Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

September 8, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

"HE WOULD FIRE THE NEXT PERSON THAT SAID THAT"....Today, via Orin Kerr, comes a remarkable interview with Brigadier General Mark Scheid, chief of the Logistics War Plans Division after 9/11, and one of the people with primary responsibility for war planning. Shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan, he says, Donald Rumsfeld told his team to start planning for war in Iraq, but not to bother planning for a long stay:

"The secretary of defense continued to push on us ... that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay."

Scheid said the planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4," or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like occupation.

Even if the troops didn't stay, "at least we have to plan for it," Scheid said.

"I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Scheid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.

"He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war."

...."In his own mind he thought we could go in and fight and take out the regime and come out. But a lot of us planners were having a real hard time with it because we were also thinking we can't do this. Once you tear up a country you have to stay and rebuild it. It was very challenging."

In a way, this is old news. As much as it beggars the imagination, there's been plenty of evidence all along that Bush never took the idea of rebuilding Iraq seriously. The plan was to remove Saddam from power, claim victory, and get out.

However, this is the clearest evidence I've seen yet. The guy who was actually in charge of logistics has now directly confirmed that Rumsfeld not only didn't intend to rebuild Iraq in any serious way, but threatened to fire anyone who wasted time on the idea. Needless to say, he wouldn't have done this unless it reflected the wishes of the president.

And this also means that all of Bush's talk about democracy was nothing but hot air. If you're serious about planting democracy after a war, you don't plan to simply topple a government and then leave.

So: the lack of postwar planning wasn't merely the result of incompetence. It was deliberate policy. There was never any intention of rebuilding Iraq and there was never any intention of wasting time on democracy promotion. That was merely a post hoc explanation after we failed to find the promised WMD. Either that or BG Scheid is lying.

This is an astounding interview, all the more so for the apparently resigned tone that Scheid brings to it. It belongs on the front page of the New York Times, not the Hampton Roads Daily Press.

POSTSCRIPT: An alternative explanation, based on Rumsfeld's admonition that "the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war," is that Rumsfeld and Bush were planning to stay but simply lied about it in order to build support for the war. However, based on the rest of the interview with Scheid, as well as the other evidence that there was no plan to stay and rebuild in any serious way, that explanation seems unlikely. The bulk of the evidence continues to suggest that democracy and rebuilding were simply not on Bush's radar.

Kevin Drum 10:18 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (206)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

So why did they stay?

Posted by: exasperanto on September 8, 2006 at 10:22 PM | PERMALINK

Very disturbing. Why don't we head down to the white house and demand these guys step down?

Posted by: dee on September 8, 2006 at 10:23 PM | PERMALINK

"And this also means that all of Bush's talk about democracy was nothing but hot air. If you're serious about planting democracy after a war, you don't plan to simply topple a government and then leave."

I don't think this is right. If you believe in the Neoconservative world view of the teleological inevitability of democracy, then maybe if you do lop off a government and the Americans are seen as liberators, it will allow democracy to flower without a long term commitment.

It's not that they didn't plan for it, it's that politics and ideology blinded them from seeing that they had to plan for it.

Posted by: Me2d on September 8, 2006 at 10:28 PM | PERMALINK

Bush simply never understood the consequences of starting a war. In Plan of Attach Woodward makes it clear that this is what Colin Powell believed all along.

Posted by: Mark Gilbert on September 8, 2006 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINK

I am shocked, shocked I tell you. Bush and Rummy less that serious about planting democracy. Shocked and awed. :0

Actually there is another explanation. Remember Rummy's hard on to discredit the Powell doctrine. Our glorious secretary of defense had a theory about using the minimum number of well equipped high tech war fighters to defeat an enemy army.

Post war planning would require that he jack up the force requirement dramatically by including a lot of occupation troops.

He didn't like that. Too many troops to undo the Powell doctrine.

As to post invasion troops--didn't the Neocons have the absurd idea that newly free Iraqis were going to make Chalibi their new leader.

Posted by: Ron Byers on September 8, 2006 at 10:31 PM | PERMALINK

This is the essence of Bush/Rebublican malfeasance and negligence with regard to our troops in Iraq. They send the troops in, call on them to sacrifice, but can't be bothered to do the work to ensure the troops' efforts will produce fruitful results in the longer run.

Now the Republicans have our military's leg caught in the trap of Iraq, and our soldier's lives and limbs are being spent with no assurance that a sound outcome is in prospect. The civilians in Washington have done nothing to support, and much to undermine, our troops in Iraq.

Are the Republicans with us or against us?

Posted by: McCord on September 8, 2006 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder if the MSM has these reactions to a story like this.

1) Well, someone else already wrote about it.
2) We believe everyone knows this anyway so why
report it and get beat up by the White House and
Republicans.

Posted by: Carl on September 8, 2006 at 10:33 PM | PERMALINK

Bush simply never understood the consequences of starting a war. In Plan of Attach Woodward makes it clear that this is what Colin Powell believed all along.

Posted by: Mark Gilbert on September 8, 2006 at 10:35 PM | PERMALINK

As you sort of say, Kevin, this was obvious from the get-go. "Democracy" was going to consist of slapping a presidential cape on Chalabi's shoulders (like Karzai's cape-- so impressive) and letting our remaining troops get on with the business of building half a dozen or so permanent bases out in the desert.

Why did they stay? I think it's because there was no functioning state for Chalabi to run. No bureaucrats showed up for work. Then all that looting caught them by surprise, then for some reason they got cold feet about Chalabi, then they had to send in their own viceroys to see what was what, then Bremer dissolved the army, and it went downhill from there.

IMHO the biggest thing is that Rumsfeld was so effing blindly literal about his instructions. "Post-invasion" was anything after the surrender. There was supposed to be a big surrender by some general. But it didn't happen. So then the looting happened. Etc.

Like The Mouse That Roared, a giant Grand Fenwick.

Posted by: Altoid on September 8, 2006 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINK

I mean a giant Grand Fenwick of the Rumsfeld mind.

Posted by: Altoid on September 8, 2006 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINK

So why did they stay?

Because they didn't win. And everyone knew it.

Posted by: dave on September 8, 2006 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINK

The bulk of the evidence continues to suggest that democracy and rebuilding were simply not on Bush's radar.

Bush has no working radar. He got gut feel. Blind as a bat.

Posted by: bo on September 8, 2006 at 10:40 PM | PERMALINK

So, is Doug Feith still the stupidest fucking man on earth? Or does Rummy leapfrog into #1 by seriously believing that plans for the post-invasion environment need not - indeed, must not - be made?

Posted by: phleabo on September 8, 2006 at 10:40 PM | PERMALINK

In Assassin's Gate, and other sources, it's made clear, as some others have said, that Bush et al believed that if they removed Saddam by force -- decapitated the regime -- the government would instantly and easily convert to a democracy. It's what they were told by people like Ahmed Chalabi, who we presume wanted to head that government (if he wasn't actually an Iranian spy) and by people like Kanan Makiya, who seems, God help him, to really have believed that.

That they never questioned that assumption -- that they never stopped and said, okay, exactly how does a calcified police state instantly turn into a democracy, run by all the same people... well, it doesn't surprise, anymore.

I personally have a theory, as to why they believed that Iraq, unlike every other Middle Eastern government, or non-Western government, would immediately and easily shift to liberal democracy, just add water, poof, rather than revert to vicious tribal factional infighting:

It's because Iraqis wore ties.

Seriously.

If the Iraqi elites under Saddam had appeared on CNN, wearing Saudi style robes and kaffiyeh, this never would have happened.

Posted by: Bunkysdad on September 8, 2006 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK

This explains why Afghanistan is in such a mess, too.

Posted by: Linkmeister on September 8, 2006 at 10:44 PM | PERMALINK

Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld absolutely were planning on rebuilding Iraq-- but they were planning on doing it with big business contracts, never the military. They really DID think that the military could just get out, and that American businesses/Halliburton could immediately step in and rebuild. Utterly foolish of course, but it's a mistake to think that just because Rumsfeld didn't want the military to plan for the aftermath, that they didn't plan on rebuilding.

Naomi Klein's 2004 article "Baghdad Year Zero" from Harper's Magazine still rings largely true to me.

Ulysses

Posted by: castillo on September 8, 2006 at 10:45 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas Friedbrain, are you listening?

Posted by: romdinstler on September 8, 2006 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINK

"Amateurs discuss tactics. Professionals discuss logistics."

So we know which group Rumsfeld belongs to.

Posted by: bad Jim on September 8, 2006 at 10:52 PM | PERMALINK

Are we still debating the motivating factors behind this national debacle that should never have happened? How many times do we have to point out Bush's infantile tendencies and his apparent deep-seated need to compare the size of his genitals with those of his father, over and over again?

The United States of America went to war over some spolied rich kid's unresolve Oedipal complex.

Sick thought, isn't it?

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on September 8, 2006 at 10:53 PM | PERMALINK

These guys have no shame.
If we made a docudrama about Bush's two terms, we wouldn't have to make up a single thing in order to make Bush look like a total moron.
America's Least Wanted

Posted by: budpaul on September 8, 2006 at 10:54 PM | PERMALINK
Kevin: The plan was to remove Saddam from power, claim victory, and get out.
Don't leave out the other important goal: Install Chalabi as an American friendly president. They never talked of democracy until Sistani demanded it and they were struck with the realization that he was a crucial power broker. Posted by: Mike on September 8, 2006 at 11:02 PM | PERMALINK

Man, how many years before the obvious is just stated as fact instead of a partisan opinion?

Posted by: steve ex-expat on September 8, 2006 at 11:04 PM | PERMALINK

It could also be that the Bush Administration had planned it as a corporate occupation rather than a military one from the get-go.

Military invasion. Corporate occupation. The public ever even has to know the administration plans to drain the treasury into reconstruction projects and privately owned security forces.

Call me Lefty, but it seems to me what Rumsfeld was saying back then (i.e. before the war) is that the people must not know that the Bush administration is planning to stay in Iraq for decades because if they do, they won't support the war.

Posted by: finnucane on September 8, 2006 at 11:06 PM | PERMALINK

I completely agree with Castillo above but I would like to paraphase it into one word: OIL! I continue to believe that if Iraq's cash crop was broccoli Bush would not go into Iraq even if Hussein threatened to kill his father, brother, childern and mother. He is one f*'d up dude.

Posted by: worldserious on September 8, 2006 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

Folks it is pretty obvious that there were (are) no responsible adults in positions of power and authority in the Bush administration. Only a complete idiot wouldn't at least do contingency planning.

Next topic. This is just too sad and too obvious for much further consideration. Not even the trolls are seriously defending the administration in this thread.

Posted by: Ron Byers on September 8, 2006 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

Man, how many years before the obvious is just stated as fact instead of a partisan opinion?

Based on the current blossoming of epiphanies we're seeing on the Right -- I'm guessing about 6.5 Friedmans.

(Of course this figure is heavily influenced by such factors as the number of orange alerts prior to but not after a presidential election, as well as the number of people shot by Dick Cheney in the face per two Friedmans).

Posted by: Windhorse on September 8, 2006 at 11:09 PM | PERMALINK

The bulk of the evidence continues to suggest that democracy and rebuilding were simply not on Bush's radar.

That doesn't mean that staying forever wasn't on their radar, does it?

The bulk of the evidence suggests that they wanted to create plausible deniability for when the shit hit the fan. It was more important to have no incriminating plan that belied their prewar cost estimates than it was to succeed at occupation.

Posted by: Boronx on September 8, 2006 at 11:11 PM | PERMALINK

In the next installment, Kevin Drum will somehow try to weave the "permanent Halliburton bases" meme into this post. It only seems contradictory, but he'll make it work.

== Headline Generator ==

Posted by: TLB on September 8, 2006 at 11:11 PM | PERMALINK

Ahhh ... 18 pages and our first troll shows up at last.

I'd ask "what too you so long," but it's pretty painfully apparent.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 8, 2006 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINK

They thought they could sell it to external companies who could rule it as feudal fiefdoms, it was to be a victory of globalized corporate feudalism, but, I'm sure the oil companies who put them up to it knew it wouldn't work. They simply wanted chaos.

Posted by: cld on September 8, 2006 at 11:26 PM | PERMALINK

why would any sane intelligent person ever give the notion of bush having the slightest interest in bringing democracy to Iraq as part of the reason for invsaion a second's consideration. Such a notion is just plain stupid.
.

Posted by: pluege on September 8, 2006 at 11:27 PM | PERMALINK

"And this also means that all of Bush's talk about democracy was nothing but hot air. If you're serious about planting democracy after a war, you don't plan to simply topple a government and then leave."

The whole concept of doing this for democracy was itself a post hoc concoction as it started to become obvious that Iraq had no WMD and the connections to al Qaeda were debunked. Democracy was the fallback justification.
And just so we don't get too careless when throwing around terms like democracy, the Bush administration and the neocons haven't the slightest interest even in promoting democracy in the United States, let alone the Middle East or the rest of the world. They took office in a subversion of democracy and have governed with nothing but contempt for the democratic system of checks and balances and for civil rights ever since. The neocons and the religious right, which are what's left of Bush's base, would LOVE to see democracy end in America and replaced by a plutocratic theocracy. The idea that they were ever interested in establishing anything but a puppet state in Iraq is ridiculous.

Posted by: secularhuman on September 8, 2006 at 11:34 PM | PERMALINK

They were not such fools as to think they'd wham-bam-thank-you-maam their way in and out of Iraq. The reason they couldn't allow the Pentagon to plan for an extended occupation because it would have completely undercut their PR campaign to sell the invasion of Iraq to Joe Public.

It's the same reason an ad for a printer doesn't tell you the cartridges are $30.

Posted by: olds88 on September 8, 2006 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINK

Rumsfeld's speeches to Iraqis and Americans for April and May of 2003 are on this site.

I haven't found any yet that implied that the U.S. wasn't going to be there as long as it took, and building a new democratic government is mentioned in almost all of them. Just pointing it out.

Posted by: justin on September 8, 2006 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINK

...is that Rumsfeld and Bush were planning to stay but simply lied about it in order to build support for the war. ....

