General Zinni MTP,

[capi888]

Two great Generals, who know how Bush screwed up Iraq and how to fix it.

[FloridaPat]

1. What a contrast to McCain.

[BootinUp]

2. pretty thorough. He obviously knows the subject.

[Jai4WKC08]

21. Well, he should

Zinni was CinC of Central Command. He later served the Bushies as special envoy to Israel/Palestine when Powell was working the "Roadmap to Peace." It's his region, so to speak.

But make no mistake. Zinni is a Repub. Maybe he can be turned, but I ain't seen it yet.

I'm still mad... no, make that outraged... at Zinni for refusing to hold Bush accountable back during the '04 election. He essentially tried to say it was all Rumsfeld's doing. Went so far as to say that if Rummy weren't replaced, he'd have a hard time supporting Bush, but when push came to shove, he let it go and never took the extra step to endorse Kerry or at least condemn the boy king.

Of all people, a general should know that the Iraq fuck-ups are the commander-in-chief's responsibility, no matter who actually made the bad decisions or blundered in their execution.

[FloridaPat]

3. I wonder how he looked at all the facts and saw there was no evidence

of WMD, but most of our congress critters didn't see that?

[BootinUp]

4. no evidence of imminent threats or

up and running threats I think is how he saw it. And thats becuase he was running the containment of Iraq. He knew better than anyone what the threat was.

[Donna Zen]

5. Zinni was not running for anything

The critters knew that bush was planning on attacking Iraq. Why else would the Iraq Reconstruction Group be openly meeting in Washington and planning for "post-war" Iraq. Huh? Some of the elected representatives on both sides of the aisle absolutely agreed with the concept that peace in the region ran through Baghdad. They agreed with PNAC, and some of them belonged to an organization that functioned as an outer-ring of that horrible cabal.

It is very important to remember half of the Dem senators voted against the IWR. They did see it, and they took the words of those who knew, very seriously.

Finally, and this is sad to say, many who voted did so without consideration for our country engaging in bad foreign policy. They did it because they were more concerned about bush's possible victory parade. IOW, they put their political careers above the good of the country.

[BootinUp]

7. Well, the critters accepted assurances from the Chimp

that he and fellow chimp friends knew what they were doing and wouldn't invade without a coalition and proof of weapons. They were sadly duped into thinking there would be conitued bipartisanship discussions before the invasion was launched.

[Donna Zen]

9. One cannot disregard

that bushCo/Chalabi was very open about their intentions. The Iraq Reconstruction Group worked all during the summer of '02, meeting both in Washington and London. There was a reason that so many spoke out against the resolution before the vote; they knew and spoke to the individual members privately about what bush was planning.

[BootinUp]

10. Ok, but planning is not the same as invading

military/DOD is always planning as Zinni himself pointed out. The main issue that separated the two camps of dems that you have outlined was the group that decided the President should have the authority to make a command decision and to use it as leverage for inspections vs those that would have withheld it. Its that simple. It wasn't a decision to invade I diagree with that characterization.

The leverage worked we had Saddam right where we wanted him bending over to release all their weapons data letting the inspectors look wherever they wanted.

There had to be a resolution in the political climate we were in, it just wasn't the right one.

You seem to think the Dems could have stopped the invasion. Thats just not true, it was going to happen without some more support formt eh other side of the aisle. We are arguing over political cover that is all. The troops were there, Bush could have ordered them in at any time.

[sendero]

12. Yeah..

.... but already we'd seen enough of Bush's character to know he wouldn't stand by his word.

Seriously, everyone who was paying any attention AT ALL knew these two things:

1) Bush was hell-bent to going to war with Iraq, NO MATTER WHAT

2) There was only a small likelihood that Saddam had WMDs, period.

So, I for one do not accept the continual excuses for the Dem senate, that they were "misled" or other such nonsense. They voted political expediency, they didn't have to BALLS to tell America that this would not further the war on terror.

And now we are all paying the price.

[BootinUp]

13. Yeah but how many were paying attention

to the Dems and how many to the fear mongering?

