Excellent artical. The last paragraph sums up my own views perfectly. Military adventurism in Iraq has gotten in the way of the unfortunatly very neccesary military considerations in Afganistan and elsewere fighting the real enemy Al Qaeda. Perhapes it is becaues this real war is going to be so hard to win and long term that the admistration feels it must put on a ‘parade’ for the voters. Only now the ‘parade’ isn’t so fun anymore - is it.

Nice point about the Pakistani ISI - when will be learn.

Yeh, what you said, Christopher. I keep hearing (in my head) the snarling Bushies of a year ago saying “It’s not going to be another Vietnam because we’re not planning it that way” (paraphrased from my memory - not a verbatim quote). It turns out not to have been planned at all, which was one reason I strongly opposed this war.

On a depressing front, my local newspaper today quoted local citizens as overwhelmingly supporting the Iraq war because they still connect it with defending America against terrorism. Apparently “we, the people” will never learn because we aren’t listening. I am at a loss to even try to understand this anymore.

Let me get this straight. You opposed the Iraq war because it wasn’t packaged as per your particular preferences, like at Wal Mart. False advertising, you cry. It took false advertising to get you sissies to even consider a war of liberation. So we faked you out. Had to. Sorry pansies.

Deep thought here though. You guys are way too deep for me — at least up to the neck. How does it feel to be an enemy of liberation? To hope everyday that the adventure in Iraq fails for the sake of hurting Bush? What terrible hopes you have to live with….

Myself, I know Kerry is a better man than some of the scum who support him, and would make a fine president in his own right.

Scum.

Once again, we have the hate spewing from a warmonger. Yo Arbalest, if it was up to you, the Cuban Missile Crisis would have resulted in full on nuclear war, buddy ol’ pal. Do you ever dare to think just a little below your reactive nature, and realize that it has been great diplomacies that have saved the world from even worse carnage than we already have? Do you ever stop and think for one second that 9-11 didn’t come out of nowhere, but has been fueled very specifically by America’s bully and greed tactics in the Middle East? Do you not think for one second that in fact we are in a much more dangerous position now than before we invaded Iraq?

Well written and extremely pertinent points. I too still struggle with the upside of the removal of Saddam and his ilk, against the clear illegality of invasion of a sovereign nation against the expressed wishes of the global community for personal and corporate gain. On what grounds does the Bush administration base it’s belief that it has every right to re-make the face of the globe in their own image?

No, arbalest, it wasn’t the packaging. It was the lack of planning. We invaded with little to no planning for what came after Saddam. We went in following Ahmad Chalabi’s contention that the locals would welcome us with open arms - “…and then the people will rise up!”. Well, the odds were against that. They always are. Beware any invasion plan which relies on the people rising up. Seen the latest polls?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/150304_iraqsurvey.pdf

Chalabi polls about 0.2%, below Saddam’s 3.3%. Like Chris, I declare, “Good on you, Mr. President, for ridding Iraq and the world of Saddam Hussein, and his disgusting sons as well.” The king is dead! Long live the…oh, hell.

If this was indeed a liberation, there would not be an American soldier in Iraq this week beyond the usual Marine contingent at the US Embassy.

As for the administration’s “false advertising”, who will trust us when we declare that our intelligence tells us that North Korea is preparing a nuclear-tipped ICBM which can reach the US, or that Syria is planning to invade Israel, or that Fidel has a giant arbalest aimed at Miami? We are now the Boy who Cried Wolf. Remember what happened to him?

I gotta tell you, the poll linked above is quite an education. Give it a read, all. And cool the ad hominem crap, arbalest. It does nothing for your argument.

Well, ya can’t accuse George of not thinking with his head. Problem is, the head he thinks with is not at the end of his neck, but rather…….

The “glad we fooled ya” Arbalest poster shows of an inherent deceitful nature; Not a good quality for a human being. Visions of a condom over the end of George’s thinking head come to mind. Sorry…

Great diplomacies gerald? I suppose you’re talking about Stalin, or maybe Pol Pot. I don’t know, pick your own hero.

The Iraq war is something we should have done long ago. Now that we have the initiative, after the cold war, it’s time to wreck some totalitarian regimes if we can. But as long as you’re fat and happy gerald and there are enough jobs for your ugly fat kids, etc, etc, etc.

In this day and age, liberals just aren’t liberals any longer. Oh, wait, forgot you guys supported slavery. Nice reach around.

Arbalest— keep it civil or I’ll ban you. My policy: insult me all you want, but insult other readers and you’re banned. I welcome dissenting opinions and lively discussions, but you’re not adding anything yet. This is the only warning you’ll get.

Well, steve, the war was carried off pretty well with zero planning qw you tell it. The United States of America is trying to do something good, and you oppose it. Why don’t you just admit it? You’re crybaby antics fall on deaf ears here.