Obviously, that was an important consideration for them. Look at all the other lies, intended to do nothing other than build support for the war.

Of course democracy promotion and reconstruction weren't on the radar. The only things that were on the radar were war-profiteering, and manipulating oil prices.

I've been saying this for 3 years. I still have to say "fucking DUH!"

Why are you all so fucking dense?

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on September 8, 2006 at 11:47 PM | PERMALINK

I also noticed that the Shinseki Myth is still floating around. What does it take to kill these memes?

Posted by: justin on September 8, 2006 at 11:50 PM | PERMALINK

"Plan of Attach"

I have to say that's the most felicitous typo I've seen in msny a day.

Posted by: pbg on September 8, 2006 at 11:51 PM | PERMALINK

Yoo hoo, trolls? Anyone out there? Still waiting for your talking points? Getting ready for the swift-boating of Gen. Scheid?
Verrrry disappointing....
Trolls. Never around when you need one.

Posted by: secularhuman on September 8, 2006 at 11:51 PM | PERMALINK

"many".
oy.

Posted by: pbg on September 8, 2006 at 11:52 PM | PERMALINK

Whichever way you cut it, these guys have recklessly endangered the members of our armed forces, all US citizens, and the Iraqi populace.

Whether they really believed they could just turn around and march the army back out, or they knew they were staying for years, either way, any which way, they did not plan the exit or have contingency plans post the inevitable fall of Saddam. This is incredible. They tossed away the State Department's book, also. After the looting, Bremer further destabilized the country by dismissing all Ba'athists and the Iraqi army.

They lied to this country at every level. They have maimed, killed and psychologically damaged innumerable people not for anything that they understood themselves to be fighting for or against, but on the whim of small men with small minds.

They are undoubtedly criminals.

One additional thought: If I had been P.M. Blair, I would have asked how my troops were going to be used and what the plan was for post fall of Saddam. What did they tell him and his advisors? "Don't worry, we've got that covered."

Posted by: notthere on September 9, 2006 at 12:00 AM | PERMALINK

...then for some reason they got cold feet about Chalabi,...

Because they suddenly realized that the embezzler, money launderer, counterfieter, accessory to murder, was also an Iranian spy who successfully conned the worlds greatest superpower into handing over one of the most oil-rich nations in the world to Iran?

Grand Square in Baghdad named after George Bush?
Screw that noise. How about a Grand Square in downtown Tehran named after Ahmed Chalabi?

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on September 9, 2006 at 12:04 AM | PERMALINK

Ha ha, this is absolutely priceless...

In 2001, Scheid was a colonel with the Central Command, the unit that oversees U.S. military operations in the Mideast.

On Sept. 10, 2001, he was selected to be the chief of logistics war plans.

On Sept. 11, 2001, he said, "life just went to hell."

That day, Gen. Tommy Franks, the commander of Central Command, told his planners, including Scheid, to "get ready to go to war."

A day or two later, Rumsfeld was "telling us we were going to war in Afghanistan and to start building the war plan. We were going to go fast.

"Then, just as we were barely into Afghanistan ... Rumsfeld came and told us to get ready for Iraq."

Jesus F Christ, let's all not connect the dots at once.

Posted by: McMonty on September 9, 2006 at 12:09 AM | PERMALINK

"It only seems contradictory, but he'll make it work."

Actually, it doesn't even seem contradictory, nor is it. The two concepts are not even remotely mutually exclusive, nor are they even necessarily related.

Posted by: PaulB on September 9, 2006 at 12:09 AM | PERMALINK

Of course Rumsfeld had to very cleverly use Psy Ops tactics, because of the traitorous liberals (like the Brigadier General) in our midst, who will stop at nothing to ensure the terrorists win, so as to embarrass Bush, whom the liberals hate with an irrational burning rage that drives them lie awake all night obsessively mumbling about Plame, Ken Lay, Halliburton, and "the next Watergate".

Rumsfeld succeeded in quelling the unamerican whiny shrill liberal concerns, so that, at least during the run up to the war, the Liberal Media was so confused and disorganized, they couldn't mount an effective propaganda campaign to stop George Bush from saving America from the terrorist threat, and the evil infestation of liberals in her midst.

History will look back on these times as Americas darkest moments, and how George W Bush not only defeated the terrorists, but almost single-handedly won the Second Great American Civil War by bamboozling the godless liberals so they couldn't tie his hands and keep him from winning the War On Terror.

History will also look at 9/11 as a masterful PsyOp against American Liberals - to protect them from their own mamby-pamby whining, and desire to cut defense spending and tax cuts until America becomes weaker than Sweden! George Bush's plan to set demolition charges in the twin towers was pure genius, and History will remember how George W Bush united this great nation to help defeat the twin threats of Islamofascists, and Librafascists.

Also, in the annals of homosexual romance, George W Bush's BDSM love affair with Muhammad Awad bin Laden will be listed among the greatest conquests in history, as bin Laden's skill with the cat'o'nine-tails seduced George W Bush, and his lust for a proper thrashing, and commanded him to bring Bush's nation under control of the greatest slave master of all time, for the good of all Americans.

Posted by: (fake) Jay on September 9, 2006 at 12:16 AM | PERMALINK

They did not have a plan to immediately neutralize the supposed WMD's. Not "bad intelligence", they knew there were no WMD's. Imagine readying to invade a country based on alleged WMD's that could be unleashed on your invading forces, and no plan to immediately disarm them. Uh-huh.


They did have a plan to secure the oilfields asap (Camp Shell, Camp Exxon, etc), though.

McMonty, I hear ya. Planned invasion as soon as "The New Pearl Harbor" operation was implemented.

Posted by: farang on September 9, 2006 at 12:20 AM | PERMALINK

Several months ago, when there was a debate about whether there was bad planning, or no planning at all, I read the after action report of the Third Infantry Division. It quite clearly stated that there was no Phase 4 plan. At the time it was mind boggling, now it seems just SNAFU. We are being ruled by madmen.

Posted by: Jesse Levine on September 9, 2006 at 12:22 AM | PERMALINK

"Plan of Attach"

Are you sure you don't mean "Planne of Attach"?

Posted by: B on September 9, 2006 at 12:24 AM | PERMALINK

The Boskin Comission says that all economists everywhere, including those contacted beyond the grave via seance, agree that the 9/11 comission overstates the non-connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda by 1% or more.

Plus, the definition of WMD doesn't include cap pistols, and rubber bands, so therefore, to say "Saddam had no WMD" under this definition clearly misses the point that he was a grave and immediate threat to US security, and kittens everywhere!

Posted by: (fake) GOP on September 9, 2006 at 12:24 AM | PERMALINK

Very incomplete analysis here. The US was always planning on staying --- otherwise, why didn't they simply leave after toppling Saddam, as the first commenter asked?

What they didn't plan on was having to keep >100,000 troops there. They thought they'd go in, take out Saddam, establish bases and a permanent presence there, and move on to the next conquest. It's this part of the plan that hasn't worked out the way they thought it would.

Posted by: Jason C. on September 9, 2006 at 12:52 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, you are correct that Bush did not intend to establish a democracy in Iraq, but you have the details a little wrong.

Iraq was supposed to go like a banana republic coup, where the troops roll into the capital and replace El Presidente with New El Presidente, and that's that.

What was SUPPOSED to happen is that after bumping off Saddam, we would install Ahmed Chalabi as the new guy in charge, and then we could do whatever we wanted with the country.

Sadly, it turned out that Chalabi was not the exiled leader of a massive public movement, as he claimed, and Ayatollah Sistani demanded popular elections. Bush caved in, and that's how the rationale of the invasion became "democracy promotion." It was never part of the plan in the first place.

Superceding all that, the security situation has reached a point where the country is not governable by anyone, so it hardly matters anymore who the "government" is and how they got there.

A Phase IV plan if there had been one --might-- have helped sustain secure conditions, but you can't like the chances, given the totally inadequate number of troops sent in. Gen. Batiste (recently commanded the 1st ID in Iraq) has said at least 340,000 coalition troops, PLUS the Iraqi security forces relatively intact, would have been required to secure the county. (Probably more would be required now, if there was any interest in winning the war by escalation.)

But the total and deliberate failure to plan for Phase IV at all is an almost inconceivable blunder by Rumsfeld.

Posted by: grytpype on September 9, 2006 at 12:53 AM | PERMALINK

They did not have a plan to immediately neutralize the supposed WMD's.
-farang

The White House knew perfectly well Iraq had no WMDs, a suspicion confirmed the day Bush ordered troops to invade. It has never been US policy to attack a country with WMDs (ie North Korea, or the USSR during the cold war). If Hussein actually had a chemical or nuclear weapon, why wouldn't he use it against an invading army?? What was he doing, saving em for when he really needed them?

The WMD issue was never more than rhetoric. The day Colin Powell stood up and brandished fake vials of anthrax on the floor of the UN marked the end of his political career. (a fact he now acknowledges...a day late and dollar short. fuck him) It was always a joke, and the White House knew it was a joke.

Its not as if a decade of weapons inspectors were picking their noses and ignoring the highway to Syria. Mobile weapons labs? Right. Yeah. Sure. Because all the satellites tasked on Iraq were looking down blouses, they missed those huge trucks and the tanks and the centrifuges and blah de blah...

Posted by: McMonty on September 9, 2006 at 12:55 AM | PERMALINK

Permanent.Military.Bases.

Iraqi.Oil.Fields.

These clowns were planning on staying all along. They just didn't want to let on that they were planning on staying.

Posted by: Pocket Rocket on September 9, 2006 at 12:56 AM | PERMALINK

Permanent.Military.Bases.

Iraqi.Oil.Fields.

No matter how obvious it is, this simply isn't allowed to be discussed in 'respectable' discourse. What passes for the 'left' in the blogosphere --- i.e., Kevin Drum, Kos, etc. --- won't acknowledge it no matter what.

Posted by: Jason C. on September 9, 2006 at 1:06 AM | PERMALINK

Phase 4 was not planned because Rumsfeld and the Bush regime wanted to create the perfect totalitarian society of continuous terror.

Posted by: Hostile on September 9, 2006 at 1:11 AM | PERMALINK

I've long suspected that the whole plan was simply to place military staging points ( bases ) in Iraq : fallout was irrelevant. At the end of the day, U.S. military would be available for whatever forays were thought handy. Gravy from oil revenues, federal contracts and sundry scams would make money flow to whoever could co-opt control of the country.

Posted by: opit on September 9, 2006 at 1:18 AM | PERMALINK

"Yoo hoo, trolls? Anyone out there?"

Sure. Guess what: You're not getting the Congress back in November, and from the looks of things here, most of you aren't going to have any sanity left by January of 2009.

How's that? Have fun with your rantings. Ciao.

Posted by: troll on September 9, 2006 at 1:37 AM | PERMALINK

Of course they were planning on staying: why else build 14 permanent bases? Not only were they planning on staying, but they were planning to use those bases as forward bases for invasions of Iran and Syria.

Posted by: Brian Boru on September 9, 2006 at 1:42 AM | PERMALINK

The polarization that exists now has fixed such a cynical perspective of things that no one seems to believe anything beyond the limits of their own allegiances. Couldn't Rumsfeld have truly felt the war would've been over quickly and that democracy would've sprung up from the ashes, the way it's gonna do in Iraq?

Posted by: anna lourdes on September 9, 2006 at 1:56 AM | PERMALINK

It belongs on the front page of the New York Times, not the Hampton Roads Daily Press.

You mean "not only the Hampton Roads Daily Press", of course.

Posted by: Nell on September 9, 2006 at 2:00 AM | PERMALINK

The plan was to remove Saddam from power, claim victory, and get out.

I remember hearing some right-wing kook on the radio back in, oh, late '03 or so bemoaning the fact that we were engaging in nation building, and that we should have simply gone in, removed Saddam, and gotten out. I recall at the time vehemently disagreeing with his idiocy.

Know what? I'm increasingly thinking he was correct.

Thing is, Jihadist terrorism probably isn't an existential threat to western civilization or to America itself. Bombings and highjackings, while very scary, simply aren't going to destroy us, or even cause us particularly severe harm (yes, 911 was terrible, but a big score like that is likely a very rare occurance given the heightened security posture of western intelligence forces in the post-911 era).

I repeat, jihadist terrorism is not an existential threat, unless the jihadis acquire nuclear weapons.

Keeping these uniquely dangerous weapons out of the hands of those who seek our destruction should be the loadstone of American national security policy.

Although the administration erred badly on the question of Iraq's nuclear program, given the transformative power of nuclear weapons, one can understand the strategy of erring on the side of "caution" with respect to the Hussein regime.

But I'm increasingly thinking: once Saddam was overthrown, and we were able to verify that Iraq posed no WMD threat, we should have gotten the hell out. What do we care whether or not the Iraqis are able to build a democracy? It seems wildly fanciful, to say the least, that they can build western-style democracy any time this century. And even if they don't, who cares? One more nasty regime doesn't matter in the big picture, as long as said nasty regime can't give Osama Bin Laden a nuclear weapon (I hate to sound like a broken record, but again, it will take a lot more than the odd bombing of a subway station or an embassy to bring the USA to its knees).

I also hate to be so cynical, by the way, but one simply can't be anything but cynical these days. I think morally we're obliged to at least give financial support to the Iraqis, as we've helped plunged them into anarchy, but we can't force them to democratize at the barrel of a gun. It just won't work. And again (for the umpteenth time) the state of Iraqi governance is largely irrelevant to American national security interests in any event. It's the state of the Iraqi arsenal that's relevant, and we've long since been able to verify their nuclear cupboard is bare.

I think from the standpoint of pure national interest, goinng into Iraq was likely justified given the fact that Saddam was trying to make the world think he possessed nuclear weapons, and given the fact that nuclear weapons really could give the terrorist the power to cause us horrific harm -- harm of an existential nature (at least "existential" in the sense of the continued existence of our way of life).

So, as much as I've grown to detest the man, I'm thinking perhaps we should have followed Rummy's advice: go in, kick some butt, get a good look at Saddam's laboratories, and get the hell out.

