Bush equates Iraq with Vietnam

[wooderson]

You might want to read the other two paragraphs.

[Tallpine]

The Vietnam War was actually winnable had we had the fortitude and good sense, as there was a specific enemy (N.V.).  But had we continued following the same path, we would probably still have troops there and be losing people today.

Actually, Nixon did pretty much "win" the war in 1973 (IIRC) with the heavy bombing of NV.  That got them to talk peace, but the trouble was that we just gave it all away after that.

I'm not sure what the definition of "win" would be in Iraq
Theoretically, we "won" back in 2003.

I'm no pacifist.  I'm as fast or faster than anyone to get my Celt temper up and make wrong things right.  But I'm coming to the realization that the vast majority of wars are just concocted by politicians.

[wmenorr67]

To "win" this war in Iraq would be for the Iraqis to stop fighting amongst themselves and work together for the good of the country.

[Tallpine]

To "win" this war in Iraq would be for the Iraqis to stop fighting amongst themselves and work together for the good of the country.

I'm putting my money on faster than light travel working before that 

[Paddy]

Sigh.  That lie is getting tiresome.

What's really getting tiresome is the politicizing of this war on both sides, each for their own personal gain. The slimy smarmy Democrats mantra is always the same 'Bush is an idiot but evil genius (I  don't understand how they think they can have it both ways) who lied to get us into this war.'  BS-just prior to the invasion, everybody was on board, based on the intel.  The intel later proved to be seriously flawed and it was at that point we should have begun to extricate ourselves.  For some reason however, this Administration did not want to reverse our course.  Then the scandals began; billions in cash shipped to Iraq missing; undisclosed amounts paid to 'private contractors' for who knows what; allegations of torture; etc, et yada.

Did the Administration address these issues and take responsibility for the prosecution of the war?  Hell, no.  All they did was appeal to 'patriotism' and repeat the 'stay the course' mantra, and blame increased violence and American casualties on anti war sentiment here at home. More BS.

Bush proclaimed yesterday that a 'free Iraq' is within reach.  I don't know what he means by that or that a 'free Iraq' is even the goal and if so how a 'free Iraq' is crucial to U.S. security or how a 'free Iraq' combats terrorism.  I'd like him (or someone, anyone) to explain that; to answer those questions.

Nonetheless, he will be in office until January 20, 2009, and it's clear there will be no withdrawal of our military during his term.  The next President will inherit this mess.  By that time, we will either have achieved our 'goal' or the situation will have deteriorated into complete chaos, increased violence, and civil war.

We'll see what happens.  In the meantime, I've said all I want to say about Iraq, thank you very much.

[Ezekiel]

All they did was appeal to 'patriotism' and repeat the 'stay the course' mantra, and blame increased violence and American casualties on anti war sentiment here at home.

That lie is getting tiresome...

[Paddy]

Do you have some plan to fight terrorism that doesn't involve a few body bags?

Just off the top of my head.........

1) Beef up the borders to whatever extent necessary.  The goal is 0 illegal intrusion.
2) Keep track of everyone entering legally.  Know where they are and when they are required to exit.  Follow up and deport those not in compliance.
3) Inspect cargo entering the U.S. via ships
4) Monitor communications between the U.S. and countries involved with terrorism.  Keep records. Check and crosscheck

That's just for starters.

[The Rabbi]

Do you have some plan to fight terrorism that doesn't involve a few body bags?

Just off the top of my head.........

1) Beef up the borders to whatever extent necessary.  The goal is 0 illegal intrusion.
2) Keep track of everyone entering legally.  Know where they are and when they are required to exit.  Follow up and deport those not in compliance.
3) Inspect cargo entering the U.S. via ships
4) Monitor communications between the U.S. and countries involved with terrorism.  Keep records. Check and crosscheck

That's just for starters.

You're kidding, right?  First off, having zero illegal intrusions is not realistic.  Even people who want to mine the borders don't think it's realistic.
Second, keeping tabs on everyone within the U.S. would involve creating a police state of unprecedented size.  No thank you.
Finally, since the majority of terrorist attacks happened outside the U.S. (Khobar Towers, USS Cole, the disco in Germany, Bali, etc etc) I don't see how any of those proposals will stop that.

