Knew not, you mean she claimed it was actionable accidentally?

The best any of the evidence can match, of the forgeries issued, appeared to be translations of items originally part of Libyan transactions. Obviously out of date by the that time, past tense sourcing.

Sayyyyyyy, Michael Ledeen was quite familiar with Libya, his wife was a staffer to Sen. Santorum, and Ledeen worked helping lede Judith Miller stories against Chalbi(including the sliming of Billy Carter, and other items he later was stripped clearance for).

Judith Miller stories were cited as the positive assertions within the NIE. Thanks again, Mrs. Ledeen.

She can find baldfaced lies to assert into Committee reports and internal assessments, just like her daughter found a way to lose nine billion in Iraq on the CPA staff of AEI flaks that Bremer appointed.

Who cares what the Congress asks, they are hedged via Diebold. True Waxman can shine light on her lies, and she finally is being prodded into shaping policy that reflects the greater good in light of her being called out. The votes to do anything past that are moot.

Nuremberg is the precedent to worry about. Get your shoe sales while the getting is good Condi. You'll soon find reason to stay out of places that are Geneva signatories.

She will be given a pass provided she finishes what China wants, which is détente with Iran. They have the money, she has plausible concern to save her political future, and the pipeline deals on the other side of Iran's border benefits her former employ Chevron. They could sweeten the deal tremendously by helping stabilize key countries in the Chevron pipeline concessions.

Follow the Money.

I've always felt Condi was in way over her head. But sheer incompetence is really hard to spot amidst the forest of the Bush administration where it is the norm. But they have loyalty down pat!

"The best any of the evidence can match, of the forgeries issued, appeared to be translations of items originally part of Libyan transactions."

Libyan transactions? Do you have anything to back that up?

Burford

"Good point.  We should have worded it better.  He does take
shots at several administration officials, but is relatively uncritical of
the key players in the Iraq intelligence disaster--himself, his cohorts in
the intelligence community and, most important, Bush."

Uncritical of himself? I'm not sure of that either. Read the chapter on the National Intelligence Estimate talking about a hearing at which Tenet was criticized by Congressman Norm Dicks. The chapter ends:

"Regarding the Estimate, and the faith he had in me, he said, “We depended on you, and you let us down.” For me, it was one of the lowest moments of my seven-year tenure, because I knew he was right."

Sounds pretty self-critical to me on a key issue.

Can you show me any other senior officials from this Administration (or others) saying stuff like that?

That doesn't sound a bit self-critical of Tenet to me. Tenet is driven by the esteem he is apparently held in by those around him, and when that esteem is withdrawn he feels really bad about himself. He is complaining there that the esteem he demanded and needed was withdrawn, not that he himself had performed badly in his job.

His self-esteem is based on the positive strokes he gets from others. Take those away and he is hurt. In this case, he feels really low because others have ceased to give him strokes. His personal feelings of self-esteem are unconnected to his own evaluation of his performance on the job. That is what being self-critical would have been.

He is sort of like a doctor who feels good as long as he tells the patient what they want to hear and they respond by telling him what a great doctor he is. Then when the cancer that he has been concealing from them can no longer be hidden, they tell him he is a bad person. It is being told that they felt let down that he regrets, not that he failed in his job.

She has always come across to me as nothing but a W puppet as well. I would think at that level of responsibility one would transcend job performance reviews. Of course that's probably why she was hired.

All the same, I wouldn't disagree with what the authors are saying about her not knowing what she was doing either. As that could be one of the reasons why she has been a W puppet. And another reason she was hired.

I think the opposite of Colin Powell, so I know it is not a racist view that I have. Although I fault Colin Powell for not running for President to begin with, which would have saved us all from the "dumb and dumber" W administration, as well as from the dumb and dumber "War Without an Exit Strategy."

Although I think the timing of the Iraq war was rather dubious (why didn't we finish what we started with the Afghan war and get Osama?,) I don't find fault with overthrowing Saddam. I find a lot of fault with the absence of an exit strategy in the Iraq War. Had it been handled competently, the Iraq coup could have gone smoothly IMO.

Which makes me wonder if the real strategy behind the Iraq coup was to put in place a honey pot to attract Al Queda in order to reduce if not implode support by the muslim world of Al Queda once muslims realized Al Queda was their enemy as well - once there were muslims fighting muslim terrorists. Which we see happening now. If this is true, Tenet's book is just propaganda, and Tenet (as well as Bush and his puppets - although probably unknowingly) is a fall guy. Even if this wasn't the real intelligence strategy, I am hoping it works out this way so that at least something is gained from the costly quagmire.

~

Come on now folks ... Get real and get real quick.

There's more than just the forged Niger Documents that have bubbled to the surface relating to Niger uranium disinformation schemes ... and the Brit's MI6 fingerprints pop up on all of them.

Take for example: Con Coughlin's cock n' bull concoction in the December 14, 2003 issue of the British newspaper, the Daily Telegraph , owned by Richard Perle's buddy and Iraq war booster Conrad Black.

Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam

--- snippet ---

The second part of the memo, which is headed "Niger Shipment", contains a report about an unspecified shipment - believed to be uranium - that it says has been transported to Iraq via Libya and Syria.

Although Iraqi officials refused to disclose how and where they had obtained the document, Dr Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq's ruling seven-man Presidential Committee, said the document was genuine.

"We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaeda," he said. "But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."

And it's not the first time Coughlin has been "fed" bunk ...

Here's a little more info on "Conned" Coughlin (scroll down to Writ):

--- snippet ---

Nearly 25 years later, readers of the Sunday Telegraph were regaled with a dramatic story about the son of Col Gadafy of Libya and his alleged connection to a currency counterfeiting plan. The story was written by Con Coughlin, the paper’s then chief foreign correspondent, and it was falsely attributed to a “British banking official”. In fact, it had been given to him by officers of MI6, who, it transpired, had been supplying Coughlin with material for years.

... d-i-s-i-n-f-o-r-m-a-t-i-o-n ...

Hasn't it been reported that in July of 2002, Rice told Colin Powell to stop trying substantively to head off an invasion of Iraq, because "the decision had been made"? So if she actually said, as quoted in Tenet's book, "We can't send troops to war based on assertions" -- what was that supposed to mean? Does Tenet say she didn't believe that the case for war had already been decided at that point? We're talking December of 2002 here. She must have known by that time that the invasion was going forward regardless of the quality of the CIA's intelligence.

Or was she basically just trying to intimidate the CIA into upgrading its claimed level of confidence -- "We're going to war, and we can't send troops into battle based on 'assertions,' so kindly reword your NIE and make them 'conclusions' or 'assessments'?"

Accumulating Peripherals

I know you're a noob, Burford, but before you start throwing "1s" at everyone you disagree with, kindly have the decency to read -- and comply with -- the proprietor's ratings guidelines.

Although I think the timing of the Iraq war was rather dubious (why didn't we finish what we started with the Afghan war and get Osama?,) I don't find fault with overthrowing Saddam. I find a lot of fault with the absence of an exit strategy in the Iraq War. Had it been handled competently, the Iraq coup could have gone smoothly IMO.

And the South could have won the Civil war, and Hitler could have beaten Stalin, and the Red Sox could have beaten the Mets, and America really did win in Vietnam and the check is in the male and he won't come in your mouth. Gotcha.

In the real world the Iraq adventure was conceived by a group of thieves and incompetents, promoted through lies and incompetence based on a series of excuses all of which turned out to be false.

Poisoned fruit of the poison tree. The Iraq adventure became a three ring disaster because it was conceived, perpetrated and implemented by three ring incompetents.

Could they have done it right? No, they couldn't have, because they were fuck ups right from the start. Fucking up was their raison d'etre. Any time someone competent showed up, they got rid of him. The venture was doomed from the start.

So, the question is, if they had been competent enough to do it right... would anyone have done it in the first place? Knowing that there was no plausible justification for a war and knowing the costs and risks, any government with competence and integrity simply would not have gone there. There'd have been no war.

Which makes me wonder if the real strategy behind the Iraq coup was to put in place a honey pot to attract Al Queda in order to reduce if not implode support by the muslim world of Al Queda once muslims realized Al Queda was their enemy as well - once there were muslims fighting muslim terrorists. Which we see happening now.

I have to call that delusional thinking of the highest order. The Sunni tribesmen currently shooting up Al Quaeda interlopers have pretty much stated to anyone who will listen that when they finish with these troublemakers, then they'll start with the serious business of killing Americans.

The truth is that Osama Bin Laden wanted the United States exactly where it is. He wanted the United States to replace the Russians in Afghanistan, in a protracted, economy destroying war which would bankrupt the nation, grind its army into powder, destroy its influence and credibility and provide a rallying point for radical Islam.

And Bush gave him a twofer. Ah, the joy of making the stupidest man on the planet President of the United States.

The problem with the 'Honeypot' strategy is that Al Quaeda did not come rushing in whole hog with a great big committment.

Indeed, Al Quaeda simply continued its operations. Bank bombings in Turkey, Nightclub bombings in Bali, stirring the pot in Kashmir, the London Subway bombings, the Spanish Train station bombings, etc. etc. etc.

Indeed, 'Al Quaeda in Iraq' was a bit of a boner. Originally the organization, headed by Zaquari was called "Monotheism and Holy War." It was a rival to Al Quaeda. Not an ally, not an adjunct, not a splinter, a full fledged independent radical rival to Al Quaeda.

Monotheism and Holy War actually had quite a bit of protection from the United States. It located itself in northern Iraq in the 'no fly' zone, thus out of reach of Saddam Hussein. Ironically, the Americans were literally protecting Zaquari from Hussein. Later, Bush deliberately overlooked opportunities to take out Zaquari, because he was worth more to Bush alive than dead. Alive he was a spurious Al Quaeda connection.