Fair enough Chris. I was needlessly rude.

Thank you for toning it down… Welcome to the fray!

Crybaby? Sorry, man I was cheering like a rabid baboon when the 1st Marines and the 3rd Infantry were making their charges to Baghdad. (Check my blog archives [link below] if you don’t believe me.) It was a brilliant military plan, brilliantly achieved. I just wish the decapitation move had worked, and cursed our bad luck on that one. The invasion was well done, with limited collateral damage. One of my fellow ex-Midlanders was in part responsible for the plan - Tommy Franks.

It was the post-invasion planning that was scrimped on, would you agree? “And then the people will rise up”? My other fellow ex-Midlander, George W. Bush, was responsible for that planning lapse.

The fact that we attacked Iraq without the support of the UN in order to prove to the world that disobedience of the UN is intolerable is a logical nightmare of monumental proportions.

I have a request to make of those of you reading and writing who either:

a) opposed the invasion of Iraq from its outset,

b) oppose the invasion as a result of our failure to “fix” what we have broken, or

c) oppose the policies, foreign and domestic, of George W. Bush.

Please, PLEASE, click on my name and find a place to go tomorrow to be seen and heard. On March 20th, hundreds of thousands of people around the world will take to the streets to demand an end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq and to the entire Bush empire-building agenda.

Many of us who came to this site last year were trying to vocalize opposition to the invasion. I’m sure there were at least a few who took to the streets last year.

With all the talk of the action taken by the people of Spain last year, who has mentioned or replayed video of the MILLIONS who took to the streets throughout Europe to protest involvement in the invasion?

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Unfortunately, American media chose not to give airplay to the pictures. On the day of last year’s protest in London, the BBC had live coverage of the event. It was an amazing sight to see so many pouring into the streets in solidarity in the name of peace.

The American national media did nothing of the sort.

From where I write near Chicago, local news outlets did interrupt live programming to report on the protests here, the magnitude of which hadn’t been seen since 1968.

Despite this outpouring, our government could not justify its reasons for invading Iraq. It impatiently forced out weapons inspectors who found nothing, contrary to the major claims of the Bush administration. It boasted that it did not need permission from the world. It told us that Iraqis would greet our troops with flowers and dancing in the streets. Even the toppling of the “Saddam Statue” was a made-for-televison event—engineered, not spontaneous.

The Spanish were in the streets following the recent terrorist attack, in the millions. Did the American media accurately portray the reasons these people were in the streets? Perhaps, besides shock and mourning, it was solidarity in the name of peace.

PLEASE take some time to stretch your legs and be SEEN! Perhaps in this year of election the media will pay attention. Perhaps, this year, to be seen is to be heard.

Thank you so much Christopher for trying to put up an intelligent discussion. I’ve gotten the impression lately, that it is almost impossible to discuss this issue in a civilized manner with anyone.

I have opposed this war to begin with, not because I’m weak or a pacifist, but because it is distracting important resources from the real war on terror. Of course the Iraqis are better off without Saddam, but what good is in this for the US? Is it really worth the price?

The only change that I’ve seen is that Americans are less welcome or even hated in almost all countries now - a direct consequence of a failed diplomacy, creating more terror, not less.

Andrew: I’ll be with you in spirit, though physically I’ll be on the streets of Philadelphia. I too have had quite enough of sitting on the “sidelines” while lying, militant fascists demolish the integrity and treasury of the United States, not to mention the lives of over 14,000 souls worldwide.

Curiously, I had located the UPJ site on my own, and even posted it elsewhere today myself. “Close encounters?”

Power to the people! Let’s “Give ‘em hell.”

Some of this makes me feel like I am witnessing a parallel universe’s version of what is going on in Iraq. I have friends who are there who have given lie to 90% of what you have written Christopher. What you call a failure, they have demonstrably shown is victory. Not only in the general economy of Iraq, but in the hearts of the Iraqi people.

And there IS NO DIFFERENCE between the war in Iraq, and the war on terror! Saddam not only gave them succor, but he rewarded them, even gave them training sites! As for the ill-intentioned and ill-expressed comments of the socialists posting on this site, they don’t care what happens in Iraq. All they care about is getting Bush out of the White House. Be a pacifist, but try to see why the people of Iraq are so grateful to President Bush. It’s obvious why France, Germany, USSR didn’t want us to go into Iraq. They were helping the UN to rape her people!

Mr. Christopher Pacifist and friends, please inform yourselves: http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/20040212zarqawifull.html

If you do not find Zarqawi’s letter thoroughly chilling, you have no blood in your socialist veins!

