What are your thoughts about the war in Iraq? Who is telling the truth about how well the war is going: the soldiers or the media? Don't hesitate to post thoughts on what the US could be doing to improve the situation in Iraq.
Here are my own thoughts: At this point, we shouldn't be bickering over whether or not we were right to go into Iraq. Let's leave that question to the history books. Right now, we should be focusing on what we can do to improve life for the Iraqis, taking the fight to the insurgents, and then formulate a realistic exit strategy.
So, go ahead and post any thoughts or ideas that are Iraq-related.
Whenever you can't respond to a topic, attack Pelosi or Murtha or some court in Pennsylvania ....or bear the Cross and plead anti-Christian conspiracy....
Whatever.........
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
After learning that Nancy Pelosi spoke with Petraeus over the phone rather than in person, I have decided that we should spend another $300 billion on Iraq and extend tours of duty from 15 months to 18 months. If she ever makes another American Idol joke again, I suggest that we spend an additional $200 billion on Iraq.
Does anyone have any ideas as to how to end this war on a non-partisan or bi-partisan plan? My view is that the nature of war demands an either/or approach. Either do what is needed or get out. The only people at war are those over there fighting. The rest of us are not even asked to pay for it, we are borrowing the money for this war from China. We were told that to show our support we should "go shopping" Huh? We failed to provide a reasonable plan going in. We have failed our veterans when they came home. So how now do we end this or bring it to an acceptable conclusion? Again, the only solutions I see are 1: start a draft to provide the manpower and raise taxes to provide funds or 2: get out. Either plan I would support, but not the slow eternal bleed of the Bush Administration or the slow time-limited bleed of the Democrats.
The Iraq Stidy Group is about as food as you are going to get. The key to me is tying to to some overall cogent strategy - something Bush has not done 4 years in and the Demos have yet to do. The ISG is as good on that score as exists now IMHO. Petraeus writings also aren't to bad either on this score (last link). I feel we will be there a long time in Iraq in some capacity ala Korea (the proper analogy). But we need a Strategic context!! Where is George Kennan when we need him! Check the ISG stuff out (best so far) and these links from some of the authors:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402252_pf.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301591.html
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/pdf/iraqReport_120606_part1and2.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901333.html
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Agree w/John Milligan. The Iraq study group was bi-partisan, and what I read of their recommendations made sense to me, too bad the "decider" chose to ignore it. I also think Colin Powell and other ex-generals should be brought in and consulted.
And while we're on Iraq - what's this crap I'm hearing from Republicans, like Giuliani, that after we left Vietnam there was a bloodbath? There was not. There was in Cambodia, but that had nothing to do with Vietnam, and, in fact, at one point communist Vietnam tried to stop Pol Pot in Cambodia. More re-writing of history.......
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
And one of things the ISG said is that a withdrawl from Iraq will vastly increase the sectarian violence in Iraq.
The reporter from CNN who has been in Iraq since day 1 (whose name escapes me) said the same thing today on Wolf Blitzer.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
I agree on the horse trading withdrawal for nukes type of thing Kris! See new Foreign Policy Forum post: http://unity08.com/node/1204
For some reason I could not post directly to your post but this whole talking/horsetrading things is worthy in and of itself of a separate listing!!
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
OK We start with the study group's proposals. I realize that an immeadiate withdrawal will increase sectarian violence, but the Iraqis have to control that. Who among the presidential candidates is advocating the study group's proposals? I watch a lot of news on all of the networks, and I have not seen anyone come forward and advocate a willingness to accept all of their proposals.
Actually Bush and the demos have cherry picked the ISG proposals and BOTH do not want to admit it. Real weird but that's DC politics for you. The Prez candidates will undoubtably do the same as they panderbear their way with their respective activist bases to get their nominations. The ISG ideas will be used in part by both but they just will not attributed. And what they (ISG) are basically saying is to take the middle ground and tie this Iraq thing into an overall Strategy that will reflect the US Interest in the ME and beyond which are substantial!!
