News What if Bush and Cheney ARE delusional?

[Astronuc]

Hindsight is 20/20. We believed they were a significant threat at the time of the invasion.

Hindsight is 20/20, except for those who still don't get. We did not believe they[Iraq] were a significant threat. Certainly those who were uniformed would have believed. In the base of Bush and Cheney, they were in a position to know that Iraq was not a threat, and perhaps they did in which case they deliberately falsified evidence and lied/mislead Congress. Otherwise they are incompetent, which based on their handling of Iraq certainly seems to be the case, or they are depraved and demented.

The current situation was forseen by many (including myself) who were critics of the war and of Bush in the first place. Some of us do pay attention to the rest of the world, and do obtain much better information than provided by the media or government in the US.

Scott Ritter was heavily criticised because he insisted that there were no WMD. On the other hand, since the US (Reagan Administration) supplied the technology and some materials for bio and chemical weapons, as well as supporting Iraq in the Iraq/Iran war, perhaps some in the Bush administration(some of the same people from Reagan's admin) may have believed they would find bio/chem weapons.

As for democracy, clearly Bush stated that as a goal. The actions of the Bush administration would indicate otherwise, by virtue of the US influence (or interference) in the elections.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6899

Report of Covert Aid to Iraqi Candidates
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0717-04.htm , by Douglas Jehl, David E. Sanger

http://www.ips-dc.org/comment/Bennis/tp36elections.htm

Assessing the Iraqi Elections’ Impact on Terrorism and Insurgency
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?issue_id=3570

 

[Cyrus]

Here I found this from one of my old pots.. Watch this video and keep your eyes and ears open.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7292279546899698502&q=bob+wright

Watch the second half. It answers allllllllllll your questions and is a VERY good source.

 

[GTdan]

Wow, you just don't get it do you? Iraq never attacked us. That's why it was called a preemptive war.

No, they didnt. Turn on the news lately? BOTH republicans and deomcrats are saying they would NOT have supported the war had they known the amount of misinformation they were given thanks to Bush. I am not saying its excusible, they were asleep at the wheel, BUTT they were not given the facts straight either.

Maybe you don't get it. Do you know what the phrase, hindsight is 20/20 means? It was believed there was a direct link between Iraq and Al-Qaida. They were believed to be harboring terrorists and producing WMD. Yes, these claims proved to be false. That doesn't not negate the fact that WE DID BELIEVE THEY WERE INVOLVED. Whether or not they are complaining now after seeing the truth is not my point. Now that I am going to perfectly phrase the question for you, ANSWER IT: Would you or would you not choose to freely defend yourself, if you believed 100% that someone was involved in a plot against you (whether directly or indirectly)?

You have forced me to rephrase it 3 times now. I think we all know what you are avoiding.

1- Saddam was interfearing with weapons inspects to keep Iran thinking they had chemical weapons.

1- Saddam was interfearing with weapons inspects to keep Iran thinking they had chemical weapons.
2- OOPS, we already know that one was BS!
3- brutal opression is not a reason to go to war.
4- Again, largely FALSE after 1992.
5- Wow, your going to war from something in 93' don't you think your a little bit late in acting??
6- FALSE - Al Qaida was not in Iraq prior to the war.
7- OOPs that's wrong too, you can't give WMDs to terrorists when you don't have any!
Sooo, it seems to me that WMDs were the primary reason. Show me the other reasons then Dan...I can't see what's not there.

So you quote 7 different reasons and then tell me there is only 1.
It doesn't matter whether you disagree with 6 out of 7. Congress of 2003 apparently isn't on your side.

And btw, there are much more than the 7 you numbered. You just read the wiki. Read the actual document. Are you cherry picking? Here let me number the reasons that wiki provided. REMEMBER, the document HAS MORE.

1.Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors

-it doesn't matter why. They violated the agreement.

2. Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"

-we believed they had them at the time. It has been proven that Saddam was intending to have them again.

3.Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"

-brutal repression may not be a reason for war to you but it is to Congress.

4.Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"

-It was proven that they had no capability. We didn't know that at the time either. They were definitely willing though.

5.Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War

-It doesn't matter if you disagree with this reason. Congress APPROVED OF THESE REASONS!

6.Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq"

- Yes, this is false. Again, watch your hindsight.

7.Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations

-same as above.

8.Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States

-same as above.

9.The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them

-same as above

10.The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism

-same as above

11.Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement

-Another reason on its own. You may disagree again, but Congress thought it was sufficient.

So you see Cyrus, it doesn't matter AT ALL whether or not you agree or disagree with the Resolution. Congress approved of this resolution and therefore agreed that these were all valid reasons for war. Your continuing denial and constant yelling that WMD was the only reason won't make a difference. You may think they are not valid and most of us will agree that many of the accusations proved to be untrue, but that does not change the fact that these were the REASONS STATED BY OUR GOVERNMENT FOR WAR.

This is why it is called: Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

EDWARD:

I'm afraid you don't understand what I am arguing about. I have already admitted the WMD evidence was false. I stated however, that WMD wasn't the only reason we went to war, it was just the only reason stressed by the media. Cyrus is intent on believing that WMD is the ONLY reason we went to war. I told and am continuing to tell him that he is mistaken and have provided the Iraq War Resolution approved by Congress which clearly states EVERY reason we went to war. This is not debatable. It's an official document. It's fact. It was stated on TV as well. And I have no idea why Cyrus is rambling on about whether the reasons were misplaced or not. That does not take away from the fact that they were the stated reasons for war. Plain and simple.

