News War may be criminal - GOP Sen Smith

[Ivan Seeking]

WASHINGTON - Oregon Sen. Gordon Smith, a Republican who voted in favor of the Iraq war in 2002 and has supported it ever since, now says the current U.S. war effort is "absurd" and "may even be criminal."

In an emotional speech on the Senate floor Thursday night, Smith called for changes in U.S. policy that could include rapid pullouts of U.S. troops from Iraq. He said he never would have voted for the conflict if he had known the intelligence that President Bush gave the American people was inaccurate.

"I for one am at the end of my rope...[continued]

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/16197847.htm

...just another reason I love Oregon!

If he keeps talking like that, I might vote for him again. I hope this is just the first of many GOP leaders to come out given cover by the Iraq panel's report. In spite of the damage to this nation that impeachment and prosecution of Bush and Rummy would bring, I believe this to be imperative to the U.S. political system's survival. This long and relentless assault by Bush on the constitution and on the trust of the American people and its leaders, cannot go unaswered.

 

[Skyhunter]

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/16197847.htm

...just another reason I love Oregon!

If he keeps talking like that, I might vote for him again. I hope this is just the first of many GOP leaders to come out given cover by the Iraq panel's report. In spite of the damage to this nation that impeachment and prosecution of Bush and Rummy would bring, I believe this to be imperative to the U.S. political system's survival. This long and relentless assault by Bush on the constitution, and on the trust of the American people and its leaders, cannot go unaswered.

The first quarter of 2007 should prove very interesting.

My guess is that by Easter there will be plenty of incumbent R's ready to throw what will be left of this administration under a bus. As the investigations begin, the few rats left after the midterm "thumping" will be jumping from the burning ship.

The signs are clear that the administration hasn't a clue about what to do. The Bush administration is in it's "last throes, if you will".

 

[MeJennifer]

All this is a played drama IMHO.

The objective of the US invasion in Iraq was to bring the country back a few decades and make it harmless.

Now that that has been accomplished there is no need for the US to stay in, so now it is prime time for the opportunistic politicians to benefit from the inevitable pullout.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If that was the case we could have left in April 2003.

Of course at $2+ billion per week [war machine] and nearly 3000 [US] dead and 20,000 wounded, what the hell. When we leave, we leave. No rush.

 

[turbo]

So far, we have been fighting to prevent another 9/11, to take away Iraq's WMDs, to prevent them from refining yellowcake from Niger, to hit the terrorists on their home turf so we don't have to fight them here, to spread democracy, etc, etc. All lies. This administration lied us into a war to enrich their sponsors and the Baker commission is trying to finish the job with its "all or nothing" solution. Very few people seem to have noticed that one of the conditions in that report is the privatization of Iraq's oil industry - a thing very near and dear to the Bushies.

 

[Astronuc]

The objective of the US invasion in Iraq was to bring the country back a few decades and make it harmless.

I don't understand the 'bring the country back a few decades'. The sanctions during the 90's and early 00's certainly reduced the quality of life and the deterioration of infrastructure was significant.

Rather than harmless, Iraq has more terrorists now than it did before the US invasion. And the diversion of US military from Afghanistan to Iraq enabled bin Laden, al Qaida and Taliban to escape and recover in Pakistan!

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, with some help from Tenet and others in the Bush administration have done so much to undermine the security of the US its not funny. It is a tragedy/catastrophe.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are seemingly guilty of criminal negligence, if not deliberate criminal acts. It would not surprise if Cheney and Rumsfeld have managed to siphon off US tax money into personal offshore accounts, and I think they should be investigated with regard to their deliberate acts of corruption.

 

[devil-fire]

Of course at $2+ billion per week [war machine] and nearly 3000 [US] dead and 20,000 wounded, what the hell.

those numbers refer to only soldiers, not american citizens on private contract. i expect there are more dead and wounded among the american contracters aswell

 

[Skyhunter]

those numbers refer to only soldiers, not american citizens on private contract. i expect there are more dead and wounded among the american contracters aswell

The real tragedy is dead Iraqis. Those numbers are staggering. Just like with Vietnam however, the focus is always on Americans killed, which seems to always be the lower number by orders of magnitude.