I think anyone who really believes that the Dem Senators could have stopped the invasion with a vote are kidding themselves. It would have taken a bipartisan group to stop Bush. And a vote in October had little to nothing to do with invasion. That was a vote to scare Saddam more than anything and make it appear to the public that Bush did every thing he could before invading.

The President had the authority to order the troops in with or without that resolution.

[sendero]

14. Then why not just vote against it..

.... the fact is that a vote against that resolution would be looking pretty good right now. If it was all a meaningless gesture, why not vote against it.

[BootinUp]

15. Meaningless in terms of invasion not the UN inspections. n/t

[FloridaPat]

17. The first Iraq war was discussed for 6 months. This one was

brought up right after the DC sniper was caught. About 6 weeks before the election. They could and should have shelved it until after the election. There was absolutely no need to vote on it at that point.

[BootinUp]

18. I don't expect

to get a lot of agreement from folks on this, but doesn't change the facts the way I read them.

[Jack Rabbit]

23. I regret to have to agree with Ms. Zen in this discussion

Before the invasion began I said this:

To the refutation of their reasons for going to war, Mr. Bush and his associates have responded with bluster and propaganda. They continue to repeat what has been refuted. We are given an audio tape in which Osama bin Laden expresses his support for the Iraqi people and told by administration spokesmen that this proves a connection between Saddam and al-Qaida. It does nothing of the kind. We are also told that the burden of proof is not on those who charge Saddam with possessing weapons of mass destruction, but on Saddam to prove that he is not in possession of banned weapons. In short, the demand is being placed on Saddam to prove a negative, something that is logically impossible.

Mr. Bush may think less of this tactic if one were to demand that he prove that he stopped drinking many years ago as he claims. However Mr. Bush and his allies wish to spin it, the burden of proof is on them to prove their case against Saddam. They have not.

Indeed, the time has come to stop giving Mr. Bush and other members of his administration the benefit of the doubt. By continually recycling charges that have been shown to be absurd, they show only that they are determined to say anything in order to get their war and don't care if its justified or not. They are liars.

I don't have to eat a lot of those words. We are still waiting for some of the Democrats and even more Republicans who supported Bush's war and gave credence to his lies to eat theirs.

I got my information form going beyond the corporate-owned mainstream media and looking at the liberal/left alternative media, from which I knew of Scott Ritter's analysis of Saddam's military capabilities, and the British press, from which I learned of the politicization of intelligence in the OSP months before Seymour Hersh reported it in greater detail in the New Yorker. I also learned from the BBC that reports of a meeting between September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence that supposedly took place in Prague in fact never took place at all.

There were good reasons to doubt the junta's case for war beforehand. I felt I marched against the war in February 2003 as an informed citizen, not a knee-jerk pacifist. In spite of the fact anybody who relied on The New York Times and CNN for their information on the impending war was just as misinformed as someone watching FoxNews 24/7, the information was available. If it was available to me, then it was available to Senator Clinton, Senator Kerry, Senator Lieberman, Senator Edwards and Congressman Gephardt, all of who voted in favor of the IWR. They don't have an excuse.

A year later, I said this:

One year (after mass demonstrations against the war), we have every right to hold our heads high. We of the Left were right.

The left was right on all counts. As it turns out, Saddam was a paper tiger; there was no imminent threat. Insofar as he was a threat, Saddam was contained; for twelve years since being expelled from Kuwait, all his saber rattling was nothing but bluster. Saddam had no ties to al Qaida, let alone any part in the September 11 attacks. What Islamic fundamentalist terror organization operated in Iraq operated in Kurdish regions beyond Saddam's control. The left said there was no justification for the war, and there was none. The left was right.

