If there's a civil war in Iraq, President Bush will tell us? He's a straight-shooter, a no bullshit kind of a guy. Remember, he doesn't do nuance. If there were a civil war in Iraq, why would President Bush say their isn't a civil war?

What is he afraid of? The American public? He was elected by the people, he shouldn't fear them. The American public forgave President Bush for September 11 attacks. I guess the reasoning is that he had only been in office for nine months, how couldn't be expected to learn how to be president in just nine months. When you think about, it is kind of scary when you think that our country is vulnerable to attack for at least ten months after we change presidents. How long is it that anyone can attack us during this transitional phase? How long should a new president wait to have their first meeting regarding the threat of terrorism? Perhaps within the first six months after taking office, just to be safe. Waiting until September was probably waiting too long, but we learned the lessons of the September 11 (search Google for Katrina for proof).

At any rate, the American public are awefully forgiving of President Bush's mistakes. If there were a civil war raging in Iraq, I am certain President Bush would level with the American people and say, "There is no way anyone in my administration could have possibly predicted a civil war in Iraq. I know there are those who might say, 'But your dad wrote a book about it.' That's true my biological father did write a book about the perils of conquering Iraq, but like I said before, I answer to a higher father. It was this higher father that said I should go to war with Iraq. What could I do, disobey my higher father?"

Who can argue with that? 

Yeah, tleees2, he was, indeed, elected by THE people...all nine of them wear black robes...and five of them voted for Bush.

And, if we had them vote again today, six of them would vote for Bush....wait a minute.  Is this any way to run a 'democracy?

Who can blame our generals for their inability to really decide what a democracy is, or what a 'civil' war looks like, especially in a 'phony democracy?

Actually, the death of Pat Tillman is one of the least interesting issues floating around today. Not to his relatives, of course, but for anybody else, well, here is a guy who dumped a promising and lucrative career to adhere to patriotic bullcrap, enlisted in the incompetent US military, and got his ass shot off by his own people.

I'd say the whole thing deserves to be a sitcom next TV season - or perhaps a summer replacement.

As for the government lies, gee, like we've never heard those before.  Look, folks, anytime a US military officer opens his mouth in public, he's lying. It's that simple. The only people who lie more than military types are politicians and priests. Even lawyers have a better record.

If you look at virtually every single statement issued by ANY military officer - for the record - in Iraq since the invasion (in fact, DURING the invasion, since as you recall they lied about taking various cities several times), every single statement has proven to be a lie. Every single statement. I'm not talking about "the sun rose in the east today", or "we caught Saddam Hussein in a hole yesterday" (although some people still doubt that one). I'm talking about every single "feel good" statement they've put out. It was lies. Period. They've lied about the civilians they've massacred, they've lied about the course of the war, they've lied about who the insurgents were, they've lied about their casualties and fatalities, they've lied about the prisons, they've lied about who was in charge of the torture - there isn't anything they haven't lied about.

So the bottom line is: who gives a damn about Pat Tillman?  He was an idiot who got killed due to the incompetence of the US military. Fergeddaboutim.

Richard Steven Hack

www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com 

Mr. Johnson, just curious as to the last time you were actually in Iraq, on the ground to see things for yourself? Where do you get your "info"? Do you do any independent research or do you just hop on the "Vietnam=Iraq" hype train? Coming from the guy who claimed US fears of Islamic terror were "fantasies" used to "pump up their budgets" 2 months before 9/11, maybe it's your credibility that should be questioned. Remember that whole stones and glass house thing.

Free people, remember this maxim: "We may acquire liberty, but it is never recovered if it is once lost": Jean Jacques Rousseau

Vote Democratic in Nov elections. We get to replace every single member of the House of Representatives. If that happens, John Conyers becomes Chairman of the Judiciary Committee where the process of impeachment begins.

We are all mad at the Dems. But we must support them because remember that a vote for a Dem is a vote for JOHN CONYERS.

First, with this administration – maybe it’s always been this way – a high ranking officer has to know his politics.  If you forget that, they’ll be no promotion to higher rank.  Being passed over is a career killer even if the next administration views objectivity more favorably.

Second, one of the last groups that will realize the civil war in Iraq will be Bush and his Neocon foreign policy advisors.  Recent history proves they are not very good at understanding intelligence.  Besides, to admit civil war is to admit failure of the Bush Doctrine.

Third, it is in our vital interest to recognize if and when a civil war occurs in Iraq.  We need to recognize – even if the Bush administration cannot – that our overthrow of Saddam and allowing and even promoting the Shiite majority in the government is a major change in the balance of power in the Middle East.  Ancient rivalries are at play here:  Persians against Arabs, Shiites against Sunnis, all against Jews.  Things could escalate into an even bigger situation involving the whole of the Middle East.  (I hope they have located building with flat roofs in the Green Zone in case we have to make another hasty exit in helicopters.)

Fourth, they’ll be no fourth until we address Third.

2/22/06 -- The Beginning

I couldn't disagree more strongly about most of this.

It's true that friendly fire incidents are nothing unusual, and in that sense the Tillman affair is uninteresting.  But what's interesting about  it is exactly the lying that you wish to highlight.  Had the military owned up to what happened right away, it would have been a sad story, nothing more.  Now it's a case of politically motivated coverup.