Iraq
American soldiers killed 3000

Iraqis killed 400,000 - 800,000

Vietnam

Americans soldiers killed 60,000

Vietnamese killed 3 million

As tragic as the American deaths are, the real tragedy is what is happening to the people who live in Iraq. And now the whole region could become completely destabilized because of the narcissistic arrogance of this administration!

 

[Skyhunter]

Here is a video of Senator Smiths press conference.

http://www.salon.com/ent/video_dog/politics/2006/12/08/smith/index.html?source=newsletter

 

[Astronuc]

I've been reading James Risen's book "State of War" in which he mentions that the US military has been ignoring the booming opium and heroin trade in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has apparently become a major narco-state - under the noses of the Bush administration. This is especially significant since it appears that money from the sale of the drug trade may be going to support Taliban and al Qaida.

This certainly raises questions about the Bush administration's so-called 'War on Terror'.

Afghanistan Opium Crop Sets Record
U.S.-Backed Efforts At Eradication Fail

Opium production in Afghanistan, which provides more than 90 percent of the world's heroin, broke all records in 2006, reaching a historic high despite ongoing U.S.-sponsored eradication efforts, the Bush administration reported yesterday.

In addition to a 26 percent production increase over past year -- for a total of 5,644 metric tons -- the amount of land under cultivation in opium poppies grew by 61 percent. Cultivation in the two main production provinces, Helmand in the southwest and Oruzgan in central Afghanistan, was up by 132 percent.

. . . .

The administration has cited resurgent Taliban forces as the main impediment to stabilization and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, and the U.S. military investment has far exceeded anti-narcotic and development programs. But U.S. military and intelligence officials have increasingly described the drug trade as a problem that rivals and in some ways exceeds the Taliban, threatening to derail other aspects of U.S. policy.

Just another failure by the Bush administration.

 

[Futobingoro]

Just another failure by the Bush administration.

I don't mean to come across as a cynic, but you omitted some very important information.

Here's what you didn't quote:

Any disruption of the drug trade has enormous implications for Afghanistan's economic and political stability. Although its relative strength in the overall economy has diminished as other sectors have expanded in recent years, narcotics is a $2.6 billion-a-year industry that this year provided more than a third of the country's gross domestic product. Farmers who cultivate opium poppies receive only a small percentage of the profits, but U.S. officials estimate the crop provides up to 12 times as much income per acre as conventional farming, and there is violent local resistance to eradication.

"It's almost the devil's own problem," CIA Director Michael V. Hayden told Congress last month. "Right now the issue is stability. . . . Going in there in itself and attacking the drug trade actually feeds the instability that you want to overcome."

"Attacking the problem directly in terms of the drug trade . . . would undermine the attempt to gain popular support in the region," agreed Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. "There's a real conflict, I think."

You painted a picture of an Afghanistan where a resurgent opium trade somehow demonstrates a failure of the Bush administration. Within the same article you quoted, however, is information (above) that suggests the opium trade is the lesser of two evils. You also said that the funneling of drug money to al Qaida and the Taliban "raises questions" about the War on Terror. Again, there is a sentence from the same article that contradicts alarmist rhetoric about the Taliban:

Although the drug trade is believed to provide some financing to the Taliban, most experts believe it is largely an organized criminal enterprise.

 

[BobG]

I've been reading James Risen's book "State of War" in which he mentions that the US military has been ignoring the booming opium and heroin trade in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has apparently become a major narco-state - under the noses of the Bush administration. This is especially significant since it appears that money from the sale of the drug trade may be going to support Taliban and al Qaida.

This certainly raises questions about the Bush administration's so-called 'War on Terror'.