Such an M.O. may be necessary on a fairly regular basis from time to time. We are an empire, after all, and sometimes empires must make incursions in force into barbarian areas that are causing security issues. But smart empires leave it at that, and harbor no illusions about civilizing the natives. I could live with the occassional butt-kicking doled out by US forces in the particulary anarchic corners of the globe, especially if we keep casualties low, use overwhelming force, and immediately get out. But we don't need to occupy territory. We just need to strike the more blatant offenders of the Pax Americana every once in a while, to keep them off balance, to neutralize particularly thuggish anti-American enemies, to make sure they're not about to build H-bombs, and to make the whole world aware there's a high price to be paid for taking a shot at the empire. Come to think of it, everything about Iraq applies to Afganistan, too. It's time to get out. We can always come back in four or five year with small but highly lethal forces and overwhelming technology and air power, should the Afghan government be overthrown or find its control of the country's territory has slipped to unaccetably low levels.

Finally, one advantage to such a strategy, in addition to saving us money, is that it takes advantage of our strengths, while minimizing our glaring weaknesses (American impatience with long slow fights, casualty reluctance, etc.). Bottom line: we simply don't have the constitution or fortitude for endless wars of occupation. It's not in our national character. But since long wars of occupation are not necessary for us to win, this is not a problem.

And no, I wouldn't want this pattern to go on ad infinitum. It sounds like a mighty dark world to leave to our children. So we have to strive for an end game. That end game is the successful use of soft western power over many many years to foster western values throughout the world, so as to eventually make violence on our part unnecessary.

Posted by: Hate to be so cynical on September 9, 2006 at 2:20 AM | PERMALINK

So: the lack of postwar planning wasn't merely the result of incompetence. It was deliberate policy.

But you see that's what many of your "stupid" readers have been saying all along. You know, those of us who cannot stand studying the details and nitty-gritty politics all day long and come here and to other blogs for summaries. Instead, we'd rather go off and read pie in the sky fictional mysteries and detective who-done-its.

And that's where we find so many detectives saying: Criminals and murderers are mostly stupid people. And so we turn around and say: Bush isn't entirely incompetent. As Josephine Tey would say for example, the criminal mind is expert at getting from A to B but they never anticipate that if one goes from A to B, C and D will necessarily follow. We discover the C and D and we say, "Aren't these criminals stupid!"

Arthur Upfield also says, most murderers are stupid.

But getting back to reality. John Dean and Al Gore are currently the best at stating the enigma: Cheney is suave and clever and very intellegent (and I bet he can spell better'n me too), but his impulsiveness has lead him to make an incredibly long series of horrible decisions.

Or consider what Al Gore said about Bush, that he's not dumb, he's a politically charismatic and has his form of genius. But Gore says he's never met a man who is so incurious as Bush is-- for instance about scientific issues.

I think the mistake for some people (some bloggers might say....) is that we try to pigeon hole Cheney/ Rumsfeld / Bush as being dumb or incompetent in a normal sort of way. And I wonder if we don't do this because it's so necessary to go into denial; the idea that there are at least three criminal minds in positions of highest power in this country is really an unbearable thought to consider for too many minutes. OUR minds don't work that way.

But that's what we have to admit to ourselves and hold in our minds that they are: ciminal minds that act in very clever ways in getting themselves into messes, and very inventive ways in trying to cover their butts. And in their criminal cleverness or inventiveness, they leave astoundingly and blatantly obvious clues that lead right to their crimes that point to their guilt. But again, our minds don't work that way, and so it becomes difficult to sustain understanding for very long of minds that DO operate that way.

It isn't their stupidity that's stopping us from getting beyond this and doing what needs to be done. Rather it's our "stupidity" or really our continually assumption or instinct that we must go into denial, ... which is followed again by rediscovering the fact of their criminal minds and behavior everytime something new comes to light.

To be fair, Mr. Drum does write, In a way, this is old news. As much as it beggars the imagination, there's been plenty of evidence all along that Bush never took the idea of rebuilding Iraq seriously. The plan was to remove Saddam from power, claim victory, and get out. In other words there was plenty of evidence even before the invasion of Iraq that this administration was purposefully NOT planning for C and D that would result from an invasion.

What sort of stupidity is it in us that we keep slipping back into the denial syndrom that blinds us to the fact that these are criminal minds? It may be a very special sort of self-protective denial that instinctively keeps us from going insane. But we really need to stop doing it.

They are criminal minds; They will never change. Which leads us to a second motivation for our denial: not only do we not want to permanently acknowledge to our selves that they are sick minds, we furthermore don't want to begin down the path of taking care of these criminal minds the same as we would ANY OTHER criminal mind or group of criminal minds. In the end we will have to arrest, and try each of them same as anyone else who has committed criminal acts either individually or as a crime family--even though that will take work that we will have to perform for the rest of our lives. We will always have to take care of them, and we don't want to have to do that.

And that's not saying anything about taking care of the other terrorists and bullies in the world.
Those whom the WareOnTerror was supposed to be about.

But if we don't begin to take care of this situation, they will continue to murder, destroy and steal.

Posted by: miro on September 9, 2006 at 2:24 AM | PERMALINK

There is one missing piece to this puzzle.

If the original Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/neo-con-nut plan was to invade Iraq, depose Saddam Hussein and then pull out (at least from the cities, we all know they weren't going to so easily give up control of Iraq's oil resources), then what could have possibly altered this plan?

I know. The WMD that Hussein presumably had wasn't found immediately. In fact, none of the huge quantities of WMD that the Bush administration hyped as a direct threat to the United States before the war has been found.

I remember reading Judith Miller's NYT articles in late March, early April 2003, from her embedded reporter position with a military unit inside Iraq that was tasked with finding Hussein's WMD. They were scurrying all over the place...and finding nothing.

Then there were the two Iraqi Survey Groups that were tasked with finding Hussein's missing WMD by the Bush administration. Their fruitless search lasted for almost two years, following the invasion.

Therefore, during this period of time during which no Iraqi WMD was found, if the Bush administration was going to continue their fruitless search, then they had to come up with some post-Hussein Iraq government plan.

In other words, maybe the Bushites had a plan to invade Iraq, depose Hussein, then get out...but only after discovering the WMD they said would be found, which they used to hype starting war with Iraq in the first place. But the search for WMD drug on and on and on, so their initial plan called for a "change in course."

Thus, they started their talking points about spreading democracy and establishing a democracy in post-Hussein Iraq...commendable policies which have been just as successful as their search for WMD in Iraq. Oh, wait, I meant to say FAILURES.

Posted by: The Oracle on September 9, 2006 at 3:04 AM | PERMALINK

I guess Saddam neglected the reach around when him and Rumsfailed were butt buddies. And that's why the incompetent bastard wanted to get him.

Posted by: al on September 9, 2006 at 3:10 AM | PERMALINK

Rumsfeld and Bush deliberately, not stupidly, prevented Phase 4 planning and operations because they wanted Iraq to degenerate into a continuous state of terror. It is the new society being planned by our leaders.

Iraq was likely justified given the fact that Saddam was trying to make the world think he possessed nuclear weapons

The invasion was wrong. No justification can be made to support the lies Bush and Rumsfeld told about the reasons for invasion at that particular time. Iraq posed no threat. Today, Iran poses no threat.

Posted by: Hostile on September 9, 2006 at 3:11 AM | PERMALINK

It belongs on the front page of the New York Times, not the Hampton Roads Daily Press.

It sure does.

When I hear about Tommy Franks and his vaunted war plans, I wonder why we never hear about the man who actually led our forces--LTG McKiernan--and the fact that they had these plans sitting around for years.

Jason, my opinion is that when we can bring 100 times more fire power to any given battle, we are going to win and win big. I think it would have been a rout no matter who was in charge.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on September 9, 2006 at 3:25 AM | PERMALINK

Ahem. Of course all the talk about democratic Iraq is and was a crock!!!! That's not news. They only wanted a quick invasion to depose Saddam. They had to create the WMD scare in order to make deposing the leader of a sovereign country legit. The big, big blunder was to think that Americans would be welcomed with flowers and candy. I guess they thought the jubilation of being rid of Saddam would just magically produce a government of Sunni and Shia forever grateful to the US (and therein lies the oil angle, hedged a bit by providing Chalabi as the new Prez). The last couple of days have just been amazing as the US media catches up slowly to all this stuff for the very first time. Only three and a half years late. Idiots or accomplices?

Posted by: nepeta on September 9, 2006 at 3:42 AM | PERMALINK

Bunkysdad-

I love that explaination. It's moronic, which makes it great.

More prosiac is the fact that the first choices for leading Iraq and Afghanistan have to speak English. Leaders of other countries can get by just fine without knowing English, but it plays poorly on US television. Having Chalabi on the Sunday morning talk shows made made a huge difference to his early prospects.

Posted by: Saam Barrager on September 9, 2006 at 4:16 AM | PERMALINK

It was noted above that "we have to strive for an end game. That end game is the successful use of soft western power over many many years to foster western values throughout the world, so as to eventually make violence on our part unnecessary."

In think this is a reasonable point, but it seems too late. An intelligent, consistent, and effective use of soft power would have been the best counter-terror weapon wed have had after 9/11, as it would have isolated the violent radicals and strengthened moderates in Islamic societies. But the Bush administration's actions have exhausted much of the prestige and soft power the United States had built up at the time he came into office.

Posted by: Largo on September 9, 2006 at 4:21 AM | PERMALINK

Hey , Don't count me out. Ahmadinejad says I get to be the PM in the new Shiite dominated Islamic Republic of Iraq. Do you think using the 'Sultan of Baghdad' on my personal letterhead would be to gauche?

Posted by: The George Washington of Iraq on September 9, 2006 at 4:38 AM | PERMALINK

Surely there's someone around to tell us this is Clinton's fault.

Posted by: Kenji on September 9, 2006 at 5:07 AM | PERMALINK

This makes a lot of sense to me. I've heard all the talk about there being "no plan" for the occupation for some time, and as a former logistics troop myself, I knew that wasn't true. My thought was along the lines of, its a damn shame that the American public can't be told the truth - that the strategic situation is going to require us to be there for many years.

It seems that the lesson some have learned from Vietnam is that more care must be taken to manipulate public sentiment while pursuing strategic objectives. Well, I think the lesson from Iraq will be that the American public will simply not support a long war for any reason.

Don't get me wrong. I do think the strategic objective of this war is sound. But the tactics used so far have been incompatible with the need to keep the American public from losing its will to complete the mission. I may be wrong. It is possible that the public, though disheartened, will see this through. But I suspect that they will not.

If we were to do it over, we would operate far differently. We would go in with five or six times as many troops and, recognizing the need for a quick resolution, we would be far more brutal. Falujah, Ramadi and much of Baghdad would be destroyed. Vehicle traffic from Syria eliminated. Insurgents and suspected insurgents rounded up and detained for the duration. The public completely disarmed and weapons violations punished swiftly and harshly. If war is necessary, then we must be willing to win it overwhelmingly and conclusively, or not fight it at all. The American public will not accept any less. In other words, if we are not willing to be brutal, we are not willing to fight.

I imagine that the discussions in professional military circles will be about how to better manage public opinion in the future. Well, its not that complicated. We must manage the public the same way we manage the military. When the mission is clear, morale is not a problem.

Posted by: Randy on September 9, 2006 at 5:28 AM | PERMALINK

I wish I could find a link to it, but I can remember a moment before the war started when Rumsfeld, George, and the military planners were all sitting around a table after they had invited reporters in to the room. George had the gumption to ask, "How long will this take?" Rumsfeld very quickly jumped in and said, "Don't answer that!"

I think this moment speaks volumes about the relationship between the president and the secdef.

Posted by: Doodleflicker on September 9, 2006 at 6:07 AM | PERMALINK

Well done!
[url=http://hnflwhuw.com/sdqg/bfcp.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://hcetsoca.com/njjz/qaze.html]Cool site[/url]

Posted by: Jean on September 9, 2006 at 6:13 AM | PERMALINK

Nice site!
My homepage | Please visit

Posted by: Sally on September 9, 2006 at 6:14 AM | PERMALINK

Thank you!
http://hnflwhuw.com/sdqg/bfcp.html | http://wceodggz.com/sjlp/ncxc.html

Posted by: Patty on September 9, 2006 at 6:15 AM | PERMALINK

I was wrong

Posted by: Jay on September 9, 2006 at 6:27 AM | PERMALINK

According to Gen. Jay Garner,there was planning for the post-war period. In the Oct,2005,Setion 2207 report of the SIGIR,Garner is quoted as saying that he was tapped to administer Iraq post-war and he was informed of this in late Jan.2003. As Garner say,"We were charged with planning for a March event in February."
www.SIGIR.gov

The SIGIR opens that section of the report noting that post war planning in WWII,including plans for the occupation of Japan and Germany,began in early 1942. But that was an old-style war whereas this was a 21st century war done cowboy style.
That SIGIR report also discussed the staffing issues in the CPA administration and how the internecine strife in the Cabinet led to half the billets going unfilled.Those that were filled had young,inexperienced party workers.
At least Rumsfeld picked somebody to do post-war planning. He did minimize the odds of success,however.

Posted by: TJM on September 9, 2006 at 7:03 AM | PERMALINK

The deterioration in Afghanistan, following the American drawdown, looks to be another Donald Rumsfeld screwup.

Posted by: bob h on September 9, 2006 at 7:13 AM | PERMALINK

"This is an astounding interview, all the more so for the apparently resigned tone that Scheid brings to it. It belongs on the front page of the New York Times, not the Hampton Roads Daily Press."

EXACTLY : SO WHY DO THE DEMOCRATS SEEM TO HAVE SUCH A DIFFICULT TIME CRAFTING AN EASY TO INGEST AND DIGEST NARRATIVE THAT DEFINES JUST HOW BAD THIS ADMINISTRATION IS?

Who doesn't believe that if Osama were caught tomorrow that Bush's approval rating would jump over 50 percent? It's absurd - he should be below 10 for christ sake! Is it because americans are stupid? The political process is broken? Or because the democrats have and are failing as the voice of the offical opposition?

these are the intersting questions that need answering.