 

[GTdan]

Hindsight is 20/20, except for those who still don't get. We did not believe they[Iraq] were a significant threat. Certainly those who were uniformed would have believed. In the base of Bush and Cheney, they were in a position to know that Iraq was not a threat, and perhaps they did in which case they deliberately falsified evidence and lied/mislead Congress. Otherwise they are incompetent, which based on their handling of Iraq certainly seems to be the case, or they are depraved and demented.

The current situation was forseen by many (including myself) who were critics of the war and of Bush in the first place. Some of us do pay attention to the rest of the world, and do obtain much better information than provided by the media or government in the US.

Scott Ritter was heavily criticised because he insisted that there were no WMD. On the other hand, since the US (Reagan Administration) supplied the technology and some materials for bio and chemical weapons, as well as supporting Iraq in the Iraq/Iran war, perhaps some in the Bush administration(some of the same people from Reagan's admin) may have believed they would find bio/chem weapons.

As for democracy, clearly Bush stated that as a goal. The actions of the Bush administration would indicate otherwise, by virtue of the US influence (or interference) in the elections.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6899

Report of Covert Aid to Iraqi Candidates
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0717-04.htm , by Douglas Jehl, David E. Sanger

http://www.ips-dc.org/comment/Bennis/tp36elections.htm

Assessing the Iraqi Elections’ Impact on Terrorism and Insurgency
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?issue_id=3570

Look, if you want to believe that the admin knew it was all false beforehand, go ahead. There's no proof for it but go ahead.

Note that when I say WE, I am generalizing. As I have CLEARLY mentioned, yes, there were open critics of the plan for invasion. Yet the majority of our representatives and the public approved. This is what I mean when I say we. If you want to exclude yourself from that majority, go right ahead. I have no problem with that. But apparently, far too many were fooled.

 

[Cyrus]

Maybe you don't get it. Do you know what the phrase, hindsight is 20/20 means? It was believed there was a direct link between Iraq and Al-Qaida. They were believed to be harboring terrorists and producing WMD. Yes, these claims proved to be false. That doesn't not negate the fact that WE DID BELIEVE THEY WERE INVOLVED. Whether or not they are complaining now after seeing the truth is not my point. Now that I am going to perfectly phrase the question for you, ANSWER IT: Would you or would you not choose to freely defend yourself, if you believed 100% that someone was involved in a plot against you (whether directly or indirectly)?

I am not going to answer your question because its WRONG! We were not 100% sure that someone was plotting against us!

Maybe YOUUUUUUUUUUU think that's what we thought, but its NOT the case.

Watch the video I sent you. I'll send you more later.


GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD, the congress did not get the full truth to make their decision.

 

[GTdan]

I am not going to answer your question because its WRONG! We were not 100% sure that someone was plotting against us!

Maybe YOUUUUUUUUUUU think that's what we thought, but its NOT the case.

GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD, the congress did not get the full truth to make their decision.

So if so many people were not sure of it, how is it possible that Congress allowed it all to happen hmmmmmmmmm? Don't give that BS about he tricked everybody because everyone just told me Bush was a moron. A moron can't trick an entire nation.

The majority of the public and its representatives were convinced. As I just said to Astronuc, you can exclude yourself from that majority if you wish. That's fine with me.

And I never disputed that Congress didn't get the full truth. Certainly WMD and terrorism were not true. But Saddam's violation of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, the repression of the civilian population, the 1998 Liberation Act, etc ALL were true. All of these things, NOT just WMD, were the justifications for war.

 

[mathwonk]

It is hard to believe anyone still thinks the bush administration actually thought there were WMD in Iraq. But polls show many people still believe not only that, but still believe Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11.

On the one hand Bush does seem that dumb, but the evidence shows now that even he knew better, and that he not only ignored, but lied about the evidence he had.

And in my opinion anyone in the public who believed Bush that there really were WMD even though Hans Blick said otherwise after searching for them, is either a little slow, or VERY gullible.

How can this discussion still be going on? Is this a joke?

 

[Cyrus]

But Saddam's violation of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, the repression of the civilian population, the 1998 Liberation Act, etc ALL were true. All of these things, NOT just WMD, were the justifications for war.

Who CARESSSSSSSSSSS? THOSE are not enough reason for war! Cant you understand this? They were tacked onto the main reason for war WMDS. Why don't you read through your full version and COUNT the number of times its related to WMDs. JESUS CHRISTTTTTTTTT.

Your a wall...even the majority of the American public and the MILITARY think Iraq is a failure. For god's sakes, go get some good information.


Q: Why the hell do you love Bush so much and support this war so blindly?

 

[Cyrus]

Watch this, and LEARN.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4926293608118312619&q=thomas+ricks

 

[Art]

So if so many people were not sure of it, how is it possible that Congress allowed it all to happen hmmmmmmmmm? Don't give that BS about he tricked everybody because everyone just told me Bush was a moron. A moron can't trick an entire nation.

The majority of the public and its representatives were convinced. As I just said to Astronuc, you can exclude yourself from that majority if you wish. That's fine with me.

The majority of the public and its representatives were convinced because
a) They weren't privvy to the secret intelligence reports available only to Bush and his gang and so Congress and Joe Public had to base their judgement on the summary papers and selective intel provided by Bush and Co.
B) Their judgement was flawed because they were lied to and mislead in the summary papers provided by Bush and Co.
C) The majority now say if they had been in possession of the true facts their judgement would have been different.