Suggesting it has become a major narco-state under the noses of the Bush administration is a little misleading. Afghanistan has been a major narco-state for a long time.

It is another failure by the Bush administration, but expecting success was naive, at best, and maybe kind of stupid. Surely, our past experience in South America doesn't supply much reason for optimism about our efforts in curbing the Afghanistan drug problem.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Within the same article you quoted, however, is information (above) that suggests the opium trade is the lesser of two evils.

Real tough; so we buy them off. The entire yearly revenues for the drug trade are what we spend in a week in Iraq. The fact that this obvious solution is not implemented raises serious questions about motive.

Something else about Smith's comments: He could have used many words other than "criminal" and still played the politics. Politically speaking, there is no reason why he needed to say "criminal".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Suggesting it has become a major narco-state under the noses of the Bush administration is a little misleading. Afghanistan has been a major narco-state for a long time.

However, Afghanistan is allegedly under US control now.

 

[loseyourname]

However, Afghanistan is allegedly under US control now.

Well, according to the CIA factbook, one of the world's major producers of marijuana, methamphetamine, hallucinogens, and one of the major money-laundering centers, has been under US control since 1776.

 

[Astronuc]

"Going in there in itself and attacking the drug trade actually feeds the instability that you want to overcome."

Kind of like the US military invasion and occupation of Iraq feeds the instability there.

Any disruption of the drug trade has enormous implications for Afghanistan's economic and political stability.

Only because it has been allowed to become a problem.

Well - its certainly not a simple matter. There were those in the US Dept of State who were adamant about not supporting the drug trade - but there were those in the Bush administration who see it as necessary in order to provide stability - i.e. the US has to work with organized crime to preserve stability. In the end, this is self-defeating as history has demonstrated and will demonstrate.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, according to the CIA factbook, one of the world's major producers of marijuana, methamphetamine, hallucinogens, and one of the major money-laundering centers, has been under US control since 1776.

First of all, of those, only marijauna requires large, open, sunny fields that are easily destroyed.
Next:
Afghanistan
Area - comparative:
slightly smaller than Texas

Population:
31,056,997

Technological state:
Post stone-age

Under US military control.

 

[Futobingoro]

Only because it has been allowed to become a problem.

Exactly how do you convince farmers to abandon a crop which is 12 times as profitable as the alternatives?

Real tough; so we buy them off. The entire yearly revenues for the drug trade are what we spend in a week in Iraq. The fact that this obvious solution is not implemented raises serious questions about motive.

"Buying off" opium farmers does not render opium farming unprofitable.

 

[MeJennifer]

Kind of like the US military invasion and occupation of Iraq feeds the instability there.

Yes and strategically that is a good thing for those prefer to keep Iraq in shambles!

I suppose I am left guessing Astronuc.
I presume you are a very intelligent person, but when it comes to politics I think that you present a very naive picture. Why is that?

You perhaps cannot differentiate the importance between a country's military power and the "threat" of a having dissatisfied people living in it?
Has the thought that there could be people who want to disable all military power of Muslim states in the Middle East ever entered your mind?

 

[Astronuc]

Yes and strategically that is a good thing for those prefer to keep Iraq in shambles!

I was reflecting on the fact that there are more terrorists in Iraq now than before the US invasion, and meanwhile, the Taliban and al Qaida have recovered from their setback in Afghanistan and have actually grown in strength.

I suppose I am left guessing Astronuc.
I presume you are a very intelligent person, but when it comes to politics I think that you present a very naive picture. Why is that?

Left guessing about what? I was reflecting on the failure of Bush's policies, and now there is plenty of evidence, finally out in the open for the public to evaluate, to show how incompetent and negligent, and even criminal Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice et al have been.

Bush and his Replican cohorts make a lot of noise about freedom and democracy, when in reality they have undermined freedom and democracy.

They make a lot of noise about law and order, or if the country does elects the Democrats, that is a vote for the terrorists. However, Bush's policies have aided the terrorists, and allowing the narco-traffic in Afghanistan has provided financial resouces to al Qaida and Taliban.