It was only a couple of years after the American invasion that Zaquari formally bought into the Al Quaeda franchise. He kept his organization, his ideology, his methods and command structure.

What he did was rename it 'Al Quaeda in Iraq' with Osama's blessing. It was a brilliant PR move.

Despite this, the Iraqi resistance is almost completely indigenous. 90 to 93% of the resistance to America is homegrown. Only 7% at most are foreign fighters. Of this, perhaps 3% could be described as Al Quaeda.

For the most part, Iraq is not a honey pot for Al Quaeda. It's a recruiting poster. It's a great and grand recruiting poster. It's George W. Bush proving everything that Osama Bin Laden claims about the United States is exactly right, at least as far as muslims can see.

Which is why Osama's been able to get people bombing in his name everywhere from London to Bali.

Burford, when you go around giving "1's" for a post like this, which is obviously a legitimately thoughtful question [albeit one that you evidently disagree with] you make yourself look exceedingly ignorant. 

Doing that is actually the very definition of a "1."

OH, and childishly petulent too.  What is wrong with reading other people's ideas?  Does that threaten you?  Re-read the posting and try to grow up a little.

Jan

Sigh. :(

Al Quada is messing up the chances of those muslims who want a (peaceful) caliphate. Because our military presence/interference is necessary in the middle east *because* of the Al Quada threat, (because of world domination caliphate prevention,) not because of peaceful caliphate prevention. (At least if you talk to a progressive.) Particularly since Iraq is no longer a threat to it's neighbors.

Al Quada wants us out of the middle east, but we are there because of Al Quada. I would think that peaceful pro-caliphate muslims would recognize this and as a result be outspoken against muslims supporting Al Queda. And this becomes a way of our waging psychological war against Al Quada.

Recruiting poster, yes. But what of this other scenario of our *blaming* al-Quada for our presence in the middle east? Who could argue against it?

That may not be a honeypot strategy or it may be, but either way the end result is the same and is what I was driving at - a possible hidden strategy regarding psychological warfare against al-Quada. I don't think that is so delusional.

Believing an ex-CIA director's motivation to go public could in fact be just as or more delusional.

al-Quada can claim in their propaganda that the US is in the middle east to prevent a caliphate from forming.

While the US can claim in their propaganda that they are in the middle east to prevent only a world domination caliphate from forming (al-Quada style caliphate.)

Of course if you worked in the CIA, you wouldn't be so positive in your analysis that the peaceful, non-world domination caliphates would remain un-interested in world domination forever.
But you wouldn't have to go public with that concern.

What of the oil incentive? Well that is something a world domination caliphate would like to control the price of, but that is only one of the threats that a world domination caliphate could present. And yes it's a threat, not just to the oil industry but to our economy. I hope we become fossil fuel free some day but we aren't there yet.

If the President had said we need to overthrow Saddam because we are concerned about a middle eastern world domination caliphate (al-Quada,) it would not have made any sense. But our being in Iraq for caliphate prevention makes more sense than our being in Iraq for nuke prevention, and we all know that to be true now that the nukes blunder was such an obvious mistake - so obvious even the ex CIA director is going public with the details.

When the real concern is caliphate prevention. Not because we are crusaders, but because how could we know if a peaceful, regional caliphate had hidden intentions of becoming a world domination caliphate as the end game? Or that a peaceful caliphate may morph into a world domination caliphate?

I think we should go public with "blaming al-Quada" as the reason we have a military presence in the middle east. Whether this would increase or decrease membership in al-Quada I for one have no way of knowing. My guess though is that it would cause more of a blowback effect for al-Quada than a recruiting poster. If you believed that America was in the middle east because of al-Quada, and you didn't want America to be in the middle east, why would you join al-Quada?

Tenet: ". . . because I knew he was right."
Rick B: ". . . not that he himself had performed badly."

Exercise: why doesn't this compute?

Osama Bin Laden wanted the United States exactly where it is. He wanted the United States to replace the Russians in Afghanistan, in a protracted, economy destroying war which would bankrupt the nation, grind its army into powder, destroy its influence and credibility and provide a rallying point for radical Islam.

Precisely. And the frosting on the cake is that OBL can tell the entire Muslim nation that they have defeated TWO of the worlds superpowers. First Russian then the USA.  Both countries had to backdown after being drained of money and soldiers lives. We learned nothing from the 10year Russian slog in Afghanistan. Our involvement in Iraq has emboldened Al-Q and those who see America as a cultural scurge.

I admire your effort, but it won't work.

The United States is not in the middle east because of Al Quaeda. Rather, Osama Bin Laden would argue that Al Quaeda exists because the United States is in the middle east and because the United States is making war upon the muslim peoples.

You will recall that his whole beef with America started in 1992 with the Gulf War. Osama, fresh from Afghanistan, was incensed by Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait and wanted to raise a Mujahedeen army to throw him out.