[Paddy]

You're kidding, right?  First off, having zero illegal intrusions is not realistic.  Even people who want to mine the borders don't think it's realistic.

It's a goal.  Like a 'free Iraq' is a goal and that's not realistic either.

Second, keeping tabs on everyone within the U.S. would involve creating a police state of unprecedented size.  No thank you.

Not 'everyone within the U.S.'  I said 'everyone entering legally on temporary visas (or the equivalent).

Finally, since the majority of terrorist attacks happened outside the U.S. (Khobar Towers, USS Cole, the disco in Germany, Bali, etc etc) I don't see how any of those proposals will stop that.

B-b-b-ut, but, I thought we're 'fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here'.  Has that changed now?  Besides, all those are military targets, and as such they are expendable, right?

[Perd Hapley]

Riley, that's hilarious.  Got a real plan? 

Oh, and you're going to rigorously enforce the border without a few dead Border Patrol officers?   

[Perd Hapley]

if I say the President can be in error, suddenly my -- and any -- service becomes questionable fodder

Sigh.  That lie is getting tiresome. 

Then try being able to refute it.

"Lie?"  PUH-LEASE.

Iraq was -- and is -- a "bad idea."

That said, I enjoy your posts.

What's to refute?  Who is asking you to affirm the doctrine of presidential infallibility?  Whether or not Iraq was a bad idea (with quotation marks around it), it simply isn't the case that no one loves you any more, just because you aren't Bush's biggest fan.  Persecution complex, lately? 

[Paddy]

Riley, that's hilarious.  Got a real plan? 

Really?  If my plan had been implemented, 9/11 would not have happened.  There's your real plan.

[The Rabbi]

Riley, that's hilarious.  Got a real plan? 

Really?  If my plan had been implemented, 9/11 would not have happened.  There's your real plan.

As I recall the hijackers were all here legally.  In any event, they could easily have had legal status.  And using American-born Muslims or converts/sympathizers would pretty well defeat your plan.

And you haven't answered the issue that making the US a fortress will do nothing to prevent the attacks that are planned for outside the U.S.  Making snide mocking comments is not a response.

[RevDisk]

Of course we could, but we don't really want to.

Who's "We" white man?

Those of us with military backgrounds, no matter the initial misgivings about going back into Iraq in 2003, generally understand that there's a time for rendering one's best advice to the Boss, and when the Commander decides, it's then time to quit demurring and do your best to make it happen. Sadly, the Left in America does not subscribe to that simple mentality. i.e., they're not team players. They just bitch and moan trying to get their own way, not recognizing that the train has long since left the station.

TC

Those of us with military backgrounds and a bit of knowledge of the region thought the idea was insanely stupid on a good day, disasterous on the normal day.  The US started supporting the Ba'ath Party due to Iraqi Prime Minister Qasim's closer ties to the Soviet Union, his withdrawl from the Baghdad Pact and his nationalization of British-owned Iraq Petroleum Company.  We later added more support due to the blowback from our support of the Shah of Iran.   

You have three ethnic groups that do not like each other and will not work together to make a stable government.  You have exactly two ways of uniting them.  A common enemy or a vicious dictatorship.  The slightly smarter thing would have been to Balkanize Iraq into three independent countries and get the locals to kill each other, not Americans.   

I was a member of the US Army until December 13, 2005.  I held my tongue previous to December 14, 2005 because I was a soldier.  Now I am a civilian, and my express duty is to question our government.   NOT to nod and follow orders, NOT to be a team player without question.  My concern isn't to bitch and moan, it's to hope we manage to find a way out of this screwed up situation with the least amount of US lives and money down a rathole. 