It is clear that the Bush administration allows/accepts/enables criminal activity when it suits their purposes!

You perhaps cannot differentiate the importance between a country's military power and the "threat" of a having dissatisfied people living in it?

Where is the evidence for such an assertion? To what country is one referring?

Has the thought that there could be people who want to disable all military power of Muslim states in the Middle East ever entered your mind?

I imagine that there are those in the Bush administration who fantansize about such things. Bush and members of his administration have excelled in delusional thinking and denial of reality.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Exactly how do you convince farmers to abandon a crop which is 12 times as profitable as the alternatives?"

Buying off" opium farmers does not render opium farming unprofitable.

You don't see a problem here with your two statements?

We don't have to render it unprofitable. We only need to burn the fields and make it more profitable for farmers to farm legal crops.

 

[Astronuc]

Exactly how do you convince farmers to abandon a crop which is 12 times as profitable as the alternatives?

Funny, this is not an argument in places like Colombia or California or other parts of the US. In fact, some in the administration were pushing for the same US policy in Afghanistan as is the case in Colombia, Peru and other places where marijuana, opium and coca plants are grown.

 

[MeJennifer]

I was reflecting on the fact that there are more terrorists in Iraq now than before the US invasion, and meanwhile, the Taliban and al Qaida have recovered from their setback in Afghanistan and have actually grown in strength.

So what?
Ok, we got a couple more angry men in Iraq, big deal, they may have become angry anyway, why would any military power be intimidated by that?

There are many angry men around the world Astronuc, half of the world is angry at the US. We just have to make sure that they have no military power and that they do not cross our borders and create havoc here. That is a tough job but the bottom line is that we cannot allow ourselves to be intimidated by angry men and base our international politics on that.
The mission in Iraq, namely disabling any military power it had left, has been accomplished. Of course there is a price to pay for that, unhappy and angry people, and, as we can see, that price is politically exploited by heart-felt driven liberal do-gooders.

Left guessing about what? I was reflecting on the failure of Bush's policies, and now there is plenty of evidence, finally out in the open for the public to evaluate, to show how incompetent and negligent, and even criminal Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice et al have been.

What failure? Iraq is off the map, politically, economically and most importantly, militarily. To me that means a pretty darn successful job. It seems you do not understand the goals of the US administration and therefore are unable to measure its success. Do you perhaps think that the goal of the US administration was to remove Saddam in order to create a garden of Eden there?

Bush and his Republican cohorts make a lot of noise about freedom and democracy, when in reality they have undermined freedom and democracy.

Really. So Iraq, before the invasion was a bastion of freedom and democracy? Sorry but I beg to differ.
Frankly, I seriously doubt that any Muslim based state can have anything even closely resembling freedom and democracy. They just operate on completely different principles.

They make a lot of noise about law and order, or if the country does elects the Democrats, that is a vote for the terrorists.

Well that is simply rhetorics, a political tool that Democrats use as well.

However, Bush's policies have aided the terrorists, and allowing the narco-traffic in Afghanistan has provided financial resources to al Qaida and Taliban.

That is simply nonsense. So if you do something that makes someone else angry and then he kills your daughter it is your fault because you aided them? What kind of an ill-conceived logic is that?

It is clear that the Bush administration allows/accepts/enables criminal activity when it suits their purposes!

Well that is called pragmatism Astronuc.
What on Earth do you think the US administration together with the head of the military and the CIA do? Singing John Lennon songs?

Where is the evidence for such an assertion? To what country is one referring?

Well I suppose I was not clear, I was talking about Iraq.

I imagine that there are those in the Bush administration who fantansize about such things. Bush and members of his administration have excelled in delusional thinking and denial of reality.

It is not fantasy but actuality. Next in line is Iran, after that we can expect the US to start shutting down the selling of weapons to the Saudis. Then on the other front we can have Israel take care or minor threats like Lebanon and Syria.