Posted by: I am Gus on September 9, 2006 at 8:01 AM | PERMALINK

IT'S ALL OLD NEWS!!! And, our media continues to SPIN themselves silly making excuses for this administration's evil manipulation of information in order to continue with what had become their desire and plan. AND, unless these drums get beat and beat right up until November's election, FAKUMENTARIES like the one planned for tomorrow will continue to inform the braindead kool-aid drinkers who even today (on WJ) call in and defend these sorry excuses for human beings and political leaders!

Posted by: Dancer on September 9, 2006 at 8:06 AM | PERMALINK

However, this is the clearest evidence I've seen yet.

Of course, but evidence doesn't matter to the Bush Cultists.

Instead, I hope General Scheid is prepared for the character assassinations sure to come from these so-called patriots.

Posted by: Gregory on September 9, 2006 at 8:09 AM | PERMALINK

So Randy, what it the "clear mission"? Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out?

Even if they didn't attack us? Even if they weren't even friends with the people who attacked us?

Are you arguing that "morale" of the American public (something so nebulous as to be meaningless, IMO) would be "high" if Bush had said that we're going to kill hundreds of thousands of people who have nothing to do with the people who attacked us?

I don't think that this is plausible.

Wouldn't Bush have had to sell the invasion on _something_? Years later, we're still trying to figure out why we invaded, what was the thinking at the top. What was the something that justified all of this?

Posted by: Heil Bush on September 9, 2006 at 8:22 AM | PERMALINK

I've tried real hard for years to figure out the post-victory plan and I've come to the conclusion that there really and truly wasn't one.

I speculate that this omission was due to a cabinet-level failure to define post-invasion goals and, while the bureaucrats all recognized the need for a plan, no agency leader really wanted responsiblity for implementation.

The president's inadequacy, of course allowed this to happen--specifically, his child-like inability to see beyond the triumphal photo-ops and celebrations of liberation a la Paris '44 (I'll bet his daydreams included church bells ringing in Baghdad.)


Posted by: BroD on September 9, 2006 at 8:27 AM | PERMALINK

A friend of mine who works for US Customs was sent to Irag very early in the war in order to help set up a Customs Department for the port of Basra.

This is just another little piece of evidence that supports the idea that the planning was for a quick war and for Iraq to quickly become similar to a western democracy.

Posted by: Neil Wilson on September 9, 2006 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin: Needless to say, he wouldn't have done this unless it reflected the wishes of the president.

You mean Cheney or Bush?

Posted by: tomeck on September 9, 2006 at 9:09 AM | PERMALINK

anna lourdes wrote: "Couldn't Rumsfeld have truly felt the war would've been over quickly and that democracy would've sprung up from the ashes"

Sure, and there is circumstantial evidence that this is, in fact, what he believed. But why does that matter? You always plan for contingencies and plan for the worst, particularly in military operations such as this. And if your military experts are trying to do just such planning, you damn well let them. To do otherwise is criminal incompetence.

"the way it's gonna do in Iraq?"

???

Posted by: PaulB on September 9, 2006 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

Carl's entry (early in thread): I wonder if the MSM has these reactions to a story like this.

1) Well, someone else already wrote about it.
2) We believe everyone knows this anyway so why
report it and get beat up by the White House and
Republicans.

Carl: could not have expressed it better myself, although I suspect you were inspired by reading the Washington Post's Daily Politics chats. These two are ALWAYS the correspondents' responses. (And I say this as someone who really likes the WPost!) I think many Post writers are afraid of losing what little access they have to senior administration figures.

Deterioration of MSM is frustrating (assume it's due to corporate parents and "objective" editors, not individual writers) but thank goodness for internet access to blogs with a variety of news and opinions.


Posted by: dog's eye view on September 9, 2006 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK

No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy. Field Marshall Helmuth Carl Bernard von Moltke.

BushCo had no plan, and that has certainly survived contact with the enemy -- they still have no contact.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on September 9, 2006 at 9:53 AM | PERMALINK

...oops. Above should read:

...still have no plan".

Must go find coffe.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on September 9, 2006 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

>>>

.

"I didn't advocate invasion, I wasn't asked." - Donald Rumsfeld 11/20/05


Posted by: thisspaceavailable on September 9, 2006 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINK

randy: When the mission is clear, morale is not a problem.

"Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament." - G.W. Bush 3/6/03

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on September 9, 2006 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK


Not all the generals are against Donald Rumsfeld. He still has the support of a lot of generals: General Electric, General Dynamics, General Motors.

Posted by: jay leno on September 9, 2006 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

Heil Bush,

Re; "...what it the "clear mission"? Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out?"

What I'm saying is that for us to get involved in a war, its going to have to be that clear, yes. Of course, by the "clear mission" doctrine, there is hardly a war that we would have fought. It would have justified a strike against Japan (but not Germany), a strike against Al Queda (but not an occupation of Afghanistan), and possibly the conquest of the Indian Territories (in which we were more than willing to wage total war). It might also allow some precise missions such as driving Saddam out of Kuwait or driving Hitler out of France - though both were questionable as many Americans didn't give a damn about the French or Kuwaitis. It would have ruled out Iraq, Vietnam, the Cold War, World War I, the Mexican War, The Civil War, the War of 1812, and the American Revolution, in none of which we were willing to wage total war and in which the objectives were questioned by a significant percentage of Americans.

Where would we be if the above had been the case? Quite possibly right where we are - though the rest of the world would look quite different.

Posted by: Randy on September 9, 2006 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

Thisspace,

It isn't about the mission being clear in the mind of the National Command Authorities. Its about the mission being clear in the minds of the American people.

Posted by: Randy on September 9, 2006 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

If it weren't so sad, I'd find it hilarious that the same brain trust that came up with the "one percent doctrine" also believes that anything they decide is unlikely is, by definition, not worth planning for (levee breaches, non-optimal Iraqi reaction to war, etc).

Posted by: Viserys on September 9, 2006 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

I thought for sur Al or one of the other trolls would show up to call the general a liar by now.

Posted by: klyde on September 9, 2006 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

Very incomplete analysis here. The US was always planning on staying --- otherwise, why didn't they simply leave after toppling Saddam, as the first commenter asked?

Because they thought we would be welcomed as liberators and they would just have to wait around long enough for democracy to magically appear and start handing out rebuilding contracts...Rumsfailed again.

Posted by: Stephen on September 9, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

This is shameful. And yet the so-called "liberal media" will probably ignore this, because they don't want to be smeared as liberally biased by the right-wing loudmouths. It's all about what brings in the bucks.

Posted by: Clavis on September 9, 2006 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

All of which paints in large bloody letters:

Do not elect an idiot president.

Posted by: olds88 on September 9, 2006 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

A Phase IV plan if there had been one --might-- have helped sustain secure conditions, but you can't like the chances, given the totally inadequate number of troops sent in. Gen. Batiste (recently commanded the 1st ID in Iraq) has said at least 340,000 coalition troops, PLUS the Iraqi security forces relatively intact, would have been required to secure the county.

That's one of the central reasons Rumsfeld didn't want to plan for Phase IV. It would have included the requirement for all those troops.

The question remains what were they thinking would fill the gap? It seems anyone with any experience in these matters told them there will be a Phase IV whether they want it or not and therefore they must have a Phase IV plan. Even if it said, "retrieve Iraqi government ignition key from Saddam and give it to Chalabi", they should at least have a plan. It is the height of black comedy to imagine that stuffed shirt throwing a fit in Nasiriyah when he first starts hearing from on the ground Iraqis about water shortages, electrical outages, etc. Dark stuff, indeed.

Posted by: hoi polloi on September 9, 2006 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

This is the pattern of conservatives. They don't believe in government, and don't know how it works. As Paul O'Niel pointed out, they don't do policy, and apparently planning is minimized.

They also consider that something they attempt is finished when they have the final ceremony. There is no follow-up, and no need to plan for follow-up. They assume that there is a normal human urge to function in a free market. It is part libertarian and part anarchist. You do what you planned to do, declare the project finished, and leave. If anyone else needs something done, they will do it.

The invasion of Iraq was supposed to end with the fall of Baghdad, and there was to have been a surrender ceremony. Then it would be over. Thomas Ricks in Fiasco says that Tommy Franks considered the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq would be over when the capital was taken.

But the Iraqis robbed Bush of the surrender ceremony by disbanding the military and sending everyone home to bury their uniforms. The frustration this caused is probably why Bush set up his own ceremony on the aircraft carrier and declared "Mission Accomplished."

Posted by: Rick B on September 9, 2006 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

Wrong. This general has a motive. He wants to appease the American left. He wants to be liked by the media. He also wants to courtmarshal our soldiers for killing the enemy. Ask the poor marines living in the brig in Camp Pandleton.

Posted by: Al on September 9, 2006 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

Perhaps the amount of graft that Bush has participated in since he became allegedly elected president is keeping Rumsfeld in power. What I mean is that there is no way to fire Rumsfeld without a lot of Executive corruption in the Office of the President from becoming known.

Posted by: parrot on September 9, 2006 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

There can be no pre-assumption this "plan" for attack had any consideration whatsoever. It went more like "Daddy, Let me be a war president". And then "Okay, son, but I'm going to put you with the right people like I did to make you the decider in Texas, remember? Just hold on tight to Uncle Dick's hand and do everything he says. We'll keep you behind the curtain of plausible deniability as always so dont be frightened when bad things start to happen. Just lower your eyes and keep reading and it'll all be over shortly like those drug charges or when the bad men came and tried to find your military records." It'll be great financially for all our lovely friends and besides, we cant let public programs in this country turn all the "little people" into COMMUNISTS! fer christ's sake. Now you rest easy, I'm going to send Nana in with the hot water bottle and bed pan. We'll have things running smoothly in no time. Trust me!"

Posted by: lower tiberius on September 9, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Years later, we're still trying to figure out why we invaded, what was the thinking at the top. What was the something that justified all of this?

I believe the thinking was: It will be really easy to take over Iraq. That was the Mother of All Fuckups where Iraq is concerned.

In their view, here was a country with huge oil deposits and an evil dictator who might pose a threat to us someday. And it can't defend itself. So, take it over. It's a no-brainer.

And to get public support for the war, say anything. Who cares? The war is going to be an overnight smash success, only a few people are going to care it was sold on the basis of lies.

Posted by: grytpype on September 9, 2006 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

There were several forces riding on the coat-tails of each other.
1. The Israeli's wanted Saddam overthrown.
2. U.S./U.K. Big Oil wanted control of Iraq's energy resources.
3. The Neocons wanted to destabilize the entire region for both imperialistic and ideolological reasons. They were the enablers that used politics of fear to manipulate Americans to support Iraq War, i.e.:
*****Saddam was behind 9/11
*****Saddam is a threat to Israel & U.S. with WMD

It's all about POWER, MONEY, and CORRUPT VALUES. The AXIS OF GREED (U.S./UK/Israel)is the new ROMAN EMPIRE. As with Rome, declining values will be its demise.

Posted by: swamp fox on September 9, 2006 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

If Rummy told folks not to plan for staying even if he planned on staying, I'd assume it's because they could not plan for a long reconstruction and large deployment without sharing the details with anyone outside of Rummy's own scalp,which would risk exposure of said-unsaid plan...an action guaranteed to lose the support of the citizenry for apparent duplicitousness, or some other word implying actions associated with lying, and thereby lose the chance to 'neo-conify' the Middle East or according to Dave Chappelle, "Gonna that oil...ehhemm!!" Right? Yeah, I just checked, Dave Chappelle did say that.

Posted by: andrelee on September 9, 2006 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

stupid know-it-all generals. it's pointless to expect bullet-head zinni or ugly-argyle-sweater wesley clark about the horrors of war - they were probably drunk in new orleans during the nam - no wait, that was me.

Posted by: dubya on September 9, 2006 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

to know about - ah, whatever

Posted by: dubya on September 9, 2006 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

It was always implausible that the US would be able to set up a friendly post Saddam government in Iraq. Cheney knew it. Back in 1991 Sec Def Cheney said this:


http://www.slate.com/id/2072609/

If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?

Its certainly possible that they minimized the difficulties publicly in 2002/3 to launch the war, but to literally NOT PLAN FOR AFTERMATH is so unbelievableI hope I live long enough to get the real story. Personally, I think Bush thought that it was his destiny to remake the middle east and that God would somehow provide. Down the chain of command was Rumsfeld whose ego allowed him to ignore all other advice, and Cheney who was drifting off into clinical paranoia. Just my opinion. The real story has to be something pretty weird.

Posted by: sd on September 9, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

The Neo-Cons had a plan for post-war Iraq. A plan they worked out in detail and published for the world to see at the PNAC website. I wish I was being ironic or snarky but in all truth there was a plan.

Chalabi.

That was it, that was the plan. Sure there were expectations of basing rights and using Iraq to invade Syria and Iran, but the whole democracy and security thing was supposed to be handled by Chalabi. And they haven't given up, Google around on "Chalabi" and the neo-con of your choice and you will find they are still sold on Plan Chalabi. The neo-cons are like Moonies and LaRouchites in this regard.

The Army didn't need to waste time with a post-war plan. The Vulcans of the PNAC had that one covered - by the INC and Chalabi. Odd? Yes. Horrifying in retrospect? Yes. But whacko paranoia? Well spend a little time with our friend Google and get back to me. Chalabi was, and even more bizarely still is, considered the Essential Man by the neo-cons.

Posted by: Bruce Webb on September 9, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

Why we need real Congressional hearings. Scheid's comment that Rumsfeld said he would fire the next person who said we needed a Phase IV plan needs to be investigated in the context of other developments that we now know were occurring around the same time:

1. No-bid Haliburton contracts to build huge US bases in Iraq, which have largely stayed under the radar screen. This alternate, out-of-the-Pentagon, government contract boondoggle was obviously part of someone's Phase IV. Rumsfeld no doubt was aware of it, but apparently kept it from Scheid (that would be a good follow-up question to Scheid - were his planners aware of this major base construction plan?)