My counterinsurgency instructor beat a phrase into my head.  "If the people do not rise up and take freedom for themselves, they neither deserve it nor will they keep it."   He was and still is correct.  Handing anyone freedom is an insanely bad idea.  Helping folks is one thing, a very good thing.  Doing the job for them is another.  If the Iraqis cannot work together to build a stable society and government FOR THEMSELVES BY THEMSELVES, we cannot succeed in the long haul.  We can dump as much money as we like into Iraq, but it's not our country. 

[Ezekiel]

There's this great movie called "The Battle of Algiers."

I'll take it NONE of our elected leadership has seen it... 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Ah, right.  A movie. 

Honestly, why base national policy on a something meaningful when you could instead base it upon a movie (or shallow platitudes, or your petty self-important feelings, or whatever other substitute du jour the leftists use in place of rational thought).

 

[Ezekiel]

(sigh)  I presume metaphor is outside the scope of our Chief Executive?

I mean, logic appears to be, but metaphor?

This psuedo-war was NOT based in, ahem, "rational thought." 

[Perd Hapley]

Riley, I like some of your plan.  It's nowhere near complete, which is why I laughed at it, but there are some good points there.  It wouldn't have prevented 9-11, but it could make such attacks slightly harder to pull off. 

On the immigration/visa issues, I agree that not enough has been done.  Bush and other Republicans have been terribly lacking in this area.  Still, it is only part of a plan.

On the cargo ships, there are inspections of a sort.  But how closely can we inspect without crippling our economy?

4) Monitor communications between the U.S. and countries involved with terrorism.  Keep records. Check and crosscheck

  So you want wiretaps of all international calls to a few countries?  I think Bush had the better plan, just wiretapping international calls between suspects here and suspects elsewhere.  It's more targeted, isn't it? 

Finally, since the majority of terrorist attacks happened outside the U.S. (Khobar Towers, USS Cole, the disco in Germany, Bali, etc etc) I don't see how any of those proposals will stop that.

B-b-b-ut, but, I thought we're 'fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here'.  Has that changed now?  Besides, all those are military targets, and as such they are expendable, right?

The clubs that were bombed in Germany and Bali, not to mention the mass-transit attacks in London and Madrid, were not military targets.  The attacks against Khobar Towers and the USS Cole happened when we weren't fighting them there, here, or anywhere else.   

[Archie]

Again, the media has done a great job of altering the public view of what the President said.

For instance, they've left out completely the President's remarks on the rebuilding of Japan and Germany after WWII.  It seems there were a lot of people who felt neither Japan or Germany could have a democratic form of government, and the attempt wasn't worth the effort and doomed to failure.

Where have I heard that lately?

Of course, the nay-sayers were correct.  Japan is a still a feudal empire based on Emperor worship and Germany is a dictatorship just like it was in the days of Kaiser Wilhelm and Adolf Hitler.  We completely wasted our time and resources. 

The premature and precipitous removal of troops from Vietnam resulted in a peaceful and harmonious Marxist utopia.  The only people who died when the Communist government took over died from joy.

Afghanistan and Iraq will be just the same.  If we just cut and run, the spirit of John Lennon will descend and happiness will reign and gas prices will go down and AIDS will stop and the Cubs will win the pennant.

Right after the flying pigs come shooting out of my nose.

[Ezekiel]

...For instance, they've left out completely the President's remarks on the rebuilding of Japan and Germany after WWII.  It seems there were a lot of people who felt neither Japan or Germany could have a democratic form of government, and the attempt wasn't worth the effort and doomed to failure....

Of course, the nay-sayers were correct.  Japan is a still a feudal empire based on Emperor worship and Germany is a dictatorship just like it was in the days of Kaiser Wilhelm and Adolf Hitler.  We completely wasted our time and resources...

I cannot do anything but admit that you've made a damned fine point.

[RevDisk]

Afghanistan and Iraq will be just the same.  If we just cut and run, the spirit of John Lennon will descend and happiness will reign and gas prices will go down and AIDS will stop and the Cubs will win the pennant.

Okey dokey.  Fair enough.  While I ponder applying Naval terminology to a land based occupation, we shouldn't "cut and run".   Out of curiousity, what is your definition of "winning" this occupation?   And how would you suggest doing so?   