So we should have left Saddam in power? If he had no links to Al Quida why did AQ attack Spain for Spain participating in the dethroning Saddam. And why should we concern ourselves with the opinion of Europe and South America—countries that have screwed up multiple times in the last centure (i.e. WWI, WWII and the constant corruption in the South American Governments. And to blame us for Third World Poverty? It is interesting that most of the people flee to the U.S. for a better life not vice-versa. I enjoy this blog—not for what it says but what it conviently leaves out—the truth.

Jewel - Saddam and Osama were rivals - Saddam didn’t even let Al Quaida in his country. At least so far there could be no connection found by anyone.

I also have friends in Iraq and I talked to some that have just returned, and their stories fit into Christopher’s reports perfectly. Maybe you should think about the possibility that just because we have different opinions doesn’t mean that we live in different universes…

Codernaut,

Tell that to AYS at http://iraqataglance.blogspot.com/ or to Sam at http://www.hammorabi.blogspot.com/ or to Mohammed at http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/ and see if you have so many folks agreeing with you! Not better off having freedom? Not better off not being gassed or shot and inserted into a community grave? What is wrong with you pacifists? Do you honestly think that freedom is FREE?

“Not better off having freedom?”

Dagney T: When did Iraq get “freedom”? Did that happen earlier today while I was out??

Thus far, all Iraq has observably achieved is the forced displacement of a homespun dictatorship by a vicious imperial one. Now, I wouldn’t know whether they’re being gassed — they weren’t for many years prior to the US arrival — but the Iraqis are being shot at, blown up, tortured, and what have you, currently by US and allied forces. Try reading the international press some time. You might learn something.

Are those 3 you posted the “faux blogs” I’ve heard about? You know, the US propaganda sites created to contradict Riverbend’s and Salam Pax’s legitimate first-hand accounts? Nice try.

By the way, if you think I’m a “pacifist”, you’re in for a rude awakening — I just hate BUllSHit-spouting warmongers and their chickenhawk “leader”. :-)

please stop the name calling. I am not a pacifist; nor am I a democrat. But I could see from the get go, in advance, the wrongfull course George was on. And, I am the guy who posted above that George thinks with a head that is not on the end of his neck.

This war hawk republican will not stand for lies and deceit. George should have come forth and said he changed his mind, after 911, about nation building and that his first nation building of many to come is to invade and take long term occupation of Iraq for starters. Instead he chose to sneak, lie, and weasel. His bragados, deceptive mouth is much more damaging than all the bombs and bullets. We are unleashing terror upon terror by our deeds, not eliminating terrorism. Shame on us.

All I know is, if Saddam didn’t want to be captured, he shoulda stayed close to the WMD. Fool.

Oh, and there WAS a connection between Saddam and Bin Laden, I was told by a Bush supporter yesterday.

I had pointed out that one of Bin Laden’s grievances was the sanctions against Iraq. (Trying to argue that if we changed a lot of our foreign policies it could lessen their reasons to strike us.)

My friend says, “And you liberals say there was no connection beween Saddam and Bin Laden!”

Holy crap! Just how do you talk to these people?

Laura: OK, so you’re saying that a BUSH supporter says that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. Saddam is a Sunni Arab, while Bin Laden is a Shi’a. Saddam’s Ba’ath party was jailing and killing Shi’a in the south of Iraq for years. Why? Because they hate each other. Additionally, information from a supporter of anybody is going to be biased. Furthermore, there have been no real amounts of WMDs found in Iraq. Sure, a few canisters of some chem agent were found in the desert somewhere, but they had been buried for well over a decade and had degraded to uselessness. Bin Laden putting Iraq’s sanctions on his list of greivances was because the majority of Iraqis are Shi’a muslims, members of his sect, and bearing the brunt of the UN sanctions’ detrimental effects. The Sunni minority took far less of the impact of the damage that the sanctions did. A good read about Iraq is Anthony Cordesman and Ahmed Hashim’s Iraq - Sanctions and Beyond. There’s no “easy way out” of Iraq. Since our president committed us to this, it’s our duty as responsible citizens to make sure the government follows through on it’s promises to the Iraqi people.

Actually, Dan, Osama Bin Laden belongs to the Wahabbi school of Sunni Islam. The Wahabbis hate the Shia, and don’t particularly like any Muslims who aren’t Wahabbis.

JMFeeney, you and others like you are so rife with animosity that you wouldn’t believe anything anyone said, so why would you want to look at another point of view? You all have one agenda: Hate Bush. You don’t know why, just that you do. Your vituperative nonsense gets in the way of your good sense!

The international press, Feeney? Like the BBC is a source I’d trust? I believe the people who have been there, and who ARE there! Not weenies who have not done their homework. What “imperialistic” tendency? You folks who love to hate America, yet expect her to be at your beck and call whenever there’s an issue you are too cowardly to take care of, amaze me with your childish arrogance!

Ah, bringing trolls to their boiling point is such a joy! :-)

There’s a huge difference, obviated in this comments section of Chris’ blog, between opponents of the invasion of Iraq and proponents.