The Saudi's wisely declined his offer and went with the Americans. The result of the Gulf War was American troops permanently stationned on the holy lands of Saudi Arabia. I'm not joking, this was exactly what he was saying.

Osama went squirrely after that, and began to form his thesis. Eventually in 1993-1994 the Saudi's invited him to find another country and he moved to Sudan. Thereafter a year or two later, he relocated to Afghanistan.

Bin Laden claimed that the United States was engaged in a war with Islam, a war in which Islam was divided and ineffectual and not fighting back.

Bin Laden pointed out that the U.S. maintained political and economic sanctions upon several muslim states: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Libya, Sudan, Somalia.

He also pointed out that the United States had used troops or military force against several Muslim states in the last couple of decades: Lebanon, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Iran.

In addition, the US was currently stationing its troops in many muslim states, notably Kuwait, Turkey, Quatar, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

In addition, Bin Laden also noted that American support was Israel's strongest card. Israel of course was responsible for the expulsion of the Palestinians and their refugee status, the settlement of the occupied territories, the oppression of the Palestinians in the occupied territories, the invasion and occupation of Lebanon, the bombing of Tunisia, various military actions against Jordan, Egypt and Syria, and the most recent invasion of Lebanon. Indeed, Bin Laden saw Israel's invasion of Lebanon and siege of Beirut to be essentially American/Western acts. In one speech, he went on about the burning skyscrapers in Beirut being the ultimate inspiration for the World Trade Centre.

He also criticized the west (including America) for its role in the Algerian civil war, where Islamists had won the election only to be overthrown by a western backed military.

And finally, he was pointing to Iraq under sanctions to prove that the United States was engaged in a campaign close to genocide against the impoverished and starving Iraqi people.

Essentially, Bin Laden was arguing that the west, and particularly America was engaged in a century long war against the Muslim world. That this had begun with colonialism, had continued with Europeans dividing the Muslim world into squabbling petty states for their own benefit, and installing or supporting their own kings and ruling classes.

When western-installed Kings had been overthrown, as in Iraq, Libya and Egypt, and nationalist governments had been put in place, the west and the United States then began a campaign to destroy and discredit these states and to stop their spread, in part using Israel, as well as using other economic and military means.

The result was that the Arab world was saddled in many places by corrupt and backwards feudal oligarchies - Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, which ruled, not to serve their own people, but to look out for western interests.

To make matters worse, the new wave of nationalist governments had been defeated by America. Egypt, the largest and most powerful had thrown in the towel, accepted the money and became yet another corrupt puppet government. The rest, Syria, Iraq, Libya remained chained and impotent under military attack and economic and diplomatic sanctions. Defeated, they had turned inwards and become corrupt.

It all came down, Bin Laden said, to a plot by America to keep Muslims weak, poor, powerless and backwards. And America would do whatever it took... Why just look at Iraq, or Iran, or Syria, or Somalia, or Libya, or Lebanon, or Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia, or Jordan, or Pakistan, etc. etc.

Now, whether you accept Bin Laden or not, he was arguing from 'facts'. The US really did have troops in Saudi Arabia, it really did support Israel against Palestinians and Lebanese, it really had bombed or sent troops into those countries, it really did have sanctions against these countries, etc.

But whether you believe Bin Laden or not, the thing we have to get a grip on, is that increasingly vast numbers of Muslims, perhaps even a majority, believe that he's got your number. That Bin Laden is right about America.

So its going to be very hard for America to persuade Muslims that its only there for Al Quaeda. Given the last fifty years of history, and given America's current role in Iraq and Afghanistan, in the invasion of Lebanon, in the current invasion of Somalia, the failure of of the Palestinian peace process and the cold wars with Iran and Syria.

Nope. They think he's right, and every move Bush has made in the last six years continues, in their eyes, to prove that he's not just right, but brilliantly on target.

 I wonder what Armitage was going to say about Rice and the SOTU.

Ummm, that she said 'it's just 16 words' and voila they were inserted!

Then why don't we just plant a caliphate in Iraq, rather than a secular democracy, and turn the tables completely around?

I think it's concern over this world domination thing. Speaking sarcastically of course.

So what's the solution? What can we do?

The solution is to get the hell out of the Middle East. That's also what we can do.

That's not our oil under their sand!

And yout assertion that we are there because of "Al Quada" is just so wrong I am not going to attempt to elaborate on such an uninformed or deliberately ignorant statement. Not trying to be offensive but you need a clue in the worst way on that subject.

Osama Bin Laden has a weakness. His weakness is that while the Arab and Muslim world have accepted the first part of his argument... that America is making war on Islam... it hasn't accepted the second part of his argument.

What's the second part? Well, his notion is that Islamic peoples have not been doing well these last few centuries because God has turned his face away. Could a people really in the favour of God suffer all these misfortunes? Nope. Obviously, they're being punished.

They're being punished for not being Islamic enough, not being devout enough.