 

[Astronuc]

Well that is called pragmatism.

No - its called racketeering and corruption.

Iraq is off the map, politically, economically and most importantly, militarily.

The mission in Iraq, namely disabling any military power it had left, has been accomplished.

Not at all. There are more terroists in Iraq than before the US invasion. Al Qaida and Taliban have regained strength. The Shii controlled parts of Iraq are looking toward Iran. The Iraqi Army is now mostly Shii with sympathies to Iran, not the US.

The US is bogged down in what maybe a no-win situation in Iraq. Perhaps the Kurds will remain friends with the US out of necessity, even after the numerous betrayals by the US.

 

[MeJennifer]

Not at all. There are more terroists in Iraq than before the US invasion. Al Qaida and Taliban have regained strength. The Shii controlled parts of Iraq are looking toward Iran. The Iraqi Army is now mostly Shii with sympathies to Iran, not the US.

So what, what are they going to do with some left over rockets except bombing themselves?
Who cares, so what if every Iraqi man becomes an Al Qaida member, Iraq has no military power anymore. Why would we care? Fundamentalist Muslim culture is completely alienating itsef from the rest of the world, not our fault, but instead their choice!

Again you fail to distinguish between military power of a country and some terrorists blowing up some high profile objects one's every decade or so.
Perspective Astronuc!

 

[Gokul43201]

Again you fail to distinguish between military power of a country and some terrorists blowing up some high profile objects one's every decade or so.

What is this "military power" that Iraq supposedly had before the invasion, and why was "dismantling Iraq's military" never mentioned in any speech, and finally, why is the US now rebuilding this military having they've spent billions of dollars and cost tens of thousands of lives in obliterating it?

 

[MeJennifer]

What is this "military power" that Iraq supposedly had before the invasion, and why was "dismantling Iraq's military" never mentioned in any speech, and finally, why is the US now rebuilding this military having they've spent billions of dollars and cost tens of thousands of lives in obliterating it?

Well it was not that much as we discovered but they had some and were working on expanding it.
Rebuilding military power in Iraq would be a tremendous mistake IMHO. Keeping the country divided and in shambles for the next few decades is the optimum strategy IMHO.

 

[Amp1]

Thus increased world distrust, disgust, disrespect, disenchantment and some other dis'es methinks. The only way the US can save face is by divesting itself of the ill got gains off Iraq and using those resources to rebuild infractructure and medical facilities. The gov'tment will like- ly plog along walking or trying to walk the thin razors edge of placating the US (current admin) and trying to appear to stand up to the bully (?US) front'in to those to whom it matters (the people).

 

[Skyhunter]

MeJennifer, I think you are the one here that is naive. To think that we went into Iraq to destroy it's military is ludicrous. We had already done that in 1991. In 2003 with weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq we found and bulldozed Al Samoud missiles because their range was 15 miles further than what we had allowed Saddam for Iraq's self defense.

To suggest that we should promote destabilizing Iraq is unconscionable. Have you no shred of humanity? Are you so desensitized to the horror that is everyday life in Baghdad that you think it is a good thing?

You obviously know little about the Muslim culture.

My guess is you are young and privileged, and believe that it is America's destiny to remake the world in it's own image.

PS: I was there once myself.

 

[BobG]

Thus increased world distrust, disgust, disrespect, disenchantment and some other dis'es methinks. The only way the US can save face is by divesting itself of the ill got gains off Iraq and using those resources to rebuild infractructure and medical facilities. The gov'tment will like- ly plog along walking or trying to walk the thin razors edge of placating the US (current admin) and trying to appear to stand up to the bully (?US) front'in to those to whom it matters (the people).

Then we must be saving a lot of face. We're divesting ourselves of over $200 million dollars a day to be in Iraq.

The cynical could argue Iraq's oil was the real motivation for the invasion, but whatever the motivation, there hasn't been a positive return from Iraq in any form, whether diplomatically, strategically, or monetarily.