2. According to "Fiasco," Cheney - always mysterious and secretive - sent word requiring Garner to fire the State Department experts who he recruited to be part of his occupation team because they had been doing all the planning. Why?

3. Again accoring to Fiasco, Garner refused to follow Fieth's direction to set everything up for a quick turnover to Chalabi, because he could tell the guy was a fraud. Apparently as a result, he was fired and replaced by Bremer, who arrived with three highly controversial and counterproductive orders which he issued almost before his feet hit the ground: (1) dismiss the entire Iraqi military, a step the generals, according to Fiasco, thought was a big mistake by pouring hundreds of thousands of armed unemployed males into their sectors [Bremer defended this as his "instructions," but it was contrary to what others had heard in nearly contemporaneous briefings to both Rumsfeld and Bush] - who did the "instructions," if you will, come from?; (2) de-Baathify government, which destroyed most functioning civil functions, again over the objections of the generals, CIA station chief and contrary to State Department expert advice [apparently both these orders had the effect of removing road-blocks to Chalabi's planned rise to power]; (3) announce that no Iraqi government would be constituted for an undefined and presumably lengthy period - wierdly contrary to the quick exit plan Scheid speaks of.

There was obviously a non-public Phase IV plan that has not been inquired into. It went awry when Chalabi's HQ was subsequently raided by law enforcement, he has been identified as working with Iranian intelligence, he allegedly learned from one of his allies/handlers [Fieth? is this why Franks thought he was so dumb?] that our intelligence community had broken Iran's code - while the handler was drunk - and sent it back to Iran, damaging our ability to monitor Iran. Fieth is just about the only guy from the whole gang who can't shoot straight who has left in a cloud of disgrace.

But there's been no investigation into this secret Phase IV plan. What were they thinking? Can't someone be held to account?
Doppler

Posted by: Doppler on September 9, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Exasperanto's question has not been answered satisfactorily by any of the other comments so far, imho. It's a bit of a mystery. The statue was down, the "mission accomplished" sign was up, the flight suit was posed for the cameras--nothing left but to fly in Chalabi and go home. The only thing I can think of that was missing was Saddam. Maybe they couldn't leave until they had him in custody. He wasn't found until December, when the shit had already hit the fan, and then they were trapped.

Posted by: Linda on September 9, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

It has to be the alternative or else why they have stayed?

Posted by: The Fool on September 9, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, you are right this is a very important article. However, it only covers the 'what' what about the 'why'? The why part is what is missing, it makes sense that there was a dilberate lack of planning the post-major-military operations reveal that in spades. What this article and what we would all like to understand is the overall strategy of why. What was the planning for the overall Iraq approach if there was a deliberate non-plan in place. Why didn't we leave?

Posted by: latimlf on September 9, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

Is everyone forgetting that the idea here was to overthrow Saddam and install the puppet Chalabi so the plunder might get going in a hurry? That's why they were flying this criminal in with his henchmen a few days after the fall of Baghdad. So it is not true to say that there was no postwar planning done....it was done...but not the kind we'd like to have embraced.
Misha

Posted by: Misha on September 9, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

Of course much of this assumes that the strategic objective is a free and democratic Iraq - or something like that. It seems to me that the strategic objective was to eliminate Saddam and to place a large force in position to threaten Iran. A free and democratic Iraq would be nice, and we did give it a shot, but as the poster above correctly observes, we have known of the difficulties in doing so since the time of first gulf war. Iran is building nuclear weapons, there will be a new cold war, and we are in position. So while the theories and justifications fly fast and furious, the bottom line is that we are going to stay. I'll even go so far as to make a prediction. The next president will be a Democrat. He will win on the basis of opposition to the war. But he (or she) will find a reason to leave the troops in place anyway.

Posted by: Randy on September 9, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

correct me if I'm wrong, this is off the top of my head:

2001: oil $18/bbl
2003: oil $32/bbl
2006: oil $75/bbl

um, follow the money?

Posted by: drop in the bucket on September 9, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin suggests that Bush and Rumsfeld were lying. It's more likely that reporter Stephanie Heinatz was inaccurate. Kevin noticed that this article was in a dipshit newspaper but not in the New York Times. The likely reason is that the story is wrong. It's certainly not the case that the Times bends over backwards to be nice to Bush!

Note this misleading quote from Heinatz's article: Rumsfeld did replace Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff in 2003, after Shinseki told Congress that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to secure post-war Iraq.

The quote makes it sound as though Shinseki was replaced because of his opinion. In reality, Shinseki was replaced because he retired after serving his full term.

Alternatively, Scheid's memory may be inaccurate, or he may have an agenda. The article is based solely on Scheid's recollections. Lots of other military people were involved in Iraq planning. If the reporter had interviewed others, maybe their memories would contradict Scheid's.

We human beings tend to give more credance to reports that confirm what we already believe. For those who hate Bush and Rumsfeld, maybe this story goes in the category of "too good to check".

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 9, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

The neo-con/Bush plan for Iraq was shown by what they wound up doing: bring in experience-free YRs so that they could loot the place. Not even Al Capone would announce such an egregiously corrupt plan.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on September 9, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

W was in my neighborhood yesterday. I didn't get carted off to Gitmo, but I was on the motorcade route wearing my "Committee for a 25-Letter Alphabet - Drop W" T-shirt and waiving a placcard that read "Of Course Democrats stand behind the President. That is where you have to be to kick someone square in the ass. I did smile pretty and flash a piece sign when the guy in the "homeland security" car took my picture.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 9, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

Exasperanto's question has not been answered satisfactorily by any of the other comments so far, imho.

They didn't plan because they thought that the Iraqi's would welcome us as liberators and the reconstruction would be easy.

They stayed because they were too slow in recognizing their mistakes and too arrogant to admit to them.

Now they realize that a withdrawal without some signifigant progress on the ground will be viewed as a failure and will hurt them politically.

Posted by: Stephen on September 9, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

make that a "peace" sign - what's the mantra? "Preview is my friend?"

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 9, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

Does anyone else think Bush is likely to part company with Rumsfeld in the next few weeks to try to pull the GOP over the finish line in the midterms?? He's not getting a bounce from his latest speeches, and might need a new shiny distraction once we're past the 9-11 remembrances.

While he might not personally like firing Rumsfeld or persuading him to retire, suspect the prospect of losing a chamber of of Congress might concentrate even W's mind.

Posted by: dog's eye view on September 9, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

dog's eye view, I think getting rid of Rumsfeld would hurt Bush politically. It would be taken as an admission that the Bush/Rumsfeld policy was a mistake. Note that those who call for Rumsfeld's head are Democrats. Those people will vote Democratic in any event.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 9, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

They had a plan.
It was more 'outsourcing'. The 'free market utopia' that Iraq was going to be transformed into via the C.P.A.
In one place on Earth, the honey theory from the most cherished belief of the war's ideological architects, that greed is good, would finally be put into practice in its most perfect and uncompromised form. A country of 25 million would not be rebuilt as it was before the war; it would be erased, disappeared. In its place would spring forth a gleaming showroom for laissez-faire economics, a utopia such as the world had never seen. Every policy that liberates multinational corporations to pursue their quest for profit would be put into place: a shrunken state, a flexible workforce, open borders, minimal taxes, no tariffs, no ownership restrictions.

Posted by: JackNYC on September 9, 2006 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

""Committee for a 25-Letter Alphabet - Drop W""

Even this 'winger has to admit - that's pretty funny.

Posted by: Knemon on September 9, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

There's no way Bush is going to fire Rumsfeld -- and I don't think it has to do with a political calculation.

I don't think Bush is even *capable* at this point of making rational, hard-eyed political calculations. In the NYT yesterday, he was quoted on how he "strongly believes" that the GOP is going to keep the House and Senate. It's really a remarkable article; Bush makes nothing resembling an argument, just cites his "faith in the American people."

Even if Karl Rove and Dick Cheney were clamoring at him for Rumsfeld's head (and neither of them would be likely to, as they prolly share ex-liberal's political take aside from their substantial support for Rummy), I don't think Bush would pull the plug in the maestro of his excellent adventure.

Bush is a stubborn sonovabitch.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 9, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

Oh sure, Kevin! Look at the source of this story - Virginia is a well-known hot bed of radical hate-Americanism.

Posted by: Wingnut on September 9, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

Anybody remember the Panama invasion? That's the way it was supposed to go. A quick, relatively painless invasion, nab the dictator, democratic leaders are standing in the wings to take over, and another Banana Republic is made safe for the US.

Posted by: Red on September 9, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks Knemon - I made that T-shirt with transfers and a bubble-jet. Maybe I shoulda made more and sold them?

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 9, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

JackNYC --
I'm not disagreeing with your thesis in general, but I'll point out that, as usual, the truth of the practice of this administration digresses violently from their theory and newspeak. This administration has, in truth, shown no willingness to allow competition, free flow of labor, or market solutions to problems. Rather they have preferred public financed monopoly contracts with inhibiterd oversight and guiltless cronyism and corruption.

The least to benefit has been the Iraqis, and the most robbed the US taxpayer.

In five-and-a-half years the US has been taken to third-world levels of malfeasance, corruption, ignoring courts and law, not to mention suppression of rights and violence to individuals.

There is plenty that could be added.

Having lived through Nixon, I never thought I'd ever see the USA run as a one party autocracy.

The tide is only now turning because the majority of one house is under threat and might lead to some semblance of accountability.

There's blame for the Democrats too, but the Republicans have to carry the can for these multiple failures in the ship of state at home and abroad.

Posted by: notthere on September 9, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

Sigh. Where was this guy in the fall of '04 when Kerry was saying 'no post-war planning' again and again? Would have been nice to have someone step up with a concrete example like this. Why does Scheid hate America?

Posted by: dml on September 9, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, they had a plan alright. Don't you read the Weekly Standard?

First, the moment Baghdad fell, Ahmed "The Theif" Chalabi and the INC would come swooping in on Alladin's magic carpet. They would take up the reins of Iraq's still-intact government institutions, with the overwhelming support of a united and adoring Iraqi populace. Iraqis would no doubt get a long weekend to celebrate and put out the fires but Monday morning, bright and early, work would begin on a shining new Iraq; a testament to the genius of smirking Willie Kristol. Oil production was going to somehow ramp back up to pre-1992 levels in no time flat (despite the shattered and neglected infrastructure). An ensuing economic boom would finance nationwide reconstruction with little or no out-of-pocket expenses on our part, while from our new permanent military bases in Iraq, US troops would march off to bring democracy to the rest of the middle east at the point of a bayonet (with the grateful Iraqis running alongside strewing rose petals under their feet). It was going to be great.

Back at the Standard they're still scratching their heads to this day trying to understand out why things didn't work as planned. Of course they know it was Bill Clinton's fault. That's a given, obviously. It's just that for the life of them, they still can't figure out how he did it. But it's not like they didn't have a plan.

Posted by: CalD on September 9, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

But there's been no investigation into this secret Phase IV plan. What were they thinking? Can't someone be held to account?

Well, you know, IIRC:

Nixon/Watergate yielded 25 felony convictions.
Reagan/Bush/Iran-Contra yielded 28 felony convictions

Bush II could make those numbers look pretty pathetic if the Democrats win control of Congress.

p.s.
Clinton/Whitewater/FBI/Travel Office/Lewenski/etc... yielded 0 felony convictions if you allow for the fact Web Hubbels problems had nothing to do with the federal government.

Carter/Hamilton Jordan drug use: zero convictions, lots of laughs

Carter/Tim Kraft drug use: zero convictions, lots of laughs


Posted by: little ole jim from red country on September 9, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal wrote: "Kevin suggests that Bush and Rumsfeld were lying. It's more likely that reporter Stephanie Heinatz was inaccurate."

Why is that "more likely?"

"Kevin noticed that this article was in a dipshit newspaper but not in the New York Times. The likely reason is that the story is wrong."

Why is that "likely?"

"It's certainly not the case that the Times bends over backwards to be nice to Bush!"

On matters pertaining to the war in Iraq, I'm afraid they have indeed bent over backwards.

"The quote makes it sound as though Shinseki was replaced because of his opinion. In reality, Shinseki was replaced because he retired after serving his full term."

Shinseki was also prematurely made a lame duck and robbed of all authority during his final months in office -- solely because of his opinions and his willingness to state them.

"Alternatively, Scheid's memory may be inaccurate,"

Unlikely. This is far too specific to be the victim of interpretation or memory inaccuracy.

"We human beings tend to give more credance to reports that confirm what we already believe."

Not to mention reports that are confirmed by what has actually happened. Not only is this story not "unlikely," it closely matches what others have stated about post-war Iraq planning and it definitely matches what actually took place in post-war Iraq. Given this, I'm afraid that your notion of what is "unlikely" is simply wishful thinking on your part.

Posted by: PaulB on September 9, 2006 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK

Our local newspaper, The Daily Press is in a major military-government area and has plenty of reporter talent experienced with that sector. It and its writers have won lots of awards (check around.)

"ex-liberal" is a disgrace. He/she is also going against the current trend, which is for the previously Bush-dazzled (Friedman and Sullivan for example) to turn against the idiocy of it.

Posted by: Neil' on September 9, 2006 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK

PaulB - can you provide support for your statement that on matters pertaining to the war, the New York Times has bent over backwards to support Bush?

I am aware that they gave support to the WMDs before the war. Other than that, I cannot think of ways that they supported Bush on the war.

On the other hand, they ran innumerable news articles, editorials, and op-eds supporting Joseph Wilson's fanasty that the Bush administration had outed his wife in order to punish him.

They've bent over backwards to show bad news. When Iraqi deaths went up dramatically in July, that was front page news. When they went down by over 50% in August, that was played down.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 9, 2006 at 8:47 PM | PERMALINK

We would like to sincerely thank President Bush and SoD Rumsfield for improving our lives significantly. May the prophet look over them.

Osama bin Laden
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Posted by: islamic nutjobs heart Bush on September 9, 2006 at 9:28 PM | PERMALINK

"I made that T-shirt with transfers and a bubble-jet. Maybe I shoulda made more and sold them?"