The solution is to turn back the clock to the caliphate. Not just politically, but morally and spiritually. The solution is to become good muslims again, by force of the state if necessary, and then God will be happy and fortunes will improve.

After all, with God punishing you, no scheme, no technology, no amount of pluck and dedication can succeed. But with God's favour, failure is impossible. So the important thing is to get back into God's good books.

That's what the Taliban were all about. They really didn't care about government or governing. Health, Education, Road construction, canal maintenance, irrigation, tax policy? They didn't understand it and they didn't care. They figured that Allah would provide. They were very devout that way. They figured that their job was to make sure everyone was sufficiently devout in order to earn Allah's favour.

Well, the Islamic world had a long hard look at the Taliban's approach, and they were completely unimpressed with the virtues of theocracy.

The various Arab and Muslim nations have had separate histories for a long time, they have their own regions, their own ways, their own aspirations. They want to move forward, not backwards.

A caliphate may be attractive, a kind of 'United States of Islam.' But a Taliban writ large doesn't appeal.

The Islamic peoples may not like America, and may feel that they're being oppressed and have war made upon them. But there are things they like about America and the west.

Good thing overall. Osama would be rolling all over everything by now, and we'd be brushing up on our Arabic.

As it is, the best thing that America could do would be to go home. Get out of Iraq, get out of Afghanistan, out of Kuwait, Oman, Quatar, etc. Treat the place like Europe ... just people to deal with, not to rule over.

Am I peevish if I mention again that Steve Clemons still lauds Rice and her team as the progressive solution to the, er, um, errors of the Bush administration? Sure I am, but Clemons deserves it anyhow. I appreciate that, thanks to it's really being book club or discussing intelligence, Josh's team for once has let an alternative to the liberal hawks into a post on foreign policy here. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

So, in your view, America really is making war upon the entire Muslim world?

Osama will be pleased.

Well stated Valdron.

I stated the same thing @ TPM under a previous userid a year ago or more. Someone had replied that we were too far along to do that now. But I think I disagree after doing a bit of reading and thought and listening to your responses.

There is no solid reasoning for "we're too far along to remove ourselves entirely from the middle east now."

Obviously if Democrats were to remove all presence in the Middle East, conservatives and many less educated on the subject swing voters will proclaim that Democrats put their tail between their legs regarding Osama and al-Quada. And that we backed down and "lost the war on terror."

But we need to transcend playground thinking obviously, and follow the best solution.

One thing you are either not considering, or not thinking about, is with Iraq, either way we lose favor. If we withdraw now, and the country worsens, it will be convenient for muslims to say we planned the entirer affair too weaken a muslim nation - that if we were concerned about making Iraq stronger, we would have stayed a very long time to enable the fledgling democracy enough time to get on it's feet. Although if we stay, we get the same rap, where muslims can say we purposely caused the insurgent chaos in Iraq in order to weaken the country.

This conumdrum illustrates why the decision regarding withdrawal from Iraq is not an easy one. There should conceivably a best time table for withdrawal. A withdrawal plan that represents a balancing act of withdrawing as soon as possible, but also only when the democracy can stand on it's own feet. And leaving tomorrow 100 percent I doubt very much is that best time table.

And I agree that if the muslim world deteriorates because we have left 100 percent out of the middle east, that will be the muslims problem to deal with. They should be able to live with the consequences of their desire for us to get out. I doubt all muslims want us out, I am sure some are quite content that we provide a security presence there.

For instance, would Osama really have been able to oust Iraq out of Kuwait had we refrained from coming to Kuwait's rescue? Would there be even more war and strife in the middle east had we not come too Kuwait's rescue?

The "Peaceful" Caliphate

I don't have a problem with the idea of peaceful caliphate. I have a problem with a peaceful caliphates' end game of violence however. But, I think we should cross that bridge when we come tto it in history, because chances are a world domination caliphate would flop, possibly backfire, and for certain, at least we would no longer be meddling in muslims' affairs. If we are worried about WMD by a caliphate when they try to jihad for world domination, we already have that concern now. Except the people behind the caliphate push now currently do not have the infrastructure that they would have with an actual caliphate in place. So WMD would be a concern then, just as it was with the soviet union. However, keep in mind that at that point at least we have a target, like we did with the soviet union. MAD - mutually assured destruction. The only difference is, fundamentalist muslims martyr themselves joyously as they believe that will elevate their stance in heaven. The soviets had no such kamikaze wish. This makes a caliphate more of a threat than the soviet union was by far.

Which shows that our conservative counterparts are not just being ideological or macho when they insist on a military presence in the middle east. They are being cautious.

And this brings us back to the planting a democracy in Iraq idea which may not be such a bad solution after all if you look at it from entirely objective eyes and not Democrat political talking point eyes. If Iraq can be a shinging nation in time we would have done the right kind of meddling this time around, patterning Iraq after our own system, rather than on a monarchy.