And everyone is talking on both extremes now about the Viet Nam analogies. They are missing the most appropo analogy on this sucker - it's Korea! Reread the ISG Report and think KOREA and what happened there!! That's what they are getting at! That and geeting some policies that are tied to a strategy (ala NSC68, Containment, etc) and actually tying up the vast ends-means disconnects both extremes have pushed on us. Read ISG and remember KOREA!!
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
So what we need is a plan to divide iraq into, say, three partions with US troops providing security? I would strongly support a containment policy directed at radical Islam, but which breed of Islam? Surly we cannot isolate all Islam, nor should we want to. Where do we contain them to? Religion is not like Marxism. It spreads through out the world, like marbling in a good steak. You cannot isolate it like you can a nation state. You lead, I'll try and follow.
The Jihadi and al Qaeda Salafi thugs and related pathogens are still a small minority in Islam. What we need to do is shrink that base , show them for what they are, and build on the moderate elements (there are a lot) to do that. It is a battle within Islam and within each of the respective countries, tribes, regions, ects, families. (Lots of extremist pathologies sloshing around over there!) We cannot do it for them. We can help out around the periphery though and set a cogent and consistent dispassionate Grand Strategy (like we did in the Cold War) tieing up the ends-means disconnects to contain the worst elements of any spillovers and to USE the LOCALS (see Poland, East Germany, China Card, Regional Orgs etc)! And above all give them time to do it. This will take time (50+ years) and I fear the US may not have the patience to take the long-view on this. I hope I am wrong on that!
But the above is what got us thru the Cold War (haltingly and with many blunders along the way one should note) uncinderized with the Soviets withering on the vine and Communism in the Dustbin of History. And that is what we need now - A Strategy that allows the LOCALS in each and every situation in the Arab/Muslim World to sift out and sqaush these salafi/hirabist thugs (who do not give a lick for their people and who are in it for their own power plays that all such uncompromising extremist terrorist groups thrive on - revenge, reknown, and reaction). It's as old as history but we need a sober dispassionate cogent Strategy to counter and quick. Where is George Kennan when we need him? The ISG is a pretty good start at that but just the start!!
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
I follow that, but I do not see how or who we would contain. To contain something you need boundaries. Unless we wanted to isolate and contain the entire Islamic world, I do not see how you could contain the crazies.
Additionally, in Korea we are using American troops. I feel that as polarizing as American troops are today, that it would be counter productive to use American soldiers. We draw crazies like a light draws bugs. I would think any peace keepers would have to be from Islamic nations. They don't really trust Western nations in that neck of the woods.
Well remember the Communists (an idea also) were all over the place as well and perceived to be even in more places than they actually were - remember the Red Scare here and the massive paranoia, etc). The al Qaeda threat can't hold a candle to that! Things were 100 times worse back in the late 40s/early 50s with the actual and perceived Communist threats all over and we were going through these existential debates (even more so actually) with the Communist threat (State-based and not )just like we are now.
Fortunately we had some wise wise men (Kennan, Marshall, Truman, etc) who could sort the wheat from the chaff and set a Good Strategy that would hold up under the test of time and tie the ends-means disconnects well. What was needed above all then was a keen discernment of the threat. Kennan did that well in his X article and beyond and his eventual hand in NSC68 - his first hand experience in dealing with the likes of Stalin/Hitler/Communism/Facism helped a great deal and he knew the Russian mentality well - was under no illusions).
We need that same keen discernment of the threat and we are still waiting. I have confidence that we will and the people who know the Arab/Muslim World will come to the fore to devise a hard nosed realistict Strategy (connecting the gaping ends-means disconnects) for this Salafi/Jihadi threat as well so that the Cheneys and the Pelosi starry-eyed ideologues will not prevail. The ISG is a good start on that effort and the Princeton Project as well, but just the start - much over due. America gets wisdom late and at cost! I think Unity could help frame the debate in the coming election so the ideologues/special interests in both parties do not dominate the debate on this.
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Yes, communists were all over the place, but they controled the government of distinct nations. We could contain the agression by opposing their movement into new areas. Of course there were individuals communists all over, but we did not have to control them, as we would individual terrorists. I think what you are saying is that we need a large long term plan on dealing with the region, while keeping in mind America's long term interests in the area. Not containment as such but a plan like containment, a long term plan which led to the defeat of communistic national governments.