 

[Gokul43201]

The cynical could argue Iraq's oil was the real motivation for the invasion, but whatever the motivation, there hasn't been a positive return from Iraq in any form, whether diplomatically, strategically, or monetarily.

Not so sure the oil companies would agree with that (ask this one, for instance).

 

[BobG]

Not so sure the oil companies would agree with that (ask this one, for instance).

Possibly. Prior to the invasion, French and Russian companies owned most of the contracts for Iraqi oil and I don't know who has the contracts, now. Overall, the invasion has reduced Iraqi oil production and reduced US oil imports from Iraq, in spite of sanctions being in place before the invasion.

Annual oil production rates since 1972: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t41a.xls (interesting, since you can track the effect of the Iraq-Iran war, the Kuwait invasion and sanctions, the easing of sanctions in the 'Oil-for-Food' program.

Monthly oil production rates since 2001: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t11a.xls (drastic drop when US invaded, rose somewhat close to pre-invasion levels, but has been up and down, never reaching pre-invasion levels)

US oil imports since 1993: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t410.xls (2004 had been the only year to match US imports from Iraq during the last years of the pre-invasion sanctions with 'Oil-for-Food'.)

US oil imports 2005/2006: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t37.xls (finally, in 2006, US imports from Iraq seem to be stable at pre-invasion levels, at least for now)

Who gets oil from Iraq since 1992: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t417.xls (US isn't getting any more oil than before the invasion, but France and most other European countries are getting much less. Russia isn't listed.)

So it's possible some US oil companies are profiting, but it isn't providing a stream of cheap oil for the American people.

 

[ptabor]

Well, according to the CIA factbook, one of the world's major producers of marijuana, methamphetamine, hallucinogens, and one of the major money-laundering centers, has been under US control since 1776.

Technically, 1783.

 

[Severian]

Afghanistan has been a major narco-state for a long time.

No it hasn't. The removal of the drug trade was the one good thing that the Taliban did for Afghanistan (since drugs are very much taboo in islam).

 

[Futobingoro]

Gokul, if you are implying that Exxon's profits are excessive, you are mistaken. I have read many articles which trumpet Exxon's $36 billion profit as proof of price gouging. Not one has mentioned the $334 billion in taxes and expenses Exxon incurred while earning that $36 billion. In other words, Exxon's profit margin was roughly 10% over that period. Compare that to other corporations (namely: Google, Coca-Cola and Merck) and you might find that Exxon isn't so bad after all.

 

[ptabor]

Not so sure the oil companies would agree with that (ask this one, for instance).

This is misleading. Exxon's profit margin has been fairly consistent from 2003 - 2005 (url below) at 8 - 10%. Thus, they have not really profited off the war in iraq. When they release their statements at the end of this year, perhaps a different picture will be painted - I really can't say.

Certainly the stock price has outpaced the DJIA, but this does nothing for exxon itself. The only time a company makes money on its stock is its IPO - after that its the shareholders that rake in the loot. Might I remind you that had you had the foresight to purchase some exxon stock in 2002, you could be raking in the dough.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM&annual

 

[Gokul43201]

This is misleading. Exxon's profit margin has been fairly consistent from 2003 - 2005 (url below) at 8 - 10%. Thus, they have not really profited off the war in iraq.

But all three of those years are AFTER the war started. In 2002, their profit was about 5.5%.

Nevertheless, (and I admit I was loose with my wording) the point I'm making is a rebuttal to what seemed like a claim that there has been no monetary benefit to Americans, from the war.

Might I remind you that had you had the foresight to purchase some exxon stock in 2002, you could be raking in the dough.

This is presumptuous, and totally irrelevant to the discussion. Besides, I'm not complaining that Exxon's stock is soaring. I'm merely pointing out there might very easily be lots of people profiting monetarily from the war.

Futo, I never suggested that their profits are excessive, did I?