If we get out of the middle east entirely, and it falls into more bloodshed due to islamic and caliphate revolutions, muslims can blame us for their continued troubles. If we stay, they can blame us for warring against Islam. We have an insecure world now. But we would have even more of an insecure world with a world domination oriented caliphate posessing WMDs and using them to win allah's favor.

So my conclusion has to be that we continue to come to the rescue of friendly nations in the middle east who need our rescuing. I think this can be done just using the Navy though - I don't think we need military bases in the middle east. Removing our physical presence out of the middle east will do a lot in terms of winning the minds of muslims. However, I believe we have the responsibility of not withdrawing from Iraq until Iraq can stand on it's own feet as a democracy, I agree with the mainstream American thought on that. And I do believe this is the mainstream opinion in America. We can simply tell the world that we are genuinely interested in a strong Iraq since we are patterning the fledgling nation after our own.

The "Regional" Caliphate

What other solutions are there? Has anyone proposed promoting an "economic caliphate" for the muslims? This would be akin to the European Union, but made up of muslim countries, where they convert to the same currency and eliminate trade barriers amongst themselves.

Muslim Economic Union

Muslim Economic Union.....

One thing you are either not considering, or not thinking about, is with Iraq, either way we lose favor.

Actually, that's my ultimate point. The United States has long since passed the threshold of 'irretrievably screwed.' America is not going to win, is not going to hold on. What it amounts to, is a question of when America leaves, how voluntary that departure is going to be, and how much of the Iraq is going to be left standing when it does.

If we withdraw now, and the country worsens, it will be convenient for muslims to say we planned the entirer affair too weaken a muslim nation

So?

that if we were concerned about making Iraq stronger, we would have stayed a very long time to enable the fledgling democracy enough time to get on it's feet.

I really doubt that Muslims will be saying that. I can't imagine a situation where Muslims would be saying to each other "Yes, the imperialist christian empire should have stuck around longer."

Although if we stay, we get the same rap, where muslims can say we purposely caused the insurgent chaos in Iraq in order to weaken the country.

Whereas now the story is that we did it accidentally?

A withdrawal plan that represents a balancing act of withdrawing as soon as possible, but also only when the democracy can stand on it's own feet. And leaving tomorrow 100 percent I doubt very much is that best time table.

I admire your optimism, but that's just not going to happen. Any government stood up by the United States is seen by the Iraqi's as a puppet government. It will fall apart the instant that the U.S. is gone. The Iraqi military, as presently constituted, sees their role as dying for the greater glory of the United States, and they're completely uninterested.

America cannot create a Democracy in Iraq. Only the Iraqi's can do that. America's presence is an irritant, its not helpful.

I doubt all muslims want us out, I am sure some are quite content that we provide a security presence there.

Certainly. The Saudi royal family, the Kuwaiti royal family. The Bahrain royal family. The UAE royal families. Feudalists are very Pro-America.

For instance, would Osama really have been able to oust Iraq out of Kuwait had we refrained from coming to Kuwait's rescue?

Osama? Not a chance. On the other hand, would Saddam have even invaded Kuwait if the US government had said, on two separate occasions that the US would not get involved in his territorial disputes with Kuwait? He took that as a free hand.

But now we get into the area of counterfaction. If the US had sat out the Kuwait thing, what would have been the long term outcomes? At most, the Kuwaiti royal family would have been out of a job. A coalition of the willing, with our without America might have persuaded Iraq to withdraw. Diplomacy might. International sanctions, the possibility of a war with his neighbors might. Iraq's remaining neighbors were Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and Turkey. None of them were pushovers. In the long run, its doubtful that he would have been able to hang onto Kuwait. But who knows, its all academic.

Would there be even more war and strife in the middle east had we not come too Kuwait's rescue?

Maybe, maybe not.

I don't have a problem with the idea of peaceful caliphate. I have a problem with a peaceful caliphates' end game of violence however.

I don't see a resumption of the Caliphate, or any coherent Pan-Arabic or Pan-Muslim political unit being a likelihood at any time. There are just too many obstacles. It's never going to happen.

Except the people behind the caliphate push now

And seriously, who is that? In 99% of the Arab world the idea is a non-starter. It's nice in the far off, nebulous, sort of sacharine perspective of 'wouldn't it be great to have colonies on Mars, too.' But it doesn't represent anything that anyone is seriously planning or working towards.

Guys like Osama can dream all they want, but the truth of the matter is that they were failed and failing through most of the Islamic world before 9/11.

Osama's big selling point is that America is out to get Islam. They're right with him on that point. When he starts talking Caliphates... well, everyone starts eyeing the door.

Which shows that our conservative counterparts are not just being ideological or macho when they insist on a military presence in the middle east. They are being cautious.

Cautious is not the appropriate word.

And this brings us back to the planting a democracy in Iraq idea which may not be such a bad solution after all if you look at it from entirely objective eyes and not Democrat political talking point eyes.

I'm not a Democrat, and I don't subscribe to Democract political talking points.

And at this point, there's no chance of America planting anything in Iraq. Here's a simple poll result: A majority of Iraqi people believe that attacks on American troops are justified. They want to see them dead. Think about that.