Quite the entrepreneur.

Maybe I'm wrong about you filthy pinko commies ...

- The Last RINO

Posted by: Knemon on September 9, 2006 at 9:38 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal wrote: "PaulB - can you provide support for your statement that on matters pertaining to the war, the New York Times has bent over backwards to support Bush?"

Judith Miller.

"On the other hand, they ran innumerable news articles, editorials, and op-eds supporting Joseph Wilson's fanasty that the Bush administration had outed his wife in order to punish him."

Since this is demonstrably true, as supported by several independent reports, I'm at a loss to understand what point you think you are making.

"They've bent over backwards to show bad news."

Oh, good grief. Since the news from Iraq is demonstrably bad, again, I'm at a loss to understand what point you think you are making.

"When Iraqi deaths went up dramatically in July, that was front page news. When they went down by over 50% in August, that was played down."

Since we now know that the deaths did not, in fact, go down by over 50% in August and that the military has had to admit that they fudged the figures, again, I'm at a loss to understand what point you think you are making.

Posted by: PaulB on September 9, 2006 at 9:50 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and ex-liberal, since you didn't actually bother to support any of your assertions about the New York Times, Iraq, or Joe Wilson, forgive me if I don't take them seriously.

Posted by: PaulB on September 9, 2006 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINK

When Iraqi deaths went up dramatically in July, that was front page news. When they went down by over 50% in August, that was played down.
Posted by: ex-liberal

every once in a while, the wingnuts say something which reveals just how fucking ignorant they really are, how ignorant they want us to be, and how little truth actually matters to their worldview.

ex-lib ... if you were ever a lib, it's a good fucking thing you left, because I honestly couldn't stand to have someone this fucking dumb claiming that mantle.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. officials, seeking a way to measure the results of a program aimed at decreasing violence in Baghdad, aren't counting scores of dead killed in car bombings and mortar attacks as victims of the country's sectarian violence.

In a distinction previously undisclosed, U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Johnson said Friday that the United States is including in its tabulations of sectarian violence only deaths of individuals killed in drive-by shootings or by torture and execution. That has allowed U.S. officials to boast that the number of deaths from sectarian violence in Baghdad declined by more than 52 percent in August over July.

...

Violent deaths for August, a morgue official told McClatchy Newspapers on Friday, totaled 1,526, a 17.7 percent decline from July and about the same as died violently in June.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15474438.htm

Posted by: Nads on September 9, 2006 at 10:48 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmm Lets see now. Go to Iraq. Get Saddam. And leave before the job is done. Rumsfeld sounds like a democrat.

Posted by: TruthPolitik on September 9, 2006 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINK

It's been a whole day and it's just been a very very poor performance from the trolls, although the (fake)troll entries were quite good, a cut above the actual usual trollery. ex-liberal brings some really weak shit into the paint, the tried-and-true blame-the-media baby talk and some loose statistics (the 50% ``drop'' in violence in August in Iraq was laughably inaccurate, a hallmark of a true Republican talking point. try this link, you witless stooge for how things really went in August in August, where flowers still line the street in your mind:

http://tinyurl.com/h7qkl)

face it, trollerians, your heroes are irrefutably and demonstrably incompetent. they've got nothing going for them except your ignorant, homicidal lust.

Posted by: secularhuman on September 10, 2006 at 12:06 AM | PERMALINK

You have to admit, these are interesting times. Look, if you had a chance to visit ancient Rome in a time machine, you might want to see the worstthat would be Caligulaand the bestpossibly the reign of Marcus Aurelius.

We are now living though the worst. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld are the worst in their respective offices that America has ever produced.

Fortunately we also may see one of our best eras coming into focus. All the problems the Republicans have made worse demand creative solutions and with Gore, Feingold or Obama to lead us next, (all three would be lovely!) that could be our happy fate.

Call me Pollyanna. I relish the name.

Posted by: James of DC on September 10, 2006 at 1:33 AM | PERMALINK

Caligula may be fun to watch ... I mean, the 70s porno version literally put hair on my chest ... but I wouldn't necessarily want to be a random roman caught up in the insanity.

Posted by: Nads on September 10, 2006 at 1:42 AM | PERMALINK

I concede that I was misled by the preliminery reports of a dramatic drop in Iraqi deaths in August. You critics are correct that the later reports showed no improvement.

PaulB: Richard Armitage has now publicly admitted that he leaked the info about Valerie Plame, rather than the White House. All the NY Times articles accusing the White House of this misdeed were wrong.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 10, 2006 at 1:55 AM | PERMALINK

Rumsfeld didn't plan to stay for the long term because the Army was supposed to be taking a holiday in Syria after Iraq.

Posted by: EE on September 10, 2006 at 2:02 AM | PERMALINK

In military sceience there is the "Grand Strategy" or What You Do After You've Won. There was/is no Grand Strategy for Iraq because there is no intention to Win the war, but rather to keep "winning"-- Victory is a Process-- a Militarized, Capital Laundering Scam, among other things, such as an Apocalyptic Crusade.
And our taxes we have paid for the d.u. shock & awe. The blood is on our hands and millions of Americans are proud?

Posted by: wilson on September 10, 2006 at 3:41 AM | PERMALINK

It has been clear from the beginning of the Iraq fiasco that the Bush administration was prosecuting a war to put Middle East oil under their control. They could care less about "democracy", WMDs or any of the other excuses they've spouted. Their current problem is that they intended to stay there forever and things aren't working out as planned.

Posted by: purvis ames on September 10, 2006 at 4:10 AM | PERMALINK

It's been stated already but

1) the post-invasion plan was(american forces)cover of the buildings of corporate forts
2) we keep criticizing the admin. for doing a flat out fucked up job of governing; 'incompetence, stupidity, etc.' but they didn't come in to govern as such, they came in to make profit and take power for the oil and armaments industries, and in this they have been very successful.
3) either they're planning 'martial law', due to a terrorist hit/plot, an assassination (me I would't want to be george right now), a natural disaster so as to make their big move, or, something has gone too wrong somewhere, and they're currently handling things with no Post-fascistic take-over Plan.

It's true they're wretched at governing. But remember they've done very, very well at putting serious terror into many if not most of us; remember that poll bush was presented with regarding Europeans being more afraid of bush than 'terrists'? Remember how shocked he was, how cross? I think they just haven't let george in on the bigger plan.

this is how I put it together. who knew conspiracy theory might become the only reasonable way to think, I feel all dirty from Rovian finger smears.

Posted by: jonaht on September 10, 2006 at 5:08 AM | PERMALINK

oh please they have been building permanet bases because they plan to just leave?

wtf kevin? are you blind?

Rummy gave the rebuilding contracts to halliburton while keeping others in the dark..duhh kevin duhh.

Posted by: Trinary Suka on September 10, 2006 at 5:25 AM | PERMALINK

Our troops will not be used for nation building -GWB


Typical moron on some quixotix biblical campaign to jerusalem to bring the messiah to fruition, save us from ourselves messiah!!

Bush and his ilk wil get a free pass to heaven for killing so many people, wafting upwards into the starry heavens, thus saving christianity, and thus the murderers, the warmongers of a hegelian jesus are saved..whoo!

yeh right, only a fool would follow bush into hell to get to heaven.

Posted by: Trinary Suka on September 10, 2006 at 5:33 AM | PERMALINK


Obviously, we are not putting forth the full effort required to capture Osama bin Laden. Instead, our occupation of Afghanistan further inflames the Muslim radicals that came of age with their fierce resistance to the Soviet occupation of a Muslim country. Our occupation merely serves as a recruiting device for al-Qaeda, which has promised retaliation for our presence in their country. We learned nothing after first allying ourselves with Osama bin Laden when he applied this same logic toward the Soviets. The net result of our invasion and occupation of Afghanistan has been to miss capturing bin Laden, assist al-Qaeda's recruitment, stimulate more drug production, lose hundreds of American lives, and allow spending billions of American taxpayer dollars with no end in sight.

Bankruptcy seems to be the only way we will reconsider the foolishness of this type of occupation. It's time for us to wake up.

Posted by: Rep. Ron Paul Republican on September 10, 2006 at 5:58 AM | PERMALINK

I have two thoughts. One is, the blitzkrieg with computer networking that Rumsfeld installed worked brilliantly. It was completely incompetent after that. Of course, the blitzkrieg was invented to get around the fixed warfare of WW I. But it also hid Hitler's -- no, I'm not making a direct comparison, so forget Godwin's law -- strategic weakness. His army was not built in depth. They won quick victories in part because that's all they could do. Of course, their plan for occupation included killing fields and forced labor.

The basis for our blitzkrieg warfare was the tax cut. We could only afford a little, four-month war in Iraq, then move to Syria and take them apart. Pay for it by looting oil and privatizing the Arab economies so our industries could make out with Bremer's chief "accomplishment." Iraq was to be the first totally privatized economy.

The myth of easy victory was necessary to begin this insane enterprise.

Posted by: Jim H. on September 10, 2006 at 6:21 AM | PERMALINK

James DC,

For what its worth, Marcus Aurelius spent much of his time at the front. The stoicism of his "Meditations" was very much a reflection of this. The Pax Romana was maintained in the interior by almost constant warfare at the border. Does this have any relation to us? There are parallels of course, but it is a very different world. For one thing, we have nuclear weapons. Then again, so will Iran (Parthia) in the near future.

Posted by: Randy on September 10, 2006 at 6:40 AM | PERMALINK

This amazing. I have never been to one of these left wingnutz blogs before and I have to tell you that the whackjobs who know more about secret deals and unspoken motives is too funny. And I think that what really bothers you is what always bothered you: George Bush beat Albore AND Kerry (I served in Veet Nam). Beat'm. Your hacks just couldn't steal fast enough. President Bush.....say it. Come on. Say it.

Posted by: jack on September 10, 2006 at 7:55 AM | PERMALINK

"replaced by Bremer, who arrived with three highly controversial and counterproductive orders which he issued almost before his feet hit the ground" --Doppler

Why don't we ask HENRY KISSINGER, Bremer's mentor:

"There IS NO MORE IRAQ. There WILL BE three territories." -- Kissinger, early 2004, overheard briefing his Saudi clients

The airbases are the reason for the invasion. A Crusade needs ships (well, jets) and Citadels, in this case one 600 ACRES large, built to survive the Apocalypse, with six-foot thick walls, and integral water, power, and sewage.

After GFH Bush steals the November elections, they will attempt to continue their genocide of Muslims. So far, they have:

Killed 300,000 Muslim civilians, give or take.
Leveled Lebanon.
Destroyed Iraq, and nearly partitioned it.
Destroyed the National Library, the Koran-Torah Repository, and every archaelogical site in Iraq, and looted the National Museum. Hey, it's not genocide unless you destroy the culture.
Dumped 300,000 tons of half-strength Uranium on Iraq.
Caused a major oil spill in Lebanon.
Promoted an image of America as torturers, complete with gulags and terror tactics such as hostaging family members to force cooperation.
Damaged the UN Charter, and the entire edifice of International law regarding warcrimes.
Commited serial violations of the Constitution, U.S. statute law, and treaties. Are currently trying to retroactively rewrite the War Crimes Act of 1996.
Illegally destroyed water, power, and sewage in Iraq, Gaza, and Lebanon, and failed to restore it in Iraq, which is itself a warcrime.
Commited an royal assassination in Qatar (Syriana), along with establishing a huge airbase.
Bombed the Russian ambassador's convoy.
Transfered huge amounts of cash to unknown parties, and to known cronies.
Failed to guard Tuwaitha and 8 other nuclear dumps for a full month, with Cesium and Strontium possibly missing.
Failed to guard 480 tons of high explosives at Al Qa-qa.
Lost 450 shoulder-fired missiles.
Commited several pogroms, such as in Fallujah, originally as a result of what appears to be an attempt to burn a whistleblower.
Fomented civil war, and are now the process of creating a Kurdish partiition, which will bring potential war with a NATO ally, Turkey.
And a bunch of other stuff, like Custer Battles trying to smuggle duffel bags of dinars out through Beirut airport, etc.

No one can claim that this is all an accident, but yet they do, flapping their eyelashes at the cameras, and pretending America is on a noble mission.

The warcriminals in power must be tried for their crimes.

Posted by: Paul in LA on September 10, 2006 at 8:04 AM | PERMALINK

I left out the 3,000 troops killed so far.

I left out the deployment of mercenaries in an occupation, and alongside our troops. Google Stryber if you want proof that rightwing deathsquad veterans were hired by US and Brit merc outfits.

I left out the 1/4 of our troops who died from lack of armor according to the U.S. Army War College.

I left out the 1,500 troops that GFH Bush put into Afghanistan to 'get' Bin Laden -- not enough for a decent PX much less to capture a major terrorist -- and the toleration of the Pakistani scientist who shared nuclear materiel to Libya, N Korea, and Iran, and of the harboring of Al Qaeda -- minor concerns, it seems.

And what list would be complete without mention of Allawi walking up to six uncharged detainees and shooting them point blank, in front of US soldiers.

And special mention to the National Guard, currently dying in combat in an entirely optional war of aggression.

Posted by: Paul in LA on September 10, 2006 at 8:15 AM | PERMALINK

bruce webb: The Neo-Cons had a plan for post-war Iraq. A plan they worked out in detail and published for the world to see at the PNAC website. I wish I was being ironic or snarky but in all truth there was a plan.

Chalabi.


.

chalabi...who?

Posted by: g.w.b. on September 10, 2006 at 8:27 AM | PERMALINK

Thanh you for that reply from Ron Paul.

Its time for us to wake up. YES IT IS.

Posted by: Jens I. Nielsen on September 10, 2006 at 8:30 AM | PERMALINK

Oh Paul in LA,

You my boy are the queen of all nutjobs. You string together a laundrylist of outta sight lies and distortions and all you do is make me pee my pants.

I am laughing so hard I just can't make it to the can.

".. Illegally destroyed water, power, and sewage in Iraq, Gaza, and Lebanon, and failed to restore it in Iraq, which is itself a warcrime."

Oh reeeealy? Do we have troops in Gaza? Did we bomb Lebanon by mistake? Where have I been?