I've heard much about the fact that we shouldn't leave Iraq, but little on how to win the occupation, end the ethnic issues and get the majority of Iraqis interested in putting their country back together again.   The best offered 'solution' is to rely on the Iraqi Security Forces.  It seems logical, except unfortunately, the New Iraqi Army is not in good shape.  The National Police is much worse.  Rampant corruption, active militia inflitration, and complete lack of support/supply/maintaince infrastructure.  All of this could be fixed by compotent leadership and a bit of will by the Iraqis, but it's just not there.  Most of this I learned from guys I knew that are ex-military hired on as contractors and a handful of active duty soldiers who are the ones tasked with actually training the Iraqis. 

So, what are your suggestions for realistically getting the Iraqis motivated to rebuild their country?  I'm legitimately curious as I haven't heard too many from my former coworkers. 

[wmenorr67]

So, what are your suggestions for realistically getting the Iraqis motivated to rebuild their country?  I'm legitimately curious as I haven't heard too many from my former coworkers.

If it was any other place I would say money.  But that really isn't a motivating factor over here.  What I mean is that there isn't the "greed" factor that you see in Western cultures.  They just want enough to live day to day.

[Paddy]

As I recall the hijackers were all here legally. In any event, they could easily have had legal status.

No, and no.

Here's a brief chronology of the confusion about these 19 after 9/11.  Nearly six weeks after the attacks, the government remained completely baffled about anything except the identity of the 19:

October 22, 2001:

Six hijackers from nowhere
Human Events,  Oct 22, 2001 

In the first month of investigation following the terrorist hijackings of September 11, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation were able to learn absolutely nothing about how, when and where six of the hijackers entered the United States.

In sworn testimony October 11 before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, INS Commissioner James W. Ziglar revealed that the federal government could find "no record" of these six men.

Said Ziglar of the 19 suspected hijackers: "The evidence shows this: That 10 of the individuals came here in legal status-came here legally and were in legal status at the time of September 11. Three of them came here legally and were out of status, they'd overstayed on September 11. Six individuals we can find no record of them, period. That's not just INS, that's everywhere."

Ziglar provided the committee with an INS information sheet summarizing what the government had learned-or not learned-about the immigration status of these 19. "The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) compiled this information based on material provided by the FBI," the agency said.

Did the six unknown suspected hijackers walk across the Mexican border somewhere in the California desert? Maybe. Did they walk across the Canadian border in the deep woods of Washington State or Maine? Maybe. Did they fly into Kennedy International Airport in New York on legal visas, and then falsify their identities after they arrived? Maybe. Did they drive a cigarette boat to Florida just as if they were drug traffickers working for the Columbian cocaine cartel? Maybe.

These six suspected hijackers could have entered the United States in any of these ways-just as a terrorist could enter the United States in any of these ways today or tomorrow, unless the government takes significant steps to increase the security of our borders.

Before Ziglar's testimony revealed that the government knew nothing about the immigration status of six of the 19 hijackers, some of the most vaunted news agencies in America reported false information on this issue. Starting with a September 18 report in the Washington Post-which cited unnamed "U.S. authorities" as its source-these news agencies reported that "at least 16 of the 19 suspected hijackers" had entered the country on legal visas.

"At least 16 of the 19 suspected hijackers who commandeered American airliners entered the United States with legal visas, U.S. authorities said yesterday, adding to a portrait of terrorists who took advantage of America's open society.. ."

-Washington Post, Sept.18, 2001

"Sixteen of the 19 alleged hijackers responsible for last Tuesday's terrorist attacks came into the country with legal visas, 15 on business or tourist visas and one with a visa to attend a vocational school, such as a flight school"

--CNN Correspondent Keil Arena, Sept. 19, 2001

"At least 16 of the 19 hijackers entered the United States on temporary visas, as students or workers or tourists. . ."

-Steve Kroft, CBS's "60 Minutes," Sept. 23, 2001

"At least 16 of the 19 hijackers entered the United States on temporary visas. Does that fact alone, in and of itself suggest there's something wrong with our system?"