I also disagree sharply about Tillman being an "idiot".  He volunteered at a time when it still seemed possible that this administration would play it straight in going after the organizations who attacked us.  In that context, I deeply respect his position.

I think he deserves a Darwin award.  Sad, but what isn't sad about this "war on terror?"  Did anyone ever notice that we didn't declare a "war on surprise attacks" after Pearl Harbor? 

If Bush had persued BinLadin to the end instead of pulling everyone off of him to start a fake war in Iraq this "war on terror" would be, if not over, at LEAST bending in the direction of the US and its (former) allies. Getting BinLadin would have sent a message to all terrorists that we were strong.  Invading Iraq sent a message to terrorists, and the future ones that they keep recruiting that BinLadin was right about the US wanting to invade a muslim country for oil.  Bush is BinLadin's press secretary, (and he's much better at the job than Scotty is).

Jan Knaus

According to today's LATimes, Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad said:

In remarks that were among the frankest and bleakest public assessments of the Iraq situation by a high-level American official, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said the "potential is there" for sectarian violence to become full-blown civil war.
"We have opened the Pandora's box and the question is, what is the way forward? ..."

 

"Khalilzad's central message that the United States cannot immediately pull out of Iraq jibed with Bush administration policy. But he offered a far gloomier picture than assessments made in recent days by U.S. military spokesmen. "

"On Sunday, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a televised interview that things in Iraq were "going very, very well, from everything you look at."

"Khalilzad's comments came just before key U.S. decisions are expected on whether the situation in Iraq has improved enough to allow for a reduction in U.S. forces this year."

This is really kinda cute.

Larry's got a stalker!

When you think about, it is kind of scary when you think that our country is vulnerable to attack for at least ten months after we change presidents. How long is it that anyone can attack us during this transitional phase?

That's a very good point.  It makes me think we ought to change presidents much less often that once every four or eight years.  It's the only sensible way to reduce these periods of increased vulnerability.

And since Bush got a such mandate from the people in 2004, we should probably let him stay in office until the war in terror is won.  I reckon it should be all wrapped up within the next 30 years, give or take a decade. 

By then changing presidents may be a risk worth taking, but certainly not before!

I don't think the problem is in the semantics, but why a particular usage is displayed.  It is not the rhetoric, but the appearent need for rhetoric.  It is clear on a number of measures that although the trains are running on time, there is only one a month.  Standing there and saying "...but I would say they’re going very, very well from everything you look at..." can be a matter of "opinion".  Being a four star general does not make make him trustworthy if he can be quoted like this.  It diminishes the respect I would have for an officer.  The fact that it is a "liberal media" reporting on the number of bombs going off as well as increased targeting of shiite vs sunni does not change the fact that this is happening.

dc

tlees2

But thanfully the United States is a Constitutional Republic and the people do not elect presidents...states do.

If the official line describing conditions in Iraq became "civil war" there would probably be lots of public pressure to pull out. Avoiding the term leaves more room for action, so yes, it does matter what it's called.

Phelicity

Iraq cannot be considered a civil war because the Sunni's are not attempting to establish a ruling government.  They know very well how far in the minority they are and cannot possibly hope to "defeat" the Shiites in any sort of prolonged struggle.  At present, the Sunni's request that Shiite Prime Minister Al Jaafari step down in exchange for their participation in the new government.  That is hardly a civil war.  Sectarian violence seems to be the proper term as of right now.

Nobody matches gettysburg when it comes to pure inverted (and invented) logic.  How can he say that the 'Sunni's" are not attempting to 'establish control' because of their inferior numbers.

This flies in the face of facts of the past 2 centuries...certainly they were the MINORITY when Saddam held sway for 30 some-odd years, certainly, under the Ottoman domination, Sunnis were the ruling class, as well as under British rule (1918-1947).

Your claim that, since they are in the minority, they have no hope to regain control is utterly ludicrous, gettysburg. 

Of course, they aspire to return to dominance, and are engaged in a CIVIL WAR right now to try to do just that.  And they are hoping and counting on Shi'ite inabilities to really form a united front as a means of seeing their agenda to successful completion.

What made you make such an outlandish statement as, "they know very well they are and can not...etc., etc., hope to defeat Shi'ites'?

once the Iraqi situation becomes a "Civil War" this will be a good thing, as the US is not allowed to involve itself in "Civil Wars" and will thus not only be permitted but actually obligated to leave.

Was Bosnia a "civil war"? How about Greneada, Somallia, Hatti...

And you might want to do some remedial math.  Al Gore won the popular vote.  So by that measure, he was elected by the people.  The states via the electoral college according to the Supreme Court elected Bush

SFC...god !! I'm relieved...As I read RSHack's comment and came across; "Look, folks, anytime a US military officer opens his mouth in public, he's lying. It's that simple."...I said "Oh no!!!!, here comes SFC!!" As I scrolled on and you weren't there I figured you had either gone away somewhere or died. But no ...here you are. So, what do you think about those military guys speaking in public??

Actually, in 2000, 49 states, the District of Columbia, and the Supreme Court, appointed or elected electors who, in turn, appointed the president.  I say "appointed," because one state was left out of the election of electors. 

If its good for me it must be Good 4 A Merica