It's all very nice to talk about democracy and reform, but America's done nothing but screw up big time from the beginning. More and more people in Iraq are looking back to the good old days of Saddam, even under sanctions. Sure, you couldn't criticize the regime, but apart from that, you were free and safe and people had jobs and a working economy.

Life is not a video game. There's no reset button to start over from the beginning. History is a thing that accumulates, mistakes do not go away.

I see no possibility of winning. Nor does the Bush administration or the Pentagon, since they don't have an actual plan while being in there.

So my conclusion has to be that we continue to come to the rescue of friendly nations in the middle east who need our rescuing.

And you feel that Iraq is a friendly country who just needed rescuing?

We can simply tell the world that we are genuinely interested in a strong Iraq since we are patterning the fledgling nation after our own.

They don't believe you. No one does.

Even American politicians don't believe that, since they keep talking about partitioning Iraq, or they keep talking about the oil law which would hand Iraq's oil over to American interests.

No, my point is that the United States will not win and will not succeed. Iraq's best chance is for the United States to get out and let the people actually living in the country sort out their own lives.

The odds of getting a Taliban-like state increase with America's presence. Essentially because the longer it goes on, the more power the extremists have.

Given that Iraq is 65% Shiite, the odds of Al Quaeda running the place or finding a home in a Theocracy are pretty long.

My advice is stop playing Osama's game the way Osama wants America to play it.

Kissinger's style reminds me of conductor Fritz Reiner, who would needle or otherwise pressure a given musician until they blew up. If they were putting out, he was happy with their confidence. If they weren't he could then fire them with confidence on his part.

What Condi learned was the right things to say, not to do.

I get the impression that this entire crowd felt that if they didn't know about something it must not be important. Also that if they did know it, it must be true. 

I had a gym teacher that was notorious for the feet-up look when he would upend a miscreant into one of those institutional grey tall trash cans--saw it with mine own eyes (in those pre-liability days).

Reiner had the same rep as a good and fair boss after the initiation. My violin teacher had his showdown in the first minures of his first rehearsal with Reiner in Pittsburgh. They were great friends for years.

He told me several famous Reiner stories--the iconic one is probably the spyglass incident, where a tympanist raised a spyglass to peruse the famously tiny beat pattern of Reiner--that player was quickly history.

I had the butt-first done in the second or third grade. In retaliation, I tensed against it so they couldn't pull me out until the shop teacher arrived with tinsnips.

I wonder what shape the country would have been in if GWB had had such an experience?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Howard re: 

Friends that have direct experience at CIA say Bush 41 did his homework, and was thought to have found just the right level between listening and leading

Bush 41, was a former CIA director, no? He would have already had the skills without any homework and known the value of the intelligence.

Hooray for Ike. Thank god he wasn't killed. I believe when JFK and RFK tried to crack down on the powers that be they were killed - William Harvey (CIA), Santo Trafficante (mob), and David Morales (CIA JM/WAVE paramilitary operator and Anti-Castro Cuban) are some of the "persons of interest" (see David Talbot's new book, Brothers).

Tom

Has anyone proposed promoting an "economic caliphate" for the muslims?

Hmmm...a McCaliphate...

I don't consider a psychological projection a bashing Jan.

You seem to be forgetting about the criticism of the US when we "abandoned" Afghanistan after we supplied Osama and the other freedom fighters there, supporting Afghanistan just long enough to help ensure the Soviets withdrew.

The muslim critique goes both ways - 1. we are there so it must be an occupation, and 2. we withdrew and thus abandoned what we were supporting prematurely.

Thank goodness there are some mature debaters in the thread such as Valdron.

If you're a Democrat, please use the proper name, Democratic Party, until the party changes it.

You seem to be forgetting about the criticism of the US when we "abandoned" Afghanistan after we supplied Osama and the other freedom fighters there, supporting Afghanistan just long enough to help ensure the Soviets withdrew.

No, I have NOT forgotten that, nor about our abandonment of Afghanistan (read the persuit for Osama BinLadin) in order to get the OIL REGIME (read the Bush administration) its rewards in Iraq.  I am far less interested in the "criticism of the US" than in what is the right thing to do. 

Jan

Case in point to my reply to Tom, above.

LOL.

But we obviously would not refer to it as a caliphate. Muslim or arab economic union will suffice of course.

But at least I have a solution, which is more than you can say Don, obviously.

If it wasn't a good idea, then why has Europe gone through so much trouble to form an economic union?

It would seem some regulars here are so ideologically entrenched, they wouldn't recognize a good idea if it upsided them on the head.