--CBS "Early Show" host Bryant Gumbel

"At least 16 of the 19 hijackers who carried out the worst terrorist act in U.S. history on September 11 exploited one of the most enduring tenets of American freedom: its open society. They crossed U.S. borders holding legal papers granted to them by a U.S. State Department perhaps fooled by phony documents."

--Boston Globe, Sept 30,2001

HUMAN EVENTS did not repeat these reports, because both the INS and the main Justice Department pointedly refused to confirm them for us. Indeed, at the time, a Justice Department spokesman told HUMAN EVENTS Assistant Editor Joseph A. D'Agostino that all information about the immigration status of the hijackers was under seal because of the ongoing investigation. In fact, in his October 11 testimony, INS Commissioner Ziglar told the subcommittee-just before he revealed that six of the hijackers were of completely unknown immigration status-that "while we were sitting here we got notice that we can release the information you wanted about the nine hijackers. I happen to have brought it with me just in case we could release it. I got the permission. . . ."

"Understand that we had names of the people," said Ziglar. "We don't know whether those were their names or not, and I suspect one of the reasons the FBI issued the pictures and the names . . . was to find out if anybody out there knew whether this person was the person who had that name."

So, we print the pictures and names of the six unknown hijackers here-with a graphic summary of what the federal officials charged with enforcing our immigration laws already know about them. Maybe they crossed a border near you.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200110/ai_n8958334

Wild speculation and false reports reigned supreme.

Nearly three years later, the government finally acknowledged, in the 9/11 Commission Report:

The bipartisan commission that investigated the September 11, 2001 attacks reported that all of the hijackers broke U.S. immigration laws, and some of their immigration violations could have led to their detection and arrest. Seven of the 19 hijackers used fraudulent passports, and three were on US watch lists that were not entered into immigration inspectors' databases (www.9-11commission.gov).

Had the identity and passports of the hijackers been vetted, most would have been refused entry into the U.S., and the others would have been expelled when their visas expired.  9/11 would not have happened.

[wooderson]

It seems there were a lot of people who felt neither Japan or Germany could have a democratic form of government, and the attempt wasn't worth the effort and doomed to failure.

I'm rather curious if these people actually existed or if they're just a convenient scapegoat to justify Iraq. The only real opponents to the Marshall Plan in Congress were isolationist Republicans - more concerned about spending than the potential for 'failure.'

Further, it would have been strange at the time for any individual with knowledge of recent history to make those claims about Germany - which had, prior to Hitler, one of the more ingrained senses of 'democracy' in Europe.

[Paddy]

On the cargo ships, there are inspections of a sort.  But how closely can we inspect without crippling our economy?

Put enough people on inspections to do the job thoroughly and efficiently.  Purchasing managers can easily adjust what is called  'just in time delivery' to compensate for any delay.

So you want wiretaps of all international calls to a few countries?  I think Bush had the better plan, just wiretapping international calls between suspects here and suspects elsewhere.  It's more targeted, isn't it?

Wiretaps of suspects here and suspects elsewhere is a good start, but not comprehensive enough.  Monitoring communications between CONUS and known terrorist sponsoring/infested countries will yield additional suspects and leads.  Narrow the scope by exempting surveillance of legitimate business sources; somebody at Standard Oil is not likely to be conspiring with the House of Saud (to commit terrorism anyway   ).


As for beefing up the borders, I refer you to the FBI's remarks from Oct 2001 in the article I posted above:

Did the six unknown suspected hijackers walk across the Mexican border somewhere in the California desert? Maybe. Did they walk across the Canadian border in the deep woods of Washington State or Maine? Maybe. Did they fly into Kennedy International Airport in New York on legal visas, and then falsify their identities after they arrived? Maybe. Did they drive a cigarette boat to Florida just as if they were drug traffickers working for the Columbian cocaine cartel? Maybe.

These six suspected hijackers could have entered the United States in any of these ways-just as a terrorist could enter the United States in any of these ways today or tomorrow, unless the government takes significant steps to increase the security of our borders.