The left said talk of the Iraqi people welcoming the invaders with open arms and roses was nonsense. The Iraqi people know the difference between liberation and colonial occupation. They are resisting occupation. Also decried as nonsense was talk of going into Iraq to democratize the Middle East. Bush loses an election and seizes power, tramples on the Bill of Rights and human rights treaties, operates what should be an open government in secret and sends troops into combat after giving false justifications for the act. The idea that such a man would be interested in bringing democracy and the rule of law to Iraq is ludicrous. The colonial regime represses freedom of the press, the right to assemble and the right to petition for redress of grievances. The Iraqi Governing Council is a group of quislings handpicked by the US colonial viceroy, not a body representative of or responsible to the Iraqi people. The invasion has not brought democracy to Iraq. The left was right.

The left said that Bush's cronies would profit from the invasion. Halliburton and Bechtel received contracts to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure without having to bid competitively. The left was right.

The left said the occupation following the invasion would become a quagmire. Since the invasion, Islamists have come to Iraq to fight Americans. They weren't there before, but they are now. Half of the US army's combat divisions are in Iraq on occupation duty. They are not protecting Americans from terrorists; they are protecting Halliburton. Once again, the left was right.

It is Bush who threatens to use nuclear weapons as a first strike. It is Bush who threatens to launch "pre-emptive" (actually preventive) attacks on other nations. It is Bush who arrogantly casts aside any treaty, convention or agreement that stands between him and his loot. Bush, like Saddam, is a tyrant. As dangerous as was Saddam at his worst, Bush is far and away the most dangerous man on earth.

That still stands.

[BootinUp]

25. But Jack

I said nothing that opposes anything I quickly scanned in your post. In fact I agree with it. My debate here is about what the IWR effected. It is my position that it did not trigger the invasion. And I supported increased pressure for inspections as most Americans did.

[Jack Rabbit]

27. Tell me if I'm wrong

You are saying the Democrats who voted for the IWR were right to do so. I disagree with that. I think it was too important to keep Bush on a short leash. It was apparent to a lot of us that he was lying and he should have been called on it sooner rather than later.

I also supported inspections. The reason I gave was simply that neither Saddam nor Bush had any credibility.

While you are right that the IWR did not give Bush the authority to invade except under certain circumstances which were never met, the fact that he was lying at the time of the IWR vote and the fact that intelligence was being cooked should have been a signal that he would have said the conditions were met even when they were not. Which is exactly what he did:

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President: )

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

That letter contains at least two false statements. "More diplomatic and peaceful means" would have been productive in convincing any doubters that there was no threat from Saddam and that there was no question of National Security. And second, Saddam had no known associations with international terrorists.

BTW, this letter should be regarded as evidence against Mr. Bush in any impeachment proceedings.

It isn't Congress with whom we should be disappointed, but the United Nations as well. There was no resolution passed by the Security Council authorizing the use of force against Iraq. The resolution which would have done so, one sponsored by the British and Spaniards, was withdrawn because it faced certain defeat. The Secretary General has rightly observed that Bush had no authorization to invade Iraq, and consequently the war was illegal.

If the war was illegal, why has there been no special tribunal for war crimes in Iraq established? There should be. Mr. Bush is not the only member of his regime who should be made to answer charges arising out of the invasion of Iraq and other crimes connected with the so-called war on terror.

[BootinUp]

28. what it boils down to

Is the best that could have been accomplished by a Senate fight was to delay the inevitable and without question we would have been weakened even more after the midterm. The alternative resolution failed to get support by the other side of the aisle. This issue wasn't just going to go away.

Our control of the Senate was weak and the country wanted action taken against Iraq.

So I ask when will our party stop looking to blame its own and instead fight smarter. The IWR vote should not be a litmus test for Dems deserving our support.

[FloridaPat]

33. I don't remember the country wanting action. The Dems could have

delayed the vote if they had a backbone and a good spin machine. The UN waited for the senate vote before they approved that last resolution.

The reports were the people that wrote their congress folks were 100 to 1 against the war. There were demonstrations everywhere. Congress wanted to get home an campaign so they were anxious to get it out of the way because that was the only thing * would talk about. They were railroaded and too gutless to do anything about it.