So let's entertain the remote possibility that Bush thought the information he provided was true. Even if this was the case subsequent events has proven him wrong and on an issue as large as this and with the deadly repercusions for hundreds of thousands of people which ensued the only honourable recourse for Bush and his warmongering allies is to resign.

If there was a genuine threat in the future how many people would believe this current admin? So Bush is now a major threat to US security. He is a quintessential example of the boy who cried wolf.

 

[edward]

EDWARD:

I'm afraid you don't understand what I am arguing about. I have already admitted the WMD evidence was false. I stated however, that WMD wasn't the only reason we went to war, it was just the only reason stressed by the media. Cyrus is intent on believing that WMD is the ONLY reason we went to war. I told and am continuing to tell him that he is mistaken and have provided the Iraq War Resolution approved by Congress which clearly states EVERY reason we went to war. This is not debatable. It's an official document. It's fact. It was stated on TV as well. And I have no idea why Cyrus is rambling on about whether the reasons were misplaced or not. That does not take away from the fact that they were the stated reasons for war. Plain and simple.

Actually I do know what you are arguing about. If the evidence presented to congress had been all of your; Saddam did this, Saddam didn't do that trivia , we would never had invaded Iraq.

There was no Al Qaida in Iraq and we knew it.

But the intelligence analysts in the US and Britain on whose work the president's claim was supposedly based say the connections are tangential at best, and the available evidence falls far short of proving a secret relationship between Baghdad and Osama bin Laden. One intelligence source in Washington, who has seen CIA material on the link, described the case as "soft" and "squishy".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,885115,00.html

 

[GTdan]

Who CARESSSSSSSSSSS? THOSE are not enough reason for war! Cant you understand this? They were tacked onto the main reason for war WMDS. Why don't you read through your full version and COUNT the number of times its related to WMDs. JESUS CHRISTTTTTTTTT.

Your a wall...even the majority of the American public and the MILITARY think Iraq is a failure. For god's sakes, go get some good information.

Ok, let's take this slow Cyrus.

#1: When on any post in this thread have I said that Iraq was a success and that the WMD issue was for real?

#2: What does the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 have to do with WMD?

#3: What does the "brutal repression of the civilian population" have to do with WMD?

#4: What does the violation of the 1991 cease fire conditions have to do with WMD?

#5: What does the supposed link between Iraq and Al-Qaida have to do with WMD?

#6: What does the harboring and support of "other anti-US terrorist organizations" have to do with WMD?

#7: What does the enforcement of various UN Security Council Resolutions have to do with WMD?

#8: What does the replacement of the Saddam regime have to do with WMD?

#9: What does "restoration of peace and security to the Persian Gulf" have to do with WMD?

I'm not asking whether you think these justifications are bogus or whether you think they are good enough reasons. You said everything relates to WMD in the original document and now I want you to show it.

 

[GTdan]

The majority of the public and its representatives were convinced because
a) They weren't privvy to the secret intelligence reports available only to Bush and his gang and so Congress and Joe Public had to base their judgement on the summary papers and selective intel provided by Bush and Co.
B) Their judgement was flawed because they were lied to and mislead in the summary papers provided by Bush and Co.
C) The majority now say if they had been in possession of the true facts their judgement would have been different.

So let's entertain the remote possibility that Bush thought the information he provided was true. Even if this was the case subsequent events has proven him wrong and on an issue as large as this and with the deadly repercusions for hundreds of thousands of people which ensued the only honourable recourse for Bush and his warmongering allies is to resign.

If there was a genuine threat in the future how many people would believe this current admin? So Bush is now a threat to US security. He is a quintessential example of the boy who cried wolf.

Ok, so Bush is freakin mastermind then? Well which is he? A moron or an evil mastermind? You want to entertain the possibility that Bush was in possession of the real facts. But not all the justifications for war were lies. That's what I keep trying to tell Cyrus. Saddams actual UN violations, the civilian condition, bla, bla bla. Those things really were true. How is this so difficult to understand?

EDWARD:

See, now you are jumping to conclusions. You don't know that. You CAN'T know that because it's a hypothetical scenario.

 

[Cyrus]

From your white house link:

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possesses and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

I am not going to paste any more paragraphs from your source. You need to learn how to read man. Literally, almost every damn paragraph in your source for the reasons of war mentions WMDs.

I guess its just the media elite making it about WMDs, rightttttttttttttttt. BULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL SHhhhhhhh!ttttt

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

You fall for Bush's lies hook, line and sinker. You're a lost hope. I am not going to enligthen you anymore to the truth that is OBVIOUS to anyone with half a brain.


Bye,

 

[Art]

Ok, so Bush is freakin mastermind then? Well which is he? A moron or an evil mastermind? You want to entertain the possibility that Bush was in possession of the real facts. But not all the justifications for war were lies. That's what I keep trying to tell Cyrus. Saddams actual UN violations, the civilian condition, bla, bla bla. Those things really were true. How is this so difficult to understand?

Actually I think Bush is a muppet controlled by Cheney's hand up his ass but that's by the by I haven't made any comment on whether Bush is a moron or an evil mastermind. I have explained however whichever eventuality is true, or even if there is another no-one has thought of yet, doesn't change the fact his position is now untenable as he has lost all credibility and so has become a major security risk to the US. So instead of creating strawmen why not address what I actually said and either agree with my conclusions or argue against them citing reasons otherwise it will appear your only real aim here is to troll.