It's a good, well thought out opinion Valdron. But it's far from an opinion that I would place a wager on. When it comes down to the truth, no one knows what would happen if we withdrew 100 percent out of the middle east. We can only estimate. I agree that your estimation is a worthy one. As I agree that our maintaining a miilitary presence is just as worthy an opinion. However, I'd give an edge to your opinion over the other - with the reasoning that we could always go back if needed. Even just using our Navy. But I still maintain that ultimately it's a cr*pshoot because as we have discovered with Iraq, it is incredibly costly to "go back." Overthrowing saddam is akin to going back if we had to overthrow anyone else in the future as a result of our lack of presence.

That said my uneducated opinion is that we should maintain a guerrilla presence - fighting fire with fire. Submarines can't be seen, but they carry tomahawk missiles. Aircraft carriers carry jets and helicopters which carry bombs and bullets. The air force can take off and land stealth aircraft from the US since we can refuel in midair. We can bring in special forces by helicopter from aircraft carriers. So I'd say this sort of invisible force - or low profile military presence - is all we need.

Most Americans want withdrawal from Iraq if I'm not mistaken. I think most of us are just waiting for 2009 when Bush is where he always wanted to be - in the history books. (Just judged unfavorably rather than favorably most likely.)

Let's not forget the criticism that we got for "abandoning" Iraq, withdrawing support prematurely, after we helped Osama and other freedom fighters in Afghanistan oust the Soviets.

I think we'd get more of this criticism if we had withdrawn out of Iraq prematurely. I realize you don't feel the prematurely holds any water, but while we all know the way the Iraq war was planned and waged was a mistake, a lot of people including myself just see it as doing the best we can with the debacle we created - withdrawing prematurely only worsening the debacle. There is really only one way to find out - by withdrawing. We could always go back (although that would be even more costly) if there is an increased power vacuum and increased rather than decreased sectarian violence as a result.

I think no matter if we withdrew right away, or if we withdraw in 2009 after the election, either way we would have sectarian violence between sunnis and shiites. I think you are making a rather large assumption that there would have been less violence between sunnis and shiites if we had withdrawn right away. You mention "the extremists" have more power the longer the US is helping to establish law and order in Iraq. I assume you mean extremist sunnis as well as extremist shiites. Whether you define Iran to be ruled by extremists I'm unclear. I doubt it. I don't consider Iran's islamic state to be extremist myself. Taliban and al-Queda are both sunni and I consider those organizations to be extremist. If we have 65% shiite in Iraq do we, as you yourself allude to actually, really have to worry about extremism in Iraq? You have also mentioned that al-Queda has only made a half as*ed effort in Iraq as well. So it would seem the concern about extremists gaining more power in Iraq the longer we remain in Iraq helping to establish law and order, is moot, using your own logic. If you meant to say sectarian violence increases because we remain in Iraq - I'd listen, with the eone problem that there is no way to prove that, and that it could equally be the other way around, that premature withdrawal from the fiasco that we have created and that we thus are responsible for could increase the sectarian violence.

That is why my opinion is to stay if the military believes there is value in staying, until the next President is in office, which is only 1 and 1/2 years away, and start withdrawing January 2009.

If you are talking about extremists around the world gaining power the longer we stay in Iraq, I am not sure, with the can of worms we have opened in Afghanistan and Iraq, if a year and a half more in Iraq will make much if any difference. I do however agree with the general assertion that we should have a lower profile in tthe future as far as a military presence in the middle east, which I talked about in an above post, to make it harder to recruit new terrorists. I think this is something the Democratic Party must adopt as a policy is to make for a lower profile, but not abandoning our friendship with the middle eastern monarchies. We can see from how difficult it is to put together a democracy in Iraq that a monarchy may not be such an inappropriate type of government in that part of the world.

Our withdrawing prematurely from Iraq is probably one of Osama's games, just as our staying for years and years is probably one of Osama's games as costly as the war is. I don't believe it is a thorough analysis to only consider one of those games and not the other.

I have a solution- leave the people alone who are leaving us alone. And yes, I'm ideologically entrenched. My ideology is that we should not impose our ideology on others, especially when we hypocritically impose any ideology that will benefit us to their detriment.

Now, were you worried about this world domination caliphate ten years ago? Twenty five years ago? The only thing that has changed is that a small radical terrorist group with a grudge against the U.S for imposing ourselves in the M.E. attacked us, albeit in a dramatic way. This coincided with the takeover of the WH by neocons and imperial hawks whose answer was not to go whole hog after al Qaeda but to impose our forces on the Muslim world en masse.

We have no right to wage a world war against Muslims, our latest and greatest enemy. I do think that the extreme religious fundamentalists (Muslim, Christian, Jewish) are a threat to liberty. So are the oligarchies and plutocracies that we support in the M.E. and around the world. I have no problem with economic assistance and development. But, except for post war reconstruction, where have we ever just given that without dominating those we are helping.

Some grand corporation of Muslims that will dominate the world is a boogieman excusing our imperial regime-changing wars, coercive economic, military and cultural hegemony, Israel-centric shuffling of the power structure, and promotion of civil wars between the various ethnic groups. It becomes a vicious cycle of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more we bully Muslims, the more they become our enemy, the more justified our use of force against this growing enemy.