[BootinUp]

36. This may refresh your memory

Certainly the support was strong for some kind of action and the Dems attempted to force Bush to get UN support. There are more poll data here I haven't looked at all of it. Point is Bush had strong support of the public and so did some kind of action/pressure on Iraq.

http://people-press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=643
------------------------------------------------------
Q.1 Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?
DEPENDS ENTER AS DK]



Approve Disapprove Don't know

Mid-September, 2002 67 22 11=100

Early September, 2002 63 26 11=100

Late August, 2002 60 27 13=100

August, 2002 67 21 12=100

Late July, 2002 65 25 10=100

July, 2002 67 21 12=100

June, 2002 70 20 10=100

April, 2002 69 18 13=100

Early April, 2002 74 16 10=100

February, 2002 78 13 9=100

January, 2002 80 11 9=100

Mid-November, 2001 84 9 7=100

Early October, 2001 84 8 8=100

Late September, 2001 86 7 7=100

Mid-September, 2001 80 9 11=100

Early September, 2001 51 34 15=100

August, 2001 50 32 18=100

July, 2001 51 32 17=100

June, 2001 50 33 17=100

May, 2001 53 32 15=100

April, 2001 56 27 17=100

March, 2001 55 25 20=100

February, 2001 53 21 26=100


------------------------------------------------------
ASK FORM 1 ONLY :

Q.6F1/8 Would you favor or oppose taking military action in Iraq to end Saddam Hussein's rule?
to join us, or attack Iraq even if allies do not want to join us?]



------------- Gallup -------------

Late Aug June Nov Feb June March

2002 2002 2001 2001 1993 1992

64 Favor 64 59 74 52 70 55

33 Even if allies won't join 30 -- -- -- -- --

25 Only if allies agree 30 -- -- -- -- --

6 Don't know/Refused 4 -- -- -- -- --

23 Oppose 21 34 20 42 27 40

13 Don't know/Refused 15 7 6 6 3 5

100 100 100 100 100 100 100

-----------------------------------------
Q.7 Do you think of your vote for Congress this fall as a vote for George W. Bush, as

a vote against George W. Bush, or isn't George W. Bush much of a factor in your vote?



BASED ON REGISTERED VOTERS :

Not a DK/

For Against Factor Ref.

Early September, 2002 29 15 51 5=100

[FloridaPat]

38. I'm just using the letters written to congress people. The people

that actually wanted things done were pretty much against giving * right to invade. The Democrats in particular got a lot more people against the invasion writing than for it.

Besides, our gov't doesn't make decisions based on polls (not).

[Jack Rabbit]

35. It shouldn't be a litmus test, I agree with that much

The IWR was complex, as you say, and not a simple blank check.

However, opponents of the war in Congress missed an opportunity to make their point. Furthermore, those Democrats who voted in favor of the IWR would have a lot more credibility today if they had called Scott Ritter before Congressional committees to testify about Saddam's weapons arsenal and introduced evidence of what Doug Feith was up to in the Pentagon or what Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby were up to in Langley. They told the junta to let them know if war was necessary and expected them to be honest about it. They had every reason to know better.

[FloridaPat]

31. The war was illegal on two fronts. As you pointed out, there was no

UN OK. Second point is it's illegal to invade another country for regime change.

As for the trials - I think a person has to be out of office before he can be charged - but I could be wrong. At least one person filed charges at the Hauge and it was immediately thrown out. Everyone is afraid to piss off the US. We might invade.

[Jack Rabbit]

32. The late Slobo Milosevic was still in office when charged in The Hague

We don't need to wait for Bush to be removed from power.

[goclark]

11. Zinni was awesome, just awesome against "Lil Timmy Russet nt

[capi888]

6. They didn't have the intelligence or on site knowledge that

Gen. Zinni had first of all. Then THEY believed the intelligence Bush gave them and didn't research it, as they thought the prez wouldn't lie...Not only that, we were just coming out of 911 and they didn't want to seem un patriotic. Then, esp Dems, do not have ANY power in Congress, so they didn't want to muddy the waters politically. Thats my assessment...

[Donna Zen]

8. Dems at that time controlled the Senate

...and 1) they met with those who told them, and 2) the resolution they voted for was a blank check. Half of the Dems understood what was going on, I rather doubt the other half was deaf.