Being a war veteran, what happens in Iraq is of concern to me. I am not opposed to war, but I am opposed to useless deaths of American soldiers. If America's long term goals required continued action in Iraq OK, but let me know the plan, Otherwise get the hell out.
Committed Communists were determined to blow themselves up (or start a nuclaer war) for their cause.
Radical Islamists are, and have done so already in the Iran-Iraq War.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
I knew several marxists during the 60's and 70's, but, I never met one that was a terrorist. They sought social, political and economic changes which is the birthright of all of us. They were nuts, but not dangerous.
Terrorists by contrast are dangerous by definition. A small handful can do quite a bit of damage. Islamic Fundamentalists are more acurately compared to Communists.
Conservative religious people are not dangerous by definition. They may be nuts but they are not going to kill as a rule. However, most of today's terrorists are Religous Fundamentalists, but not all Fundamentalists are terrorists. I have many Fundamentalist friends, none of whom are terrorists. I have no terrorist friends because I do limit my circle of friends somewhat. Commies and Fundamentalists are fine, but no mad bombers.
Containment will need to be redefined a tad to do what needs to be done against the new jihadi/salafi/hirabist threat of the 21st Century. To contain these now amorphous felxible insurgent forces and salafi franchise groups around the world we need to use ALL the arrows in our quiver and tie them to a new Strategy is multidimensional (ecomonical, political, social, cultural, diplomatic, and military) and fully funded and bipartisan and abopve all sobeerness and patience. That is what Containment did in the Cold War and that is what we need now.
For sure there is no distinct clearly defined "States" as you had in the Communits realms, but you still have failed states that these substate actors groups thrive in. A new "Containment" for these new threats will entail a more flexible Strategy on containing them in certain areas and maybe preempting them in others depending on the circumstances of the Threat. It's not a one stop shopping type of thing just like contain in the Cold war scenario was. That Strategy was a combo of both that strove (sometimes times haphazaedly and sometimes very successfully) to tamp down communits led insurgencies all over the globe. But one concept we could repurpose and use from that Cold War Containment Strategy is what I would call - USE THE LOCALS.
The locals are best equipped to have the intel on the insurgents and the local knowledge of the cultural context these insurgent groups operate in. We need to do much better in learning about the locals,their cutlture, their aspirations/interests, and identifying the key players at the local level, andusing that local resources to tamp down the jihadi insurgent threat. All politics is local and all jihadi insurgencies are local as well and cannot thrive withoou local support of some sort. We like to do things on the cheap (See Rumsfeld Doctrine in Iraq), but this will be a long-term and not cheap effort. Unity candidates must be up front to the American people as to what this effort will entail.
A new Containment strategy of Local Use Posse Containment/Preemption is the key and that is what eventually brought down the Soviets and relegated Communism to the dustbin of History. It took a long time and great patience and deft use of the Locals. A reread of George Kennan might be in order by our candidates - still a good template to learn from in this new 21st century effort at Grand Strategy. He was 100 years ahed of his times.
The new "Containment" Strategy for the 21st century must (as George Kennan's was so brilliantly and as NSC68 was with the Soviets and Communits)be grounded in a solid and sober and dispassionate assesment of the sources of insurgent/slalafi/jiadi conduct. He did that so well with the Soviet threat and having first hand knowledge of the Russian Culture, Communist/Facist policies and practictioners was key. We have just started to make such and effort and there are good bipartisan Groups out there (Princeton Project, Richard Haass at CFR, Iraq Study Group, etc) that have made good solid starts around the periphery to this effort. Unity needs to tap in to those groups to start the discussion whereby an eventual Bipartisan Grand strategy can be delineated to counter the new threat. But above all we need to incorporate and USE THE LOCALS! That is the key to eventual victory over these jihadi/salafi/hirabist insurgent groups!!
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Link troop withdrawls in Iraq with the dismantlement of Iran's nuclear program.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Until 1918 our soldiers were taught what a Democracy is. "An evil and licentious form of government that ends in a dictatorship, who's death is as sudden as it is bloody." We are a Christian Constitutional Republic. If an elected representative has to vote on an issue that he feels he should vote one way but his constituents feel he should vote the other way, which way should he vote? The answer is he should vote the way he feels because he was elected for his judgement.