 

[Astronuc]

On the other hand,

Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either.

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000b.html
October 11, 2000
The Second Gore-Bush Presidential Debate
Wake Chapel at Wake Forest University at Winston-Salem, North Carolina

He certainly had something on his mind.

And then former Secretary of Treasury mentioned that at the first cabinet meeting, the primary consideration was Iraq - well before 9/11.

So it would appear from Bush's own mouth that he was contemplating how to get Saddam. How many other dictators has Bush gone after? How many dictators does he and his administration support/tolerate?

At the very least, Bush is incurious. Bush is in a position to know and demand the facts, but it would appear he doesn't want to know the truth if it conflicts with his limited view of the world. Bush may be more in denial of reality than delusional, which would be consistent with alcoholism or drug abuse.

 

[denverdoc]

This was planned well before 911. That we know from multiple sources.

The other issue with going to war was our lap dog press. But did they get snookered! I considered myself reasonably informed on the issues as I had the time and opportunity to read and listen to quite a lot of both US alternative media and world press. And many things were known THEN when Colin Powell addressed the UN that obviously contradicted what he said. I think Congress should also be ashamed of itself for buying into the hype, hysteria and chest thumping.

PS: (If for no other reason than that Obama did not, he has my tentative vote on the grounds of a cooler head sees solutions where others may not).

 

[GTdan]

From your white house link:

Bye,

Goodjob not answering anyone of my questions.

Just to prove to everyone else that not all of them mentioned WMD.

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

There you go. Have a nice day Cyrus.

Actually I think Bush is a muppet controlled by Cheney's hand up his ass but that's by the by I haven't made any comment on whether Bush is a moron or an evil mastermind. I have explained however whichever eventuality is true, or even if there is another no-one has thought of yet, doesn't change the fact his position is now untenable as he has lost all credibility and so has become a major security risk to the US. So instead of creating strawmen why not address what I actually said and either agree with my conclusions or argue against them citing reasons otherwise it will appear your only real aim here is to troll.

*sighs*. You can find the answers to your post sprawled across this freaking thread. I consistently explained that there is no proof of Bush actually deliberately misleading anyone, or else he would have been impeached a long time ago. Not to mentioned that I JUST EXPLAINED to you that NOT ALL THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR WAR WERE LIES EITHER, in response to your post. Oh, but wait. Maybe you want me to answer a what-if question. Sure, let's entertain it then. If Bush deliberately mislead everyone and selectively chose false evidence to bring us to war, he needs to be booted and yes, it is about time we had a new President anyway. There you go. I hope that you are satisfied that I answered a question completely irrelevant from the debate I having with cyrus. Now stop degrading this into name calling. First racist, now troll. I've never seen such blatant denial of reality and I never even considered it in the Physics Forums. I have supported all statements I have made so far and taken back everything that was proven wrong. But I guess it seems that's not enough. The attitude and arrogance towards simply admitting one statement is shocking.

 

[Art]

*sighs*. You can find the answers to your post sprawled across this freaking thread. I consistently explained that there is no proof of Bush actually deliberately misleading anyone, or else he would have been impeached a long time ago. Not to mentioned that I JUST EXPLAINED to you that NOT ALL THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR WAR WERE LIES EITHER, in response to your post. Oh, but wait. Maybe you want me to answer a what-if question. Sure, let's entertain it then. If Bush deliberately mislead everyone and selectively chose false evidence to bring us to war, he needs to be booted. There you go. I hope that you are satisfied that I answered a question completely irrelevant from the debate I having with cyrus. Now stop degrading this into name calling. First racist, now troll. I've never seen such blatant denial of reality and I never even considered it in the Physics Forums. I have supported all statements I have made so far and taken back everything that was proven wrong. But I guess it seems that's not enough. The attitude and arrogance towards simply admitting one statement is shocking.

I'm not sure what you think your debate with Cyrus has to so with me Perhaps you think you are debating with a collective conciousness.

Anyway. incredibly you somehow seem once again to have missed the point. As I have explained in detail my argument is that irrelevent of whether or not Bush deliberately mislead the US and the rest of the world the fact that with hindsight he was proven wrong in all critical areas necessitates his removal. Not even as a punishment but because his judgement is no longer trusted which makes him a liability to his country. Now do you agree with that or not and if not why not? See it's a simple question.

 

[GTdan]

I'm not sure what you think your debate with Cyrus has to so with me Perhaps you think you are debating with a collective conciousness.

Anyway. incredibly you somehow seem once again to have missed the point. As I have explained in detail my argument is that irrelevent of whether or not Bush deliberately mislead the US and the rest of the world the fact that with hindsight he was proven wrong in all critical areas necessitates his removal. Not even as a punishment but because his judgement is no longer trusted which makes him a liability to his country. Now do you agree with that or not and if not why not? See it's a simple question.

Which I agreed to in the post I just made:

"If Bush deliberately misled everyone and selectively chose false evidence to bring us to war, he needs to be booted and yes, it is about time we had a new President anyway."

In other words, yes I agree with you.

 

[turbo]

Which I agreed to in the post I just made:

"If Bush deliberately misled everyone and selectively chose false evidence to bring us to war, he needs to be booted and yes, it is about time we had a new President anyway."

In other words, yes I agree with you.

Thank you! Bush and Cheney lied lied about the truthfulness of the UN weapons inspectors and told the US that they were lying or at best ineffectual in their reporting. We now know the UN inspectors were right. Bush and Cheney outed a NOC CIA agent (Valerie Plame) to punish her husband for not rubber-stamping their made-up claim that Saddam was trying to buy yellow-cake from Niger. NOC agents have no official cover (like embassy agents) and are the most at-risk agents in the CIA. They were mad ad her husband, and outed her and destroyed her career ( which was dedicated to controlling weapons of mass destruction!) Our current administration is a handful of creeps that made up pretenses to wage war on an oil-producing country with no justification.

 

[mathwonk]

what if..??!

 

[drankin]

We're going to have to tough it out for just a little longer, friends.

 

[mathwonk]

the bumper sticker read: "is it 2008 yet?"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

From another thread re the Gonzales hearing:

Gonzo is now having memory problems.

"You have answered `I don't know' or `I can't recall' to close to 100 questions. You are unfamiliar with inner workings of your department," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., scolded. "I urge you to re-examine your performance, and for the good of the department and the good of the country, step down."

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/nation/17104984.htm

I couldn't find a transcript yet, but Bush responded today by saying that he was happy and still supporting Gonzales, and "he felt that he [Gonzales] answered your questions". This is found at the 17:00 minute mark here:
http://media.pbs.org/ramgen/newshour/expansion/2007/04/19/20070419_gonzales28.rm?altplay=20070419_gonzales28.rm
from PBS - The News Hour - main page today
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/

Liar or delusional? Or is this just a reckless disregard for factual information - people who will say anything to get what they want or to create the desired spin? People who assume that no one is paying attention so they can get away with anything no matter how obvious? People who have no regard for the truth? People who know that BS said often enough becomes truth? The question in my mind is whether or not Bush even realizes what's happening [delusional] - if he is the unwitting puppet exploited by the likes of Cheney and Rummy. When I see the arrogance combined with his religious beliefs, I see a broad avenue for exploitation.

 

[BobG]

The idea that Congressmen were tricked into voting for the resolution by Bush and Cheney lies is a myth perpetuated by Congressmen. They knew full well what they were voting for.

That's not the same as saying they voted for the resolution because they believed in the reasons given. Bringing the resolution before Congress in October 2002, less than a month before elections, had more to do with the results than whether Congress believed the invasion was right or wrong.

Bush bet on a lack of courage by Congress and it turned out he was right.

There used to be an article by Winslow Wheeler on the Senate debate leading up to the vote that was available for free on the internet. Wheeler writes some very good pieces on the working of Congress, especially on how defense budgets are constructed, and now you have to pay to read them.

You can still go right to the source, The Congressional Record, though. The debate on Iraq starts on Oct 4 and is available here: Congressional Record - Senate. Unfortunately, the debate is intermingled with other Senate business, making the reading a bit tedious - you have to keep skipping past the parts you don't want to read.

The first couple of days have some very intelligent debate about the war. Well, excluding Sen Miller's comments which leave a listener asking more questions about the sex lives of snakes than Iraq - I always cringe when someone self-elevates themselves to Jesus Christ status and begins speaking in parables. But that's more than outweighed by comments from Wellstone, McCain, Byrd, and a few others. The real reason the resolution is passed is summed up by Sen Byrd, right off the bat: Senate debate.

Barbara Boxer shows she understands how Senators come to their decisions - instead of weighing the pros and cons of the invasion itself, they'll have their staffers analyze the effect the Senator's vote will have on voters. Her message is that Senators can vote their best judgement and can sell that vote to the public. At least she deals in reality.

Unfortunately, most Senators' staffs apparently disagreed. The debate eventually degrades into Senators practicing that time honored practice of talking out of both sides of their mouth. Their comments are carefully crafted to provide quotes that they can cherry pick in ensuing election campaigns regardless of how the invasion turns out. At one point, the string of drivel got so bad that one of the Senators, themselves, felt he had to stand up and ask the other Senators to please read the resolution before speaking. As Ivan noted, Clinton's comments were probably the low point of the debate. Reading her comments, one has to wonder if it's fair to have a thread asking if Bush and Cheney are delusional and not have a similar thread for Hillary Clinton.

Some Senators voted based on what they truly believed. They may have been right or they may have been wrong, but they at least did what we paid them for - they did their best for their nation. Not all were up to that task. Sad to say, when asked to weigh one of the most serious questions our leaders can face, a very large number placed their own political careers ahead of the nation.

 

[Astronuc]

Thanks BobG. Byrd's statement was right on.

Let me read that again. Let’s dispose of the 9 pages. All we need is one sentence in order to do exactly what the 9 pages would do. All that is necessary is the President’s own determination. We can save a lot of space. We can save a lot of paper if we want to pass this resolution by cutting it down to one sentence, and that sentence could simply say—and it would be legally the same as this 9-page document—the President is authorized to use the Armed Services of the United States for as long as he wants, wherever he wants, in any manner he wants, without any approval by Congress, as long as he determines it is necessary to defend against a threat posed by Iraq, in his own determination.

Nothing else is needed but that sentence.

I heard the beginning of the Byrd's statement. I would have thought it was enough to encourage a NO vote on the resolution.

 

[BobG]

Thanks BobG. Byrd's statement was right on.

I heard the beginning of the Byrd's statement. I would have thought it was enough to encourage a NO vote on the resolution.

I agree, but I'm a little bit of an isolationist and a very risk averse person.

The opposing viewpoint, and the real reason for Bush wanting to invade, was expressed by Bush about a week after 9/11 and compiled into a foreign policy doctrine by Condoleezza Rice. Senator Bennett of Utah rehashed this during the Senate debate: Bennett's comments. The relevant part of his speech starts on the next page, about halfway down the first column, but I thought the link should start at the beginning of his comments.

I don't agree with the doctrine and the administration definitely squashed any rational debate by misrepresenting the situation to the public before and during the debate, but it's not such a delusional idea not to at least consider the possibilities.

It was, however, somewhat delusional to ignore the effect 10 years of 'reaping the peace dividend' had on the military and it seriously ignored the cultural background and history of the region. I just think any serious analysis would have to conclude that a unified, democratic Iraq would be a miracle, regardless of the strength of our military. It's not impossible to pull off - the odds of South Africa succeeding had to be considered pretty slim - but it would be an accomplishment that would cement one's position as the greatest, or one of the greatest, leaders in world history.

Bush believed he could pull it off. The entire attitude of the Bush administration has been that they are so good at what they do that they create their own reality. That assessment has turned out to be truly delusional.

 

[Astronuc]

I don't agree with the doctrine and the administration definitely squashed any rational debate by misrepresenting the situation to the public before and during the debate, but it's not such a delusional idea not to at least consider the possibilities.

It was, however, somewhat delusional to ignore the effect 10 years of 'reaping the peace dividend' had on the military and it seriously ignored the cultural background and history of the region. I just think any serious analysis would have to conclude that a unified, democratic Iraq would be a miracle, regardless of the strength of our military. It's not impossible to pull off - the odds of South Africa succeeding had to be considered pretty slim - but it would be an accomplishment that would cement one's position as the greatest, or one of the greatest, leaders in world history.

Bush believed he could pull it off. The entire attitude of the Bush administration has been that they are so good at what they do that they create their own reality. That assessment has turned out to be truly delusional.

All good points. The doctrine of Bush is an extension or component of the principle of unitary executive, which based on recent experience seems to based upon the fact that the president is the only one who can determine what is best for the country. That is not a principle found in the Constitution. That is why there are checks and balances, and that is why Congress is given authority of 'advice and consent'. There is always the danger that the president will act with self-interest and/or in the interest of a small group of people (his/her political patrons), which may conflict with the interest of the people and of the nation. Clearly this is the case with Bush.

Some of Bennett's speech -

I can find experts who will tell us this would be the very best thing we could possibly do, and that the Middle East will be much more peaceful, and that liberty will be on the march if we just stand firm. Out of the newspapers we can find plenty of columnists who will tell us that.

I can find other experts who will say this is the greatest disaster we would possibly bring upon the Middle East, and that if we attack Iraq, we will unleash a whole Pandora’s box of problems. The Arab street will rise up, and America will be hated for 100 years. There are plenty of columnists in the newspapers who will tell us that.

I can find experts who will say: Weapons of mass destruction will be used against Israel if we move ahead against Iraq; that there will be biological and chemical attacks not only against Israel but against American installations everywhere; that American multinational companies will become the targets of biological and chemical attacks; and that all of this can be averted if we just continue the discussions. I can find plenty of columnists and people in the newspapers who will tell us that.

Then there are those who say: If we do not act, we will so embolden Saddam Hussein and all the other dictators of the area that they will never move in a peaceful direction; we will have inevitable war, and it will be many times worse than anything that would be triggered by action taken now. Again, in the newspapers, I can find plenty of columnists who will tell us that.

So this is a truly Presidential decision, and it will be made not in George Bush’s head or in the heads of those around him—DICK CHENEY, Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, brilliant people all; they stack up their degrees, they stack up their accomplishments in the world, and this is as glittering an array of talent as any President has ever assembled to advise him on foreign policy matters—but the ultimate decision will be made in the President’s gut because this is a truly Presidential decision fraught with so many unknowable consequences and possible side effects that no one, no matter how smart, can accurately analyze them in advance and come to a neat and tidy and firm conclusion.

I can't see that Cheney or Rumsfeld are brilliant. Arrogant and pompous, vain and self-serving, and perhaps devious and perhaps even demented and depraved, but not brilliant. Rice and Powell are possibly brilliant, but then Rice was so wrong on the Soviet Union.

Bush is not surrounded by brilliant people. Clearly those who maintained that an invasion of Iraq would be "the very best thing we could possibly do, and that the Middle East will be much more peaceful, and that liberty will be on the march if we just stand firm" were wrong. Should they not be identified and disqualified from future public service? Such people ignored or discounted the evidence in favor of their biases and prejudices, or wishful thinking, or wallowed in denial.

Those who maintained that war in Iraq would be "the greatest disaster we would possibly bring upon the Middle East, and that if we attack Iraq, we will unleash a whole Pandora’s box of problems" were pretty much on the mark. Those are the people, perhaps some pessimistic, who bothered to understand the reality.

The invasion of Iraq didn't cause the problem. It was the aftermath of poor and inadequate planning, the lack of security, the brutality imposed on the Iraqi people, the absolute disaster of Bremer and the CPA, the total lack of action on the part of administration appointees and political affiliates who sat on their behinds, who did absolutely nothing and who got paid very well for doing nothing (document by Tomas Ricks, Fiasco and Bob Woodward, State of Denial, and many others places).