I know I'm inflexible about this...I just can't believe the spin. Really. Sorry.

[Pithy Cherub]

16. The Dems that voted aye on IWR are responsible

for their votes. The aye vote was made on a political calculus and not from moral certitude. A no vote took a leader's courage and the ability to articulate why the yes vote was so morally wrong. Followers point at those they let lead and do not take responsibility for being so obtusely wrong. Too many who voted aye wanted to be on the ship of state podium when bush said *Mission Accomplished*.

It is unconscionable that anyone would try and say that the vote was about UN inspectors and then try and justify it in the face of an ongoing resounding silence on holding the president accountable by not seeking impeachment. No one stood up and called Bush a liar outright either after they blindly voted aye after reassurances from proven liars and people who had already stolen an election.

You are not alone in feeling strongly about this.

[BootinUp]

19. Who said they weren't responsible for their votes?

As for the rest of your post, you are entitled to your opinion.

[Pithy Cherub]

20. Responsible people admit when they are wrong

and find commensurate remedies. When one so willingly compromises their own morals and then doesn't stand up in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it profoundly says something about the content of their character or lack thereof.

[BootinUp]

24. Remedies and how to achieve them are an important issue

But instead you wish to make allegories that Kerry or other Dems in the Senate or even I basically held the gun and pulled the trigger to blast an innocent life away because we lack morals and character.

You don't know me, and its quite a reach for you to judge my conscience or character. One of the reasons I am involved in politics is exactly because of my strong repulsion to the Iraq war. Before it I was only a participant around General election time. I have made judgements of conscience and morality.

And let me say this, as much as I oppose the drum beating nationalism that lead to this war, I oppose the antiwar isolationism in my party that inevitably weakens it. No, we must win back power in the halls of congress so that the next time our vote will count for more than a statement of objection.

The American people know Democrats were against invading . THEY KNOW. They also know that many in our party supported ramping up the inspection regime with the threat of war. Guess what we are in a stronger position now according to polling at least than we were then exactly because of it.

[Pithy Cherub]

29. Knowing what you know now, would you support doing it again?

The political compass that guided the IWR process was aided and abetted by those who chose to say Aye to ALL that the IWR stated. It could have been amended, it could have been delayed and it could have been tabled awaiting more information or actionable intelligence. It was not.

The moral implications of the vote is Death in all its ingloriousness for want of those who would seek diplomatic or other means. It was an elective war. The wages of war are Death and the absolution process is different for each person who particpated. Your conscience is your own affair, but the facts are indisputable that the Iraq War is the result of lies, manipulation and moral failure.

[BootinUp]

30. The actions taken on the day of the vote

make no difference to the end result of war by my calulation so your question is moot unless we are to consider political consequesnces. There may have been more that could have been done to gain suport for the alternative resolution offered by Biden Lugar. But it seems unlikely.

Delay of the resolution was possible yes please see my answer to Jack above on that point.

[Jai4WKC08]

22. Bob Graham had the intelligence

There's no reason the other Senators couldn't have had it, if they'd have taken an interest. Certainly the ones on the Intelligence subcommittee should have.

Not having enough interest on a "send the nation to war" decision is inexcusable, imo.

It's also possible that some or most (or all) of them did have the intelligence that Graham did, but knew they couldn't release the information to the voters to justify votint agains the war.

See, I happen to think you're right that, "we were just coming out of 911 and they didn't want to seem un patriotic." I think that's what it all boiled down to. They were afraid of alienating their constituents. Now, personally, I can understand any legislator taking what their constituents want into account. But at some point, they need to do what they KNOW is right, and take the risk of losing re-election.

[BootinUp]

26. Well, the IWR vote for the Democrats at least was about getting more

up to date intelligence. And the people of this country would have crucified us Dems if we did not make an effort to get it.

[FloridaPat]

34. Bill Nelson of Florida voted yes even though his office said he

was getting 100 to 1 letters against the war. His reasoning - he was listening to the people that didn't write in.

[BootinUp]

37. See post 36