Look you loon. Read some history. If Carter (the real criminal) had not enboldened the lslamonuts with his lack of testosterone and Clinton had been more interested in his job as president and less in getting another kind of job....WE WOULD NOT BE THERE AT ALL.

I am officially bookmarking this website. You overheated kooks remind me of some cartoon character whose face is beet red with steam coming out of his ears. This is too too much fun to pass up. Thank Pauly from Laaaaaaaaaa.

President defeated Algore and Fancypants Kerry. Get over it. Move on. Get a life.

Posted by: Jack on September 10, 2006 at 8:36 AM | PERMALINK


jack: President Bush.....say it.


.

bush won....america lost...

we told you so...

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on September 10, 2006 at 8:38 AM | PERMALINK

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

HEY KOOKBURGERS......KEEP READING.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

Loons R US.....LOOK WHO SAID WMD FIRST...LOOK!

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 |

COME ON LOONCAKES.....LAUGH....YOU GOTTA LAUGH AT HOW STUPID YOU LOOK....NOOO....NO ONE CAN BE THIS STUPID. YOU MUST BE INTENTIONALLY IGNORING THE FACTS....

P-R-E-S-I-D-E-N-T BUSH....I LIKE THE SOUND.

Posted by: Jack on September 10, 2006 at 8:54 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, I am presently reading a piece by Mark Steyn. He is such a treasure. Check'm out. I mean when you are not too busy genuflecting before a poster of Che'. lololololololol

Posted by: jack on September 10, 2006 at 8:59 AM | PERMALINK

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." -- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on September 10, 2006 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINK

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." -- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

Oh my, the space between your ears must be available too. Doofis, President Bush was engaging in high stakes psy-ops...meaning...he was not elevating the bin Laden character in the islamic world.

You really should leave the business of men to men. Why I bet you bake a mean batch of troll house cookies. Get it? Troll house? Me...the Troll you just can't debate because you have no facts just cut and paste conspiracy theories and BDS.

What is BDS? Glad you asked. Bush Derangement Syndrome is a sad malady that affects the politically powerless liberals and makes them rant and rave over every puff of blue smoke and every mirror that they can attach to President Bush. Victims of BDS cannot see any news that do not smear, denigrate or tear down the Bush "gang".

Example:

New York Times Newflash!!
"Comet to destroy the Earth in two days. Women and minorities hit hardest. A result of President Bush's foreign policies in Iraq and greedy oil cronies. Also Bush created Global Warming."

There is no Cure for BDS.

Posted by: jack on September 10, 2006 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK

Jack -- this might be obvious, but if you're right about Bush dismissing Bin Ladin as a sophisticated psy-ops ploy, didn't he reverse himself this past week by going on and on about Bin Ladin? Seems to me that Bush was more likely just sour-grapes-ing Bin Ladin back in '02 -- "Big deal, so I didn't catch him, what difference does it make?"

Posted by: Barry on September 10, 2006 at 9:53 AM | PERMALINK

Barry,
I'm just armchairing it, I am not one of the intellectual savants who profess to know all of President Bush's thoughts and motives, but remember that it was President Bush who snookered the Congress into finally authorizing the military tribunals that the USSC struck down.
Strategery? Maybe. I never said President Bush was infalible, just that all of the loons in this blog who purport to know what is said and decided in the Oval Office need to get serious and deal with truth and logic. All I know is what I read and hear and see.

If, however, one hovers constantly in democratunderground.whatever...you read nothing but scatalogical threats and nonsense on steroids.
Did I help answer you? I tried.

Posted by: jack on September 10, 2006 at 10:14 AM | PERMALINK

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

I guess Clinton did a good job denying Iraq "the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them" because no one found any WMD when Bush invaded 5 years after that statement (I guess Iraq was never able to develop them).

(Hint: If you need the "capacity to develop" something, it must be because you don't have what you want to "develop".)

I guess Jack is just using a little BIOC.. and what is BIOC ? Blame it on Clinton. Whenever a Republican makes a mistake, instead of taking responsiblility they just BIOC.

Example-

Headline:
The Republican Congress passed a budget with record spending and record deficits and it was signed by the Republican President.

Republican Response:
Well, Clinton got a blow job..

Bush made the decision to invade Iraq. Quit trying to pass the buck.

Posted by: Stephen on September 10, 2006 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

Bush made the decision to invade Iraq. Quit trying to pass the buck.

Bush made a decision...oh yes he did. The man made a decision. You must find that infuriating since President Clinton made of a career of putting off hard decisions.

Listen kookinista stephen, your boy was unserious. Not only did he give the North Koreans the whole nuclear deal, he had his CEO pal at Loral give the Chinese communists all they needed to know in order to kill you.

Smart guy you are stevie.

Posted by: JACK on September 10, 2006 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

Stephen,

Yes, Bush did make the decision to invade Iraq. It was a good decision. And I have enough faith in the workings of the National Command Authority to think that Clinton would have made the same decision had he still been in office.

Posted by: Randy on September 10, 2006 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

Another thing Stevie the wondernut....the GOP Congress cut welfare dependency in half...you boy vetoed it twice until his polsters advised him to "sign it now, kill it next term." Well, we have countless former welfare junkies working. You can thank the GOP. And if I am not mistaken, isn't billyboy trying to take credit for signing a bill he vetoed twice and promised to "fix" later?

I know, I know...you are going to drum up lollypop dreams of Calcutta misery in America. The last time I read...American have the worst obesity problem in the world.

Grow up Stephen...no...get a job.

Posted by: jack on September 10, 2006 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

Shoot..this is too much fun. Heck, it's more fun than fishing with dynamite.

Bring it on stevie. Do you worst.

Posted by: jack on September 10, 2006 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

And Jack, Bush was taking the same approach to Bin Laden and Saddam as had Clinton prior to 9/11. But on that day the strategic picture changed. We thought we were invulnerable - thought we could just sit back, flex our muscles, talk tough, and the world would stand in awe. Not so. Turns out deterrence only works if we actually kick some ass from time to time - and if the enemy believes we are truly ready to kick his ass at the drop of a hat. Al Queda, Iran, and N. Korea are talking tough because they are running scared. That's a good thing.

Posted by: Randy on September 10, 2006 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

Absolutely Randy,
Starting with that miserable excuse of a president Carter to our present White House occupier....blunders and weakness are to be found.
The institutional corruption in American started (IMHO) with the end of Viet Nam. A generation of lefties permiated the media and the learning system in this country.

The United Nation of wolves are watching. Weakness and lack of patriotic resolve are not going help us. I am looking for a quote...oh yes ..here it is:

Jean-Franois Revel: "Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it."



Posted by: jack on September 10, 2006 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal wrote: "PaulB: Richard Armitage has now publicly admitted that he leaked the info about Valerie Plame,"

So? What does that have to do with the fact that the White House orchestrated a leak and smear campaign against Plame and Wilson? That Armitage got that smear sheet and leaked it first doesn't absolve the Bush administration or Rove from their own prior and subsequent actions.

"All the NY Times articles accusing the White House of this misdeed were wrong."

No. They are, in fact, entirely correct, as multiple sources and multiple news organizations have confirmed.

Posted by: PaulB on September 10, 2006 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

oh pauly b,
my dear you are the king of konspiracies.

"So? What does that have to do with the fact that the White House orchestrated a leak and smear campaign against Plame and Wilson? That Armitage got that smear sheet and leaked it first doesn't absolve the Bush administration or Rove from their own prior and subsequent actions."

Uh....yes it does. Again, me amigo from the fringe....Armitage was no friend of the White House....neither was his mentor Powell. Only you can see what no one else can see.

The MSM is doing the proven Clinton technique of telling the truth slowly. No one will notice that a leftwing hack like Armitage is the source and there is no proof....none that Bushitler and the evil Cheney had anything to do with any of it.

You should be ashamed. An innocent man, Scooter Libby, has been framed by your pals and you have no concern for justice....oh so typical of you Stalinist types.

Posted by: jack on September 10, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

No one will notice that a leftwing hack like Armitage is the source and there is no proof

Armitage? Leftwing? I think not.

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION SEARCH (individual donations of $200 or more made after 1977)

Richard Armitage , 61 (bio)
US Deputy Secretary of State

2001-05

$10,400 Republican
$750 Democrat
$2,000 special interest
total: $13,150

Leftwing? From his wiki bio:

He served on a destroyer stationed in Vietnam during the Vietnam War and volunteered to serve as an advisor to the Vietnamese riverine ("brown water") naval forces. In 1973, Armitage left active duty and joined the office of the U.S. Defense Attache in Saigon. (It has been frequently, and inaccurately, reported that Armitage was a member of the elite Navy SEALs, a mischaracterization that Armitage now corrects in interviews.)

After leaving Saigon in May 1975, Armitage came to Washington, DC to serve as a consultant for the United States Department of Defense.

In 1978, he returned to the U.S. and began work as an aide to Senator Bob Dole, and in late 1980 served as a foreign policy advisor to President-elect Ronald Reagan.

He signed "The Project for the New American Century" letter (PNAC Letter) to President Bill Clinton in 1998. The letter urged Clinton to target the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power in Iraq due to erosion of the Gulf War Coalition's containment policy and the resulting possibility that Iraq might create weapons of mass destruction. The letter's intended purpose of removing Hussein was to protect Israel and other U.S. allies in the region including oil-producing Arab countries.

No friend of the White House?

During the 2000 U.S. Presidential election campaign, Armitage served as a foreign policy advisor to George W. Bush as part of a group led by Condoleezza Rice that called itself The Vulcans.

Yes, he was so NOT a friend of the White House that he donated to their campaign, acted as an advisor to their campaign, and was rewarded in 2001 with the position of Deputy Secretary of State.

And now he works for an oil company.

Yes, so very leftwing. Such a hack.

Back to thinking school for you!

And now that you know the facts, I'm sure we can count on you to hush up while the adults are talking.

Posted by: thisspaceavailable's stunt double on September 10, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

2001-05

$10,400 Republican
$750 Democrat
$2,000 special interest
total: $13,150

Let's see, who was in power from 01 ot 05? Hmmmm...looks like ole Armytage knows who butters his bread.

One would think that a discriminating thinker like the spacebetweenherears would catch that. Or is it too nuanced for you?

Posted by: jack on September 10, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

Another thing,
Powell and his fellow travelor Armitage were vocal in their disagreement over President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq.

Both Armitage and Powell knew that Libby was innocent of the "Leak" and did nothing for what....two years?

Yes, I see your cronies at work. Lincoln would have them shot. Again, (in case you are a slow reader) Armitage confessed to the "leak" and never hid his desire to derail the Bush effort in Iraq. How dense can you be?

Wait, did say dense? I meant dishonest. The MSM itself is busy trying to bury this story.

Heck, even Fitzmas himself knew about Armitage from the start. He was the hunting dog for the Dems who are determined to bring down the Bush presidency, now matter if it brings us destruction. Your lust for power is the engine for your BDS symptoms. And not unlike the islamofascists, you feel you must either dominate or die. Please pick the latter.

If you want to commit suicide, include me out. You whiny democratunderground/moveon/the Nation types are stewing in your own BDS.

Please leave the running of the country to real men. Metrosexuals and Oprahfied males need not apply.

Posted by: jack on September 10, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK


leadership: gwb-style


"All right. You've covered your ass, now."

-G.W.B. 8/6/2001 to a CIA briefer who informed him of the P.D.B. titled - Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on September 10, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 窃听器 - 窃听器, 彩票 - 彩票, 彩票 - 彩票, 福彩3D - 福彩3D, 福彩3D - 福彩3D, 福彩3D - 福彩3D, 福彩3D - 福彩3D, 福彩3D - 福彩3D, 福彩3D - 福彩3D, 福彩3D - 福彩3D, 福彩3D - 福彩3D, 福彩3D - 福彩3D, 福彩3D - 福彩3D, 福彩3D - 福彩3D, 福彩3D - 福彩3D, 福彩3D - 福彩3D, 福利彩票 - 福利彩票, 福利彩票 - 福利彩票, 福利彩票 - 福利彩票, 监听器 - 监听器, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩公司 - 六合彩公司, 六合彩特码 - 六合彩特码, 七星彩 - 七星彩, 窃听器 - 窃听器, 窃听器 - 窃听器, 窃听器 - 窃听器, 窃听器 - 窃听器, 窃听器 - 窃听器, 窃听器 - 窃听器, 窃听器 - 窃听器, 窃听器 - 窃听器, 窃听器 - 窃听器, 窃听器 - 窃听器, 窃听器 - 窃听器, 手机窃听器 - 手机窃听器, 手机窃听器 - 手机窃听器, 双色球 - 双色球, 双色球 - 双色球, 双色球 - 双色球, 双色球 - 双色球, 双色球 - 双色球, 双色球 - 双色球, 双色球 - 双色球, 双色球 - 双色球, 体育彩票 - 体育彩票, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 香港六合彩公司 - 香港六合彩公司, 中彩网 - 中彩网, 中彩网 - 中彩网, 中国福利彩票 - 中国福利彩票, 中国福利彩票 - 中国福利彩票, 中国福利彩票 - 中国福利彩票, 中国福利彩票 - 中国福利彩票, 中国福利彩票 - 中国福利彩票, 中国福利彩票 - 中国福利彩票, 中国福利彩票 - 中国福利彩票, 足球比分 - 足球比分, se70te-1

Posted by: s on September 10, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

Let's see, who was in power from 01 ot 05?

If you'd followed the link, tiny, you'd have seen that he donated to Republicans during the Clinton presidency, as well as to the Republican campaigns of Mush and BcCain.

And if you're neurons had fired in sequence you'd be able to work the fact that Armitage campaigned for Bush into the equation.

Damn, you're as stupid as Jay -- and that's sayin' something.

Your lust for power is the engine for your BDS symptoms.

What planet do you live on and is it nice there? I'm sorry, I forgot who I was talking to -- please hang up the Internets, go upstairs, and go tell mommy you've been bad.

Besides, the bus is probably coming soon to pick you up for school.