Bush and his supporters state that the US will win as long as the US occupation continues. I disagree. Bush is trying to win in a no-win situation. He lost it back in 2003, when he failed to ensure a viable recovery and reconstruction process, not to mention the brutality he unleashed upon the Iraqi people. The longer the US remains, the worse it will get, not only in Iraq, but throughout the area.

For an interesting perspective on the Middle East and the various conflicts, listen to an interview with Thomas Friedman, columnist and author.

Thomas Friedman on Syria's Role in the Mideast Conflict
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5597591

Fresh Air from WHYY, August 1, 2006 · New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman just returned from a trip to Israel, Jordan and Syria. He talks with us about the war between Israel and Hezbollah, and where Syria fits in. "Syria is really at the center of so much of what's going on right now," Friedman says.

 

[GTdan]

Astronuc: You believe that the best option is withdrawal? How do you feel this will affect the region and the US in the future given the current condition of Iraq?

 

[Astronuc]

Astronuc: You believe that the best option is withdrawal? How do you feel this will affect the region and the US in the future given the current condition of Iraq?

Unless the Bush administration changes its policies and approach in Iraq, yes.

I think that the Bush administration has greatly damaged the reputation of the US in the region.

Had there been a viable plan of recovery and reconstruction, the outcome (and current situation and future) would be very different. Saddam was a thug, and IMO had to go along with his sons, Uday and Qusay.

Unfortunately, after a successful invasion, the Bush administration lacked a viable plan. The total de-Baathification program and the dismal of the Iraqi military was a thoroughly stupid move (apparently a Rumsfeld/Cheney idea implemented without protest by Bremer). These people were disenfranchised immediately and many appear to have become the core of the insurgency. Why not? They had nothing to lose. The US government arbitrarily and capriciously removed their ability to support their families.

I don't see the Bush administration making progress toward a sustainable situation, and certainly not a democratic government, in Iraq. I don't think anyone in the Bush administration is capable of such an achievement.

As for the future, I believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others from the Bush administration have severely undermined the security of the US.

 

[pelastration]

Interesting to go back in time!
A thread of 2003: Send our boys home?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=76175&postcount=37

 

[denverdoc]

I saw Bennett sourced above, I lived there at the time. A definite lightweight.
Notice too, that the only soothing remarks in Gonzo's appearance were made my Orrin Hatch, also from Utah. This is a weird state taht should be recused on any real issue. I love it tho for the powder throws, the canyons south, the great canyon uphills, and even more the descents. Great place if you can stand theocracy.

 

[GTdan]

Unless the Bush administration changes its policies and approach in Iraq, yes.

I think that the Bush administration has greatly damaged the reputation of the US in the region.

Had there been a viable plan of recovery and reconstruction, the outcome (and current situation and future) would be very different. Saddam was a thug, and IMO had to go along with his sons, Uday and Qusay.

Unfortunately, after a successful invasion, the Bush administration lacked a viable plan. The total de-Baathification program and the dismal of the Iraqi military was a thoroughly stupid move (apparently a Rumsfeld/Cheney idea implemented without protest by Bremer). These people were disenfranchised immediately and many appear to have become the core of the insurgency. Why not? They had nothing to lose. The US government arbitrarily and capriciously removed their ability to support their families.

I don't see the Bush administration making progress toward a sustainable situation, and certainly not a democratic government, in Iraq. I don't think anyone in the Bush administration is capable of such an achievement.

As for the future, I believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others from the Bush administration have severely undermined the security of the US.

Clearly the war has been mismanaged. But don't you think an immediate withdrawal will be very very bad for the region and the US in the future? Or are you simply picking the least worst option in your opinion due to the lack of good ones at the moment?

 

[Astronuc]

Clearly the war has been mismanaged. But don't you think an immediate withdrawal will be very very bad for the region and the US in the future? Or are you simply picking the least worst option in your opinion due to the lack of good ones at the moment?

The initial question was about withdrawal, not immediate withdrawal. I am looking at the least worst option.

I suppose the US could organize a referendum by the Iraqi people. Let them vote on whether the US should stay or go.

According to Omar Fekeiki, an Iraqi journalist, all h*** will break lose when the US leaves. http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/316/video.html

 

[Mathgician]

I have a question, it may sound like a stupid question, but a simple one. Before we went in, I'm sure we had an agenda and had predictions of the outcome. Did the predictions match the outcome? Now, if we are predicting the all Hell would break loose, is that outcome going to be true?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Saturday, December 25, 2004;

The U.S. military invaded Iraq without a formal plan for occupying and stabilizing the country and this high-level failure continues to undercut what has been a "mediocre" Army effort there, an Army historian and strategist has concluded.

"There was no Phase IV plan" for occupying Iraq after the combat phase, writes Maj. Isaiah Wilson III, who served as an official historian of the campaign and later as a war planner in Iraq. While a variety of government offices had considered the possible situations that would follow a U.S. victory, Wilson writes, no one produced an actual document laying out a strategy to consolidate the victory after major combat operations ended. [continued]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24891-2004Dec24.html

 

[edward]

The resolution signed by congress if I understand it correctly was:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration Thursday will give Congress a proposed resolution that explicitly authorizes the use of military force if President Bush concludes diplomacy will fail to get Iraq to keep its commitments to the United Nations, administration and congressional sources told CNN.