Please cite some evidence to support this absolutely ludicrious statement....
Until 1918 our soldiers were taught what a Democracy is. "An evil and licentious form of government that ends in a dictatorship, who's death is as sudden as it is bloody."
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Not only is that "democracy" post a series of false, incongruous and disjointed sentences, it has nothing at all to do with Iraq.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
This is an old arguement used by John Berch types. There is a sizable minority who fear Democracy as mob rule. They often cite Jefferson. But by the time of Jackson, Democracy had become the title of Jefferson's party. This conflict with Republic comes from the fact that way back then, dictatorships became monarchies as soon as they consolated power. Therefore, Republican goverment was the only sure way to freedom. The choice is between Monarchy or Republic.
Also, Republics were more egalitarian. Classes were often discounted. Jefferson as president often met with the great unwashed. Today the folks who advance this arguement, that we are not a Democracy, do so to distance themselves from the great unwashed, who they feel are unfit for selfgovernment
This whole arguement falls apart today when you realize the Cuba, China, Communist Russia and Fascist Germany were all Republics and Canada, Britian and Modern Spain are not. What we have is a Democratic Constitutional Republic. In my view this is the best combination, but my Canadian friends disagree.
The defining arguements were best delineated in Plato's "The Republic"
Democracy is our safety net from communism and ultimatly anarchy; Republic is our safety net from oligarcy and ultimatly dictatorship. The genius of our constitution is that it created a Republic that would use democracy to reinvent itself as history would require even if it led to the industrial oligarcy we have today.
But we have the means with the tools of democracy and contemporary communications to pull back from that oligarcy toward a citizens republic. The citizens republic is where the consensus, not just a simple extemperaneous majority, of citizens drives laws and the role of governement in our lives.
I hope in Unity 08's drive to a bipartisan era in national politics we will use democracy to advance that citizen's republic. That would be the invention our history requires at this time.
Bill"for what we are together"
Iraq speaking police can now check for bombs and issue positive I.D. while guarding the streets! The U.S. Air Force Command will take care of any stone throwing mobs packing guns! As my sons would not be providing security in a place with no positive identification for all citizens... as we are done paying in blood and treasure and will now maintain control from the air as required. - Earn Snyder
Modern Progressive Independent
IM: earnsnyder@yahoo.com
For more policies visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Didn't anybody read Representative Kucinich's Bill fot Impeachment of Dick Cheney? I believe it is available at afterdowningstreet.org.
He clearly explains (and provides the "proving" documents) that the Bush Regime attacked Iraq for personal reasons; they already knew there was no evidemce of WMD; they already knew Saddam was not involved in 911 or with Al-Quieda. It was an "illegal" action. The truth is that we knowingly attacked a country which had done nothing to the United States, we destroyed their infrastructure, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. This is not a war. It is an "occupation". Not to mention, violating the contracts that the "reservists" etc signed, by re-deploying them illegally. We have created damage on a MASSIVE SCALE. There is no legitimate reason for staying in Iraq another minute, and nothing can justify it. We should GET OUT IMMEDIATELY. Iraq has asked us to GO. we need to leave. We need to apolgize to Iraq for what we have done, because it is just plain WRONG. The United States is no longer a respected country by the world, and rightfully so. We have no obligation to mingle in diplomatic issues in the Middle East unless we are invited.
Learn to ride a bike. If we are ever to regain our repuation in the world, we need to ask Iraq what we can do to help them -outside of military presence -and again, apologize for the actions of our (Unelected) leaders, and hold them accountable for what they have done.
As far as Iran having nuclear weapons, if I were Iran, seeing what the U.S. did to Iraq, you'd have to be an idiot not to want some defense angainst a Country (the United States), who can and will attack whoever they please.
Stromsong - that isn't news. They went into Iraq for the OIL. All the rest is spin.
The chief Chicken-hawk, Cheney, should be tried for war crimes - starting a war of aggression.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
Another conspircay theory from Quicksilver.
Who told you the Iraq War was ONLY about Oil? That metal plate you got in your head in 'Nam???
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Typical. When you have absolutely no facts on your side, resort to name-calling. Tell me, Kris, did you figure that out all on your own or take it from Rove?
News flash - it doesn't work. You're nothing but static.
Don't mock my service. I have more combat experience than your entire chicken-hawk administration.
If you're so gung-ho about Iraq, why don't you go? They've lowered standards enough that mental illness won't be a problem.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
It seems a "supermajority" of people(91%) at www.vote.com
http://www.vote.com/vResults/index.phtml?voteID=60503029&cat=4075633
...do NOT suuport the proposed legislation for a withdrawl from Iraq.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Hey Stormsong, no one read it because there was a media blackout of the story just like they blacked out the Hillary smoking gun campaign corruption video. The media will frame the issues of this election and protect the Bush/Clinton gang at all costs. Along with their lap dop Rudy Guilanni. You can get a lot closer to the truth via the internet alternative news sites.
When I was a kid growing up during the Cold War whenever a US news source qutoed Pravda or Tass they always threw in the disclaimer that they were quoting a "government conrtolled news agency". The major news sources in the US today are controlled by a handfull of individuals, leaving one to conclude that a story as big as the Vice-President having Articles of Impeachment presented against him going unreported has to at the very least be collusion. It also should make one wonder what else they are not telling us. We should be most concerned that they are the ones who control the debates for the most part in both parties. Hmmm, wonder why they dont want Ron Paul or Mike Gravel in the debates. I guess that way they dont have to have them arrested and carted away before the debate like theu did Alan Keyes.
The media is almost as strongly anti-war as the leftwing zealots here.
Sounds like a bunch of people are trying to promte conspiracy theories.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
The only "news" sources that should be labelled as government controlled are Fox and the Washington Times (Times, not Post, owned by Sun Yung Moon).
The rest are lazy. I guess it's easier to focus on a single item, and devote entire programs to one single item - like Anna Nicole Smith...
I will say, however, that the mainstream media isn't as lazy as Fox -Fox doesn't bother with reporters in Iraq, just takes drivel from the White House and pushes it as fact.
Where was the media when the bogus evidence for the Iraq war was presented? Why didn't they dig and prove it false? Why don't we hear about the deaths of civilian contractors in Iraq?
I think another reason is this administration's attempt at censorship - When the news broke about illegal wiretaps, what was the only investigation the administration wanted? An investigation into how the news got out.
The only media news recently that impressed me was the exposing of sad state of VA medical care. That was investigative reporting. Dig, get facts, then present a story. There used to be more of that - I guess it's too much work...
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
So then what do you think about the CNN reporter who said if we withdrawl from Iraq now, the violence there will only increase?
Is that an example of "media laziness" and "corruption"
Or are CNN and Fox part of a "vast right-wing conspiarcy"?
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
The Soviet Union fell because their people lost heart and stopped working! We broke them down with communications and now we must once again fight the same war but with different weapons of communications than before! As they are now attacking us in this way, combined with taking advantage of our biggest weakness... we are greedy and it seems those among us would sell their own mother for a price as they sell their country and sponsor slaves around the world each day. We must immediately .... - Earn Snyder
Modern Progressive Independent
IM: earnsnyder@yahoo.com
For more policies visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Marshall law and lockdown with modern positive identification immediately for all Iraq citizens, cards used for food, social services and to move freely within the immediate community. Cards with GPS tracking to maintain law and order. Iraq police checking I.D. at every corner and temporarily suspend private transportation within the city limits. Then chase out the criminals from within the cities.... these children with stones and pipe bombs you mistakenly call organized terrorists and let the Air Force hunt them down in the open away from the women and children! Phyre! - Earn Snyder
Modern Progressive Independent
IM: earnsnyder@yahoo.com
For more policies visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
As they have greenbacks and guns buried underneath their houses! I bet they have tunnel systems as well! Vietnam with no bush! - Earn Snyder
Modern Progressive Independent
IM: earnsnyder@yahoo.com
For more policies visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Wrong!
The soviet Union fell because we were able to outspend them on defense.