Posted by: thisspaceavailable's stunt double on September 10, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

"We do know of certain knowledge that he [Osama Bin Laden] is either in Afghanistan, or in some other country, or dead." -- Donald Rumsfeld


too funny....

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on September 10, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

oh my, is there really enough room to put all that BDS in the space available between your ears?

I never said that Armitage was not a political animal, just that he was somewhat adroit at smelling the political winds. I do know that he was no friend of Bush, so my denizen of the fringe....why do you think he contributed so much cash? Because he liked Bush personally? Because he liked his policies? Nothing personal, but you cannot be this dense. Or maybe you can.


Poor baby, are you unhappy that your hatchetman and his dominatrix Powel have been unmasked? Probably not, since the truth is not what you are about.

Oh yes, and I mention that the report that Wilson gave to Congress is the opposite of what he putting into print? Oh my, it does seem you are not that smart.

Go back to the nervous-nellies who inhabit the dark world of Konspiracies. And beware, the Freemasons are tapping your phone and the Illuminati are reading your mail.

You know, you have a seriously bad case of BDS. It might kill you....yes it just might.

Gotta scoot fellas,
Brunch is calling. Battling the bovines of BDS is making me hungry.
TTL

Posted by: jack on September 10, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." - President George W. Bush 5/24/05

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on September 10, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

Dear little jack, just as cute as he can be, writes: "Uh....yes it does."

Uh ... no, it doesn't. Gee, this is fun. Your turn.

"Again, me amigo from the fringe"

Dear heart, I am neither your "amigo" nor "from the fringe," but do go on with the little games if it makes you happy.

"Armitage was no friend of the White House...."

Ah, I see ... and this is relevant, how, exactly? And you know this ... how, exactly? And your evidence for it is ... what, exactly?

"neither was his mentor Powell."

ROFL.... My, you really are grasping at straws, aren't you? And using them to create massive strawmen.

"Only you can see what no one else can see."

Dear heart, I'm looking at the actual evidence, including Karl Rove's own words. What are you looking at?

"The MSM is doing the proven Clinton technique of telling the truth slowly."

LOL.... This is wonderful stuff. I just love when a conspiracy theorist nutcase decides that I am on the fringe. Dear little jack is almost as good as our good friend, Chuckles.

"No one will notice that a leftwing hack like Armitage"

Dear heart, Armitage is hardly "leftwing." Do try again, won't you?

"You should be ashamed."

Alas, then, that I'm not even remotely ashamed. Nice try, though.

"An innocent man, Scooter Libby,"

Innocent?! Libby?! Oh my ... you really have drunk the Kool-Aid, haven't you? You should rejoin us here in the real world sometime. It's really not too bad once you get used to it.

"has been framed by your pals"

Gee, dear heart, do tell me just where the "frame" is and how it operated, won't you? And please do tell me about my "pals" that have so successfully implemented this frame. This oughtta be good; I can hardly wait.

"and you have no concern for justice...."

Yes, dear, I do.

"oh so typical of you Stalinist types."

ROFLMAO.... When all else fails, go for the red-baiting smear. What's next, calling me a Hitler Youth?

This was hilarious shit, luv. I can hardly wait for the next installment.


Posted by: PaulB on September 10, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

Don't you just love dear little jack? He's just so convinced that Armitage is "leftwing" that he has to simply stamp his feet, shake his fist, and keep repeating it, despite the fact that there is zero evidence for this assertion and quite an array of evidence to the contrary. This is absolutely hilarious stuff. I absolutely cannot wait to see what he comes up with next!

Posted by: PaulB on September 10, 2006 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

PaulB - "Jack" reminds me of Mary McCarthy attacking Lillian Hellman on the Dick Cavett show a million years ago "every word (he) writes is a lie, including "and" and "the"...

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 10, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

Debt and wars are a good thing. -- Donald Dumsfeld Investment banker and war planner.
==
You Jack, heres a Republican, from the Reagan admin stating that they indeed DID ally themselves with Osama;
"We learned nothing after first allying ourselves with Osama bin Laden when he applied this same logic toward the Soviets.

Al Qaeda rose out of the Cold War and WERE appeased by the Republicans.

Suck on that Jack

Posted by: rmck1 fool on September 10, 2006 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

Not only did he give the North Koreans the whole nuclear deal, he had his CEO pal at Loral give the Chinese communists all they needed to know in order to kill you.

BIOC...

And I have enough faith in the workings of the National Command Authority to think that Clinton would have made the same decision had he still been in office.

BIOC...

boy vetoed it twice until his polsters advised him to "sign it now, kill it next term." Well, we have countless former
welfare junkies working.

BIOC...

No cure for BIOC..

By the way, where is Osama ? You know, the guy who actually had something to do
with 9/11 ? You think he will like the safe haven set up for him in Pakistan ? Mission accomplished!!!

Posted by: Stephen on September 10, 2006 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

Still in the freezer. Slowly defrosting though.

Posted by: Paul on September 10, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

Ugh.

Old news?

Everything is a new smoking gun. It's a breaking story. It's a BFD! For Christ sake, don't let these fools slide merely because it already fits with your own worldview! There's plenty of people who have never heard this story before (not to mention that many of us have been following this closely and have never heard this anecdote). This is why our side loses. Ugh.

Posted by: G Spot1 on September 10, 2006 at 9:50 PM | PERMALINK

Q: How do you hide 10 billion barrels of oil from the Chinese?

A: Blow up Iraq and leave.

Bush did too have a post-war plan!

Posted by: dopey-o on September 10, 2006 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

It can easily be said that the only lie told about Iraq is that we were told the truth!
This is an unforgivable err on everyone's involvement in the "Great Lie". Funny... how come there in no book that I am aware of with that title alone? The reasons for picking this war on Iraq are many, and each one maybe as correct as the next, even through the eyes of Bush and his backers... after all ya know, "Analopticalitus" is contagious among fuckheads!(def: disease where the optic nerve gets crossed with the anus nerve, and you get a shitty outlook).

My question is a forward looking question...
where do we as a country go from here?
How do you leave such a screwed up mess as Iraq? If we left as things are now, the whole middle-east varmits would have a war of their own to see who would control what's left of Iraq. Syria and Iran would be the big winners in the long run because they would then control the major portion of the world's black gold, and with that be able to call the shots on the U.S. and the free(?) world economy. Don't get me wrong here, I have been an outspoken critic of Bush from day one because I can smell a liar 2 blocks away... and I smelled Bush several states away! What I don't get is how many people he (Bush and buddies) convinced to play along???

I read where John Kerry believes we should pull the troops from Iraq and send them all to Afganistan to finally finish off bin Laden and his gang of thugs. I believe that yes, we need to finish off the job of numb-nuts, but the great vacume that would be created now by leaving Iraq now the way it's so "Bushy- screwed" would not prove to be a wise thing to do. I don't have the answers, but I do have a first step... BREAK DOWN THE REPUBLICAN CONTROL AND JUST STOP LYING TO US!

Posted by: Bryan on September 11, 2006 at 1:01 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin wrote:

"However, this is the clearest evidence I've seen yet. The guy who was actually in charge of logistics has now directly confirmed that Rumsfeld not only didn't intend to rebuild Iraq in any serious way, but threatened to fire anyone who wasted time on the idea. Needless to say, he wouldn't have done this unless it reflected the wishes of the president.

And this also means that all of Bush's talk about democracy was nothing but hot air. If you're serious about planting democracy after a war, you don't plan to simply topple a government and then leave.

So: the lack of postwar planning wasn't merely the result of incompetence. It was deliberate policy. There was never any intention of rebuilding Iraq and there was never any intention of wasting time on democracy promotion."
__________________

To the extent that there was a lack of planning for what to do in post-Saddam Iraq, it doesn't necessarily mean that the Administration wasn't serious about giving democracy a start in Iraq. If, as has been said many times, the Administration believed that the majority of Iraqis would not resist after Saddam's removal, then a large post-war presence of US military would not be necessary. In that case, reconstruction would have been a largely civilian concern, not one for the Pentagon. That certainly would have made life a lot simpler for us in the military.

Two things were wrong with their assumptions. One was not counting on Saddam remaining free and able to generate trouble for months after the fall of his government. Two, they underestimated what damage a minority of Sunnis and outside jihadists could wreak on Iraqi society and infrastructure. While the apparent belief that we would not need a large military presence in a post-Saddam Iraq was obviously wrong, it's going a bridge too far to say that, therefore, there was no interest in promoting Iraqi democracy. If they didn't plan to rebuild Iraq with the military, it's possible that, similar to what Kevin has suggested we do now, the Pentagon anticipated most of the remaining Iraqi problems to be handled by the State Department.

One other thing to note: If this story proves anything, it proves that the Administration did not invade Iraq for the purpose of gaining permanent military bases in Iraq. If they didn't plan to stay, then all the assertions that we had coveted Iraq as an exercise in imperialistic militarism were wrong. That makes all those stories about the supposed "14 permanent military bases" to be hot air.


Posted by: Trashhauler on September 11, 2006 at 1:59 AM | PERMALINK

One other minor point:

Brig General (then Colonel) Scheid was never "the guy who was actually in charge of logistics." He was in charge of the logistics plans divison of the Joint Staff, probably in the J4, Logistics Directorate. The office title a bit of a misnomer, as almost all logistics planning is done by the Services, the supported Command staff (in this case, CENTCOM), the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), and US Transportation Command. As a colonel on the Joint Staff, General Schied was in charge of a handful of people, while those other agencies have hundreds of people engaged in logistics planning all the time. The people who are really "in charge of logistics" include at least two four-star generals, a couple three-star generals, perhaps seven two-star generals and admirals, and a galaxy of one-star generals, rear admirals, and civilian SES equivalents, working with over sixty thousand people worldwide.

Similarly, Brig Gen Scheid is not the Commander of the Army Transportation Corps, he is (or was) the Commandant of the Army Transportation School. The real chief transporter of the Army is Major General Charles W. Fletcher, Jr., Commander, Surface Deployment and Distribution Command, Alexandria, Virginia.

Posted by: Trashhauler on September 11, 2006 at 2:50 AM | PERMALINK

th: That makes all those stories about the supposed "14 permanent military bases" to be hot air.

and...if they build the bases after the fact...

that's means they were duped instead....

lol

Posted by: gully mcgullible on September 11, 2006 at 6:52 AM | PERMALINK

I posted this event on a political forum I frequent, and got this response:

"Please. Rumsfeld was told not to let DOD make plans for postwar Iraq because the State Department under Powell was supposed to deal with it. For some reason, the people in charge never turned it over to State which is what basically fucked up the whole situation. Powell quit because he was so infuriated by the situation."

Any thoughts?

Posted by: catseye on September 11, 2006 at 8:53 AM | PERMALINK

According to Cobra II, Rumsfeld fought successfully to have DOD handle the occupation at the get-go. James Fallows's "Blind into Baghdad," in Atlantic magazine two years ago, details the "Future of Iraq Project" at State and how the Bush administration, under orders from the top (or Cheney), deliberately ignored it. Fallows concludes that the reason is that public discussion of rebuilding would undercut public support for the war. This is not news.

Posted by: Stephen on September 11, 2006 at 9:26 AM | PERMALINK

catseye,

That does make sense. I mean, the idea that the military had no plans for the occupation is ludicrous. If not, then how did the green zone and numerous other bases get built? How is it that the logistic operations are being carried out? I would say that the plan was to hope for the Iraqis to exercise some common sense, but not to count it. We're in. We're fortified. We have the ability to destroy any concentrated enemy force that dares to show itself. Its up to the Iraqis to stop the nonsense.

It seems to me that the understanding behind the belief that there was no plan, is that this should all have been over with quickly. I doubt that those in charge operated under that premise. They probably hoped for a quick and painless victory, but the fact that we are well positioned anyway leads me to believe that plan B was well though out.

That said, it does seem possible that the State Department did not have a well thought out plan B. Is it even possible for the State Department to deal with open hostility? Probably not. But the military can, and is.

Posted by: Randy on September 11, 2006 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

catseye...

rummy told bush and cheney...if he was going be the one responsible...

he also wanted the whole ball of wax..

rummy got what he asked for...

rummy cut everybody else out....state included...

it explains why things went so bad so quickly

watch the frontline special...rumsfled's war..

pretty sad...

and america got screwed twice..

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on September 11, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

RUMSFELD FORBADE PLANS FOR POST WAR IRAQ
.
Complete original news report at the Daily Press Newport News, Virginia.

Paraphrased, General Scheid said that preparing a Phase 4 Plan as to handling the aftermath of defeating Saddam was not allowed, not even to be discussed on punishment of being "fired."
A Phase 4 Plan would have tipped Congress and the public that Iraq would be or could be a very murderous multi-year extended engagement. Rhummy et al apparently considered that they could only tell the voters more palatable news that we would be warmly welcomed and that it would be a short engagement if no one planned for or was even allowed to outline the obvious and known probable downside contingencies.
The message, again paraphrased, was "Shinseki's honest estimate of troop needs and all normal post occupation planning are (to use a good fascist word) verboten. The lie that the Iraq mission will be easy, complete with flowers from the liberated, will be sold to the public and we do not want any negative scenario planning documents to see the light of day."
"The book "Assassin's Gate" tells the same story, i.e. that the State Department could not get a direct charge for preparing a post invasion plan and what was prepared by way of Phase 4 by the Army, de facto, never saw the light of day.
To summarize: the leadership of the United States prevented our entire Military and each and every one of our now dead or disabled troops the benefit of a normal, complete and required invasion plan in order that their hyped story for the public would not be subject to "smoking gun" evidence that they fully knew of the issues embodied in the maelstrom of post invasion Iraq.
Thousands of our troops and tens of thousand Iraqis are now dead in the service of deliberate and malicious lies. I can not remotely imagine the searing anger and bitterness a parent might feel if their child was now dead due to this act of calculated incompetence.

DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU ON THE WAY OUT MR. RUMSFELD and TAKE A COUPLE OF YOUR PRIMARY ACCOMPLICES WITH YOU AS YOU LEAVE

Posted by: cognitorex on September 11, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly