? About Iraq from Both Sides of the Fenc

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
? About Iraq from Both Sides of the Fenc
27
Wed, 09-22-2004 - 4:33pm

It's not just Democrats who are questioning the President's grip on reality.



Senator Chuck Hagel (NE), a Republican, says: "The worst thing we can do is hold ourselves hostage to some grand illusion that we're winning. Right now, we are not winning. Things are getting worse." "The fact is, we're in trouble. We're in deep trouble in Iraq."


Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) also supports releasing the NIE and says: "We made serious mistakes right after the initial successes by not having enough troops there on the ground, by allowing the looting, by not securing the borders."


Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), says "he believes the situation in Iraq is going to get worse before it gets better, adding that he believes the administration has done a 'poor job of implementing and adjusting at times.'" and says "We do not need to paint a rosy scenario for the American people...."


Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) says it's "exasperating for anybody look at this from any vantage point."


Those are Republicans talking. Here's what the generals and national security experts are saying, in a terrific recent piece in the UK's Guardian newspaper:



Retired general William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, said: "Bush hasn't found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it's worse, he's lost on that front. That he's going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It's lost." He adds: "Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving Bin Laden's ends."


Retired general Joseph Hoare, the former marine commandant and head of US Central Command, : "The idea that this is going to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no good options.... The priorities are just all wrong."


Jeffrey Record, professor of strategy at the Air War College, said: "I see no ray of light on the horizon at all. The worst case has become true..."


W. Andrew Terrill, professor at the Army War College's strategic studies institute -- and the top expert on Iraq there -- said: "I don't think that you can kill the insurgency"... "The idea there are x number of insurgents, and that when they're all dead we can get out is wrong. The insurgency has shown an ability to regenerate itself because there are people willing to fill the ranks of those who are killed"... "Most Iraqis consider us occupiers, not liberators."


General Odom said: "This is far graver than Vietnam. There wasn't as much at stake strategically, though in both cases we mindlessly went ahead with the war that was not constructive for US aims. But now we're in a region far more volatile, and we're in much worse shape with our allies."... "I've never seen so bad between the office of the secretary of defence and the military. There's a significant majority believing this is a disaster."


Just as important are the opinions of those whose loved ones are serving in Iraq, like Martha Jo McCarthy, whose husband is on National Guard duty there. She says:



"Everyone supports the troops, and I know they're doing a phenomenal job over there, not only fighting but building schools and digging wells. But supporting the troops has to mean something more than putting yellow-ribbon magnets on your car and praying they come home safely."


"I read the casualty Web site every day and ask myself, 'Do I feel safer here?' No. I don't think we can win this war through arrogance. Arrogance is different from strength. Strength requires wisdom, and I think we need to change from arrogance to solid strength."


Join Senator Graham now in calling on President Bush to face the facts and level with us, by releasing the CIA's report, at:


http://www.moveon.org/tellthetruth/


President Bush has got to tell us the truth about Iraq. No weapons of mass destruction. No Saddam-al Qaeda connection. The mission is not accomplished. The transition has not been peaceful and stable. Attacks on our troops are increasing, not decreasing. These failures lie solely with the president, and he owes us an honest explanation.

Donna

"Patriotism means to stand by the Country. It does not mean to stand by the President." -- Theodore Roosevelt.

Donna

Pages

Avatar for claddagh49
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2004
Wed, 09-22-2004 - 4:40pm
I loved this Mr. Bush says: "Things could be good, things could be lousey" AH AH the CIA is just guessing!!!" What kind of a hedging is that from telling the American people the truth!
Avatar for independentgrrrl
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 09-22-2004 - 4:47pm
I know of conservative Democrats who support the war. And some of them are Swift Vets. :)

Avatar for independentgrrrl
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 09-22-2004 - 4:51pm
<>

That makes sense. In war, things can change in the blink of an eye.

Now the quote below defies logic:

"I voted for the war in Iraq before I voted against it." Or words to that effect. I'll give you one guess on who spoke with such eloquence.

Avatar for claddagh49
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2004
Wed, 09-22-2004 - 5:10pm
Once again Kerry is misquoted He said "I voted to give Pres. Bush the authority to go to War if all other options failed" I think Kerry was hoping that the UN would have been more supportive.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
Wed, 09-22-2004 - 9:03pm

I think Kerry was hoping that the UN would have been more supportive.


He was also hoping that the president would use war as a last alternative, not the first. Bush's mind was made up already before he asked for that authority. None of us knew that, including Kerry. Kerry has explained his position as have others on this board but there are those who still state the same tired phrases because they cannot think for themselves, they just spout the rhetoric over and over.

Donna

"Patriotism means to stand by the Country. It does not mean to stand by the President." -- Theodore Roosevelt.

Donna
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Wed, 09-22-2004 - 9:06pm


I would hardly call it the "first" alternative, coming as it did after twelve years of failed sanctions and unenforced UN resolutions.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
Wed, 09-22-2004 - 10:08pm
For this presidency it was the first. They were planning to go to war in Iraq almost from the moment they took office, based on old news from the last Gulf War.
Donna

"Patriotism means to stand by the Country. It does not mean to stand by the President." -- Theodore Roosevelt.

Donna
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-17-2004
Wed, 09-22-2004 - 10:18pm
Now wait, the U.N. inspectors were telling bush that they had thus far NOT found WMD's. bush arrogantly sent our troops to war anyway and.... NO WMD's.

Also, shouldn't we have been more concerned with bin laden? Remember him? He's the one responsible for the 9/11 attacks and the attack on the USS Cole.

And WHY are we there?

bush is irresponsible, incompetent and weak on defense and should be voted out of office.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Wed, 09-22-2004 - 10:38pm
< They were planning to go to war in Iraq almost from the moment they took office, based on old news from the last Gulf War.>

Oh I see, so you're saying that when a new president takes office, all previous cease fire agreements with defeated, aggressive rogue nations become null and void, just "old news"? I guess that explains why Clinton never enforced it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Wed, 09-22-2004 - 10:43pm


Noooooo... what they were telling Bush is that Saddam was not cooperating, that he refused to provide access to the sites, documentation and scientists they needed to prove he had disarmed. Saddam was then given one last ditch demand to comply, which he defied. Sometimes I think the left suffers from selective amnesia.



Yes, I remember him. 3/4 of the leadership of his organization has been captured or killed. We still have troops in Afghanistan hunting him down with the help (thanks to a diplomatic coup by President Bush) of the Pakistanis. He's either dead or we will find him, but he certainly hasn't been forgotten by anyone.

Pages