The proponents, strangely enough, feel that they need to attack the opponents (of which I am one) on what I feel is “home turf”—I and thousands came to this site a year ago when opponents were looking for someone to listen to their voices, which were being ignored by the Bush administration. We are supposed to have a representative government in the United States. Our president is not a monarch, he is not a dictator, even though he continues to dictate a foreign policy that divides his own nation.

And the attacks here are not logical, they are emotional. Name calling fills the invasion proponents’ posts. This isn’t a place for name calling. If you can’t defend your president’s illegal action logically, don’t go spewing hate. Chris, don’t allow this blog to get dragged down.

I would love to argue the merits of misleading a nation. Outside of the argument that the invasion of Iraq rid the world of a tyrant, I would like to read a post by a pro-invasion pro-Bush type that logically convinces me of the ethical nature of both pre-emptive war and the change in rationale for pre-emptive war given by a government to its people. And I mean logical—don’t tell me that we opponents are cowards, pacifists, etc., that doesn’t fly here and it won’t fly anywhere civil and decent.

The Bush administration said they didn’t need anyone’s permission to invade Iraq, then paid patronizing lip-service to the international community at the United Nations, interrupted an inspections process that was working but not producing the results that they wanted, and launched an invasion without a real plan to handle the mess they made.

I am not a child and I do not want a president who treats citizens like ignorant children who can be lied to because they don’t know what’s good for them and because we don’t have the Oval Office behind us.

I could have dealt with a president who acknowledged his opposition and presented a logical argument for his actions. I cannot deal with one who wanted carte blanche without having to answer to his nation.

And if you want your candidate to win again in November, you’d have a better chance if you went out looking for friends to listen to your words of wisdom instead of instigating and encouraging even more opposition to your questionable ideals.

Best of luck to you and yours.

Chris,

How about a new thread on Richard Clarke’s accusations that the Bush administration failed to address the Al Qaeda threat pre-9/11 and pushed for Iraq invasion post-9/11, and the ongoing White House smear campaign against him?

It mirrors what has been happening in this thread.

Clarke is a man who is going to publicly testify, under oath, to the allegations he is making. The correspond with the accusations made earlier this year by Paul O’Neill [as does the White House response to O’Neill’s comments—discredit, smear, discredit].

Once again the White House wants us to believe something because they say it is so. I say, “Where is the documentation to support your smear campaign?”

I am sick to death of an administration that believes truth depends upon how many times something is said rather than actual veracity.

Could you please offer us your informed insight into this latest piece in the mounting pile of evidence that our nation was misled into war?

“People in the pro-war camp often scoff at the “peaceniks” and “appeasers” of the ant-war crowd, calling them naïve and saying they are consigning the Iraqis to oppression if they are opposed the war. But who are really the naïve ones, I wonder, if the hawks believe this is a war of liberation?”

—Posted by Christopher at February 19, 2003 08:36 AM

“So what gives here? Will we support democracy on won’t we? Are we willing to put up with the unpredictability of the ballot box? In a column in the National Journal (available only to subscribers, sorry,) Tish Durkin interviews a number of Iraqi opposition figures in Damascus and comes to the not unreasonable conclusion that any puppet installed by the United States, even a democractic puppet, would be ‘a disaster.’”

Posted by Christopher at October 18, 2002 06:19 PM

David: Thanks for the correction, apparently my source of info for that was wrong. Didn’t have time on hand to research it thoroughly yet. (doing research paper on Iraq for english class)

Was wondering how come no one has heard any verification of all these elaborate underground bunkers that are said to be multiple stories and contained vast rooms with luxury fixtures. I find it curious that no media has reported on them or photographed them or even been inside of them since our occupation.

Hey Jewel, I have friends who are fighting in iraq that have come home with stories of our soldiers getting into trouble, or rather NOT getting into trouble raping civilians, and going on some killing sprees after having friends in their units die. I’m certainly not saying it’s like this for every unit, but the fact is it ain’t pretty over there.

Arbelest: DO NOT suppose ANYTHING with me. You have no idea who I am.

Hey Arbelest: Here’s an idea for you. Go and do some research into the Cuban Missile Crisis. It will become very clear to you that the army and right wingers wanted to go to war with Cuba, but cooler heads prevailed. JFK, gave Russia an out, while remaining tough, and that’s exactly what happened, they pulled out and everything turned out fine. Then, later on we found out that Cuba already had many more missiles there, all keyed up on our major cities. Castro has said publicly many times that they would have gone full launch if we invaded. So, I am sorry to tell you that the only reason youre alive and in a thriving world today is because of a liberal minded president who let cooler heads prevail. You should be thankful for that. Everyone in the USA that has any patriotism whatsoever should be.

i think it is well written