Did Bush try diplomacy?? Not hardly, all we heard before and after the resolution was signed was; "grave and gathering danger" "yellow cake from Niger, We can't allow the first sign of a smoking gun be a mushroom cloud."

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/18/bush.congress.iraq/index.html

Did the inspectors want more time? You betcha.

Though CBS's Dan Rather noted how the UN arms inspectors had found no “smoking gun” and NBC's Tom Brokaw pointed out how they “want more time,” both led their newscasts by stressing how Iraq has failed to comply with the UN resolution. In contrast, ABC's Peter Jennings opened World News Tonight with the words “pleading for time” on screen over a shot of Hans Blix as Jennings stressed: “The inspectors want more time to do their job.”

Inspectors could not find what wasn't there in the first place.
The war was on the Bush Cheney agenda regardless.

Just an opinion but, I was convinced that there were no WMD in the country when Iraq signed the big oil deals with; Russia, Germany and France. If Iraq was loaded with WMD would Saddam have wanted thousands of foreign oil workers wandering around the country.? On the other hand all of the foreign workers being in the country would have put the dampers on any action that Iran might be considering.

The contracts would ,however, convince a couple of American big oil guys that they needed to to invade Iraq before the Russians, Germans, and French workers arrived.

 

[edward]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24891-2004Dec24.html

There was no plan to occupy Iraq because the administration's post invasion plan used the same lame intellignce sources that they had used as a reason to invade in the first place.

 

[mathwonk]

david letterman put it best when discussing dan quayle's "correction" of a kid's spelling of "potato":

"I myself am not always sure whether "potato" has an "e" on the end of it, but there is one word I do know ends in an e : "imbecile".

 

[Art]

Bush's wishful thinking heralds yet another false dawn.

Now this is delusional!

Bush upbeat on Iraq security plan

US President George W Bush has said early indications suggest a security operation begun in Iraq more than two months ago was "meeting expectations".
Mr Bush said that, while there were still horrific attacks such as Wednesday's bombings, the direction of the fight was "beginning to shift".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6577689.stm

The reality;

MNF deaths

Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days

• 4-2007 69 10 0 79 3.76 21
• 3-2007 81 1 0 82 2.65 31
• 2-2007 80 3 1 84 3 28
• 1-2007 83 3 0 86 2.77 31

Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths
Period Total
Apr-07 1065 (21 days)
Mar-07 1889
Feb-07 1531
Jan-07 1802

Note: Iraqi deaths based on news reports . This is not a definitive count. Actual totals for Iraqi deaths are higher than the numbers recorded on this site.

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/ I doubt the MNF or the Iraqis can take much more of this success.

 

[BobG]

Now this is delusional!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6577689.stm

The reality;
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/ I doubt the MNF or the Iraqis can take much more of this success.

Well, in one sense, the direction of the fight is beginning to shift: Sunni rebels battling al-Qaida

Of course, a report that the civil war is going well is dropping the definition of optimism pretty low when your goal is to avoid a civil war.

 

[Astronuc]

Well, in one sense, the direction of the fight is beginning to shift: Sunni rebels battling al-Qaida

Of course, a report that the civil war is going well is dropping the definition of optimism pretty low when your goal is to avoid a civil war.

If one is in the middle of a civil war, and the goal was to avoid a civil war, then that would seem to indicate failure.

On the other hand, if the goal of the Bush administration is to depopulate Iraq, they are certainly succeeding in that.

 

[Art]

More on Bush's current illusion that his surge plan is working;

Despair stalks Baghdad as plan falters
By Andrew North
BBC News, Baghdad

Trying to get into the centre of Baghdad earlier this week offered one view of how far away the Americans and Iraqi authorities are from gaining control here.
We were at the airport. Just before we were due to leave, the entrance car park was hit by a car bomb.

US troops and private security forces who guard the perimeter locked the whole area down for the next four hours. No traffic was allowed in or out.

While we waited with scores of other vehicles, mortars were fired at the airport. Fortunately for us they landed on the other side of the runway, plumes of smoke shooting into the air.

You won't have heard about any of this because at the same time a series of other far more serious attacks was taking place.

One was at the Sadriya market in the city centre, where a massive car bomb killed more than 140 people.

It was placed at the entrance to a set of barriers put up around another part of the market where a previous single bomb, in February, claimed more than 130 lives.
The market blast "did not penetrate the emplaced barriers" a later US military press release helpfully pointed out, ignoring the fact that the bombers had yet again adapted their tactics with vicious perfection - setting off their device at the point where crowds congregated outside and at the very moment when they were busiest.

The Sunni extremist surge seems to be having more effect than the American one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6575717.stm

US troops die in new Iraq attack
Nine US soldiers have been killed in a suicide bomb attack on a base north of Baghdad, military officials have said.
Some 20 troops and an Iraqi civilian were injured in the attack, which happened in the volatile province of Diyala, to the north-east of Baghdad.

There has been fierce fighting in Diyala recently, pitting US and Iraqi forces against Sunni and Shia militias.

It is thought to be the worst single US loss on the ground since late 2005, when 10 marines died near Falluja.

In January 2007, 12 US soldiers died when a Black Hawk military helicopter crashed near Baghdad.

More than 3,300 US troops have been killed and some 24,300 have been injured in Iraq since the conflict began.

In Baghdad, meanwhile, two car bombs exploded on Tuesday morning near the Iranian embassy, police and witnesses said. At least four people were reported hurt in the blasts.

Two blasts in the same area on Monday left one person dead.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6586501.stm