Al-Queda doesn't have the same problem.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Also wrong! The Soviets fell because we had a long-term multidimensional integrated cogent Grand Strategy and the ends-means will and patience to implement it. the Soviet Communits demise happened almost exactly how Containment's architect George Kennan predicted back in 1946! Defense spending was just one part on the puzzle and not that big of a part as it turned out.
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
The Soviet Union fell because our economy was stronger - in the race for more and more weapons, they ran out - it was close, I can remember interest rates of 18% in this country.
What point are you trying to make? This is about Iraq.
Yes, we are greedy - we want the oil they're sitting on, and supported dictators who ensured us a stable supply.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
The Soviet Union fell because Eastern Europe fell. Eastern Europe fell because Poland fell. Poland fell because Pope John Paul II told his people "Do not be afraid of the generals and their tanks." When people, yearning for freedom, realize the power they have, they are unstoppable.
Yes, economies and bloated defense budgets helped topple Communism, but "People Power" is what made the wall come tumbling down. There is a valuable lesson to be learned there.
The former Soviet Union, Iraq, Cuba.... people just want to be FREE.
Today is the fourth anniversary of "Mission Accomplished". 3351 troops have been killed in Iraq. Thousands of American families have had their lives turned upside down. An unfair, terrible burden is being borne by too few.
God Bless America
The number of Americans killed is far higher.
1) - if a wounded soldier is airlifted out of Iraq, to say, Germany, and dies in Germany, it isn't counted as an Iraq war death (well, he didn't DIE in Iraq).
2) - the 3,351 only counts servicemen - it doesn't count the contractors killed - driving trucks, the "private security forces", etc.
This administration is responsible for more American deaths than Bin Laden is.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
Just thinking about the victory that was proclaimed 4 years ago. Remember Baghdad Bob? We all thought he was nuts. I even have a coffee cup with some stupid thing he said on it.
Looking back, he was more right than I thought. I thought it was all over when we took Baghdad. We need someone with more vision than I have. I don't like people who always agree with me, it seems they are wrong too often.
For anyone who thinks we're getting out of Iraq, read about our embassy being built - which will be the largest in the world:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12319798/
And that's an old article...
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
I just read this article from The Opinion Journal. I think it's a very good read on why we are in Iraq.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010107
Thanks Bob. I always thought Bob Kerrey would make a Great Prez and now I'm convinced of that. He would have not gone into Iraq without some form of realistic Kennanesque Grand Strategy in place!
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
We've got to get everybody passed the SHOULDA Stage AND DEAL WITH THE HANDS WE'VE BEEN DEALT - NOT EMOTIONALLY : With Wisdom, Dedication & Integrity !!
WE have to put what we can't change behind us - and concentrate on the things we can change ...
AND THE FIRST STEP NEEDED IN THAT DIRECTION IS : Demanding That ALL CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE & ALL SITTING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS BEFORE 2024 - Be Vetted For Work History Experience & Performance, And Be Prepared To Be Bound By Formal Employment Contracts To Insure Performance & Accountability to The American Taxpayers/Voters ..
I'm not giving up on pushing this until enough people with Common Sense Realize THIS WE MUST DO BEFORE EVERYTHING ELSE !!
popo
check my blog - I've posted some hot stuff
www.america-21stcentury.com
I think far less of Kerrey now - it was as if Cheney wrote it.
THERE WERE NO TIES TO IRAQ AND 9/11.
Saddam was bad, but he didn't tolerate Islamic wackos - he was secular.
We're in Iraq for their oil. Iraq was no threat to us. There were more Islamic wackos in Saudi Arabia or Iran....
Of course, that's not the case now.
That article is pure delusional twist and spin.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
Bob Kerrey agrees with you on the ties to 9/11:
"This does not mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; he was not. Nor does it mean that the war to overthrow him was justified--though I believe it was. It only means that a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory."
He is speaking to the fact that the same radical Islamics are now in Iraq to try and defeat a democracy taking hold:
"The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically "yes.""
The point here being that Iraq is now a common battlefield to which these extremists are coming rather than the civilian attacks on ours and our allies soil.