan, we more than likely would have had this over and done with by now. But that ain't the way it is. It's a different kind of warfare, here, champ.

Or, haven't you and your knuckledheaded idological compadre, Hugh, figured that out, yet?

But hey ... why dwell on reality when your delusions and petty go-nowhere arguments serve your point so much better, right?

We would not be in Iraq if the inspectors were not thrown out. The darkness of four years without the eyes of UN weapons inspectors precipitated the use of force. Nothing was done by our administration to replace or to install new inspectors for four years! Four years to hide the weapons of mass destruction.
So on a last ditch effort inspectors return, stockpiles are missing or destroyed, and a report is made. We can say anything we want, but the darkness occurred because of a lack of strength, and force to put back the inspectors.