Calling Out to Wilheim

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
818
Tokens
...the cut & paste expert.

There are two excellent articles in Atlanta Journal Constitution regarding Iraq today - one is the editorial by the ajc staff and one by Leonard Pitts from Miami Herald.

If you could post either, I would be grateful, if you could teach me how to post that, even more grateful.

Mud
 

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
75,154
Tokens
June 23, 2004



BY LEONARD PITTS JR.



You always promised yourself you weren't going to say it.

You swore that when you had children, you'd never say it to them. Then comes a day when you hear yourself explode. "Why? Because I said so!"

It feels more satisfying than you'd have imagined, a forceful reminder that you're the parent and you don't have to explain.

George W. Bush had himself a moment like that last week while responding to the latest finding by the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks. No credible evidence of a tie between Iraq and Sept. 11 can be found, it said.

Yet when asked why he keeps insisting such a tie exists, the president said, "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda."

Bush then said that his administration never explicitly said Iraq had a hand in the 2001 terrorist attacks. But the administration never missed a chance to imply such a link. Just last year, the president told us that combat in Iraq "is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001."

Small wonder polls show that the American people believe Saddam Hussein somehow had a hand in the attacks. And even now, Vice President Dick Cheney can't quite let it go. Asked directly on CNBC whether Iraq was involved in the atrocity, the best he could muster was, "We don't know."

Let's review, shall we?

In January, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill accuses Bush of having come into office intent on finding a rationale for invading Iraq. A White House official calls that laughable.

In March, former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke accuses the president of obsessively asserting a connection for which there is no evidence. The White House describes him as incompetent and uninformed.

Now comes June, and a bipartisan commission says that after reviewing U.S. and foreign intelligence, it can find no evidence of Iraqi involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks. In response to which, Vice President Cheney accuses the media(!) of being malicious, irresponsible and lazy.

What does all this tell us? Beside the fact that the messenger better wear a bulletproof vest around these people, I mean?

I can't put it any better than Clinton-era terrorism expert Daniel Benjamin, who was quoted in the L.A. Times as saying, "At this point, the White House position is just frankly bizarre. . . . They're just repeating themselves, rather than admit they were wrong."

Which is the most troubling aspect of this. I can accept that mistakes are made by competent people acting in good faith. What is impossible to accept is the stonewalling refusal to concede that mistakes were made or indeed, were even possible. This is a White House that creates its own reality, that will insist till the end of days that white is black and right is left and smear you blind if you disagree.

Meantime, we pour treasure and blood into Iraq for reasons that seem more insubstantial and insupportable everyday. And when you ask the White House about it, it wraps itself in the flag and repeats the party line in a louder voice.

"Because I said so" may silence children, but we are not children. It's time the White House stopped treating us as if we were.



LEONARD PITTS JR. appears most Wednesdays and Fridays in the Free Press. Reach him at the Miami Herald,
 

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
75,154
Tokens
Mistakes of Vietnam repeated with Iraq

By MAX CLELAND


The president of the United States decides to go to war against a nation led by a brutal dictator supported by one-party rule. That dictator has made war on his neighbors. The president decides this is a threat to the United States.

In his campaign for president he gives no indication of wanting to go to war. In fact, he decries the overextension of American military might and says other nations must do more. However, unbeknownst to the American public, the president's own Pentagon advisers have already cooked up a plan to go to war. All they are looking for is an excuse.

Based on faulty intelligence, cherry-picked information is fed to Congress and the American people. The president goes on national television to make the case for war, using as part of the rationale an incident that never happened. Congress buys the bait -- hook, line and sinker -- and passes a resolution giving the president the authority to use "all necessary means" to prosecute the war.

The war is started with an air and ground attack. Initially there is optimism. The president says we are winning. The cocky, self-assured secretary of defense says we are winning. As a matter of fact, the secretary of defense promises the troops will be home soon.

However, the truth on the ground that the soldiers face in the war is different than the political policy that sent them there. They face increased opposition from a determined enemy. They are surprised by terrorist attacks, village assassinations, increasing casualties and growing anti-American sentiment. They find themselves bogged down in a guerrilla land war, unable to move forward and unable to disengage because there are no allies to turn the war over to.

There is no plan B. There is no exit strategy. Military morale declines. The president's popularity sinks and the American people are increasingly frustrated by the cost of blood and treasure poured into a never-ending war.

Sound familiar? It does to me.

The president was Lyndon Johnson. The cocky, self-assured secretary of defense was Robert McNamara. The congressional resolution was the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. The war was the war that I, U.S. Sens. John Kerry, Chuck Hagel and John McCain and 3 1/2 million other Americans of our generation were caught up in. It was the scene of America's longest war. It was also the locale of the most frustrating outcome of any war this nation has ever fought.

Unfortunately, the people who drove the engine to get into the war in Iraq never served in Vietnam. Not the president. Not the vice president. Not the secretary of defense. Not the deputy secretary of defense. Too bad. They could have learned some lessons:

• Don't underestimate the enemy. The enemy always has one option you cannot control. He always has the option to die. This is especially true if you are dealing with true believers and guerillas fighting for their version of reality, whether political or religious. They are what Tom Friedman of The New York Times calls the "non-deterrables." If those non-deterrables are already in their country, they will be able to wait you out until you go home.

• If the enemy adopts a "hit-and-run" strategy designed to inflict maximum casualties on you, you may win every battle, but (as Walter Lippman once said about Vietnam) you can't win the war.

• If you adopt a strategy of not just pre-emptive strike but also pre-emptive war, you own the aftermath. You better plan for it. You better have an exit strategy because you cannot stay there indefinitely unless you make it the 51st state.

If you do stay an extended period of time, you then become an occupier, not a liberator. That feeds the enemy against you.

• If you adopt the strategy of pre-emptive war, your intelligence must be not just "darn good," as the president has said; it must be "bulletproof," as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed the administration's was against Saddam Hussein. Anything short of that saps credibility.

• If you want to know what is really going on in the war, ask the troops on the ground, not the policy-makers in Washington.

• In a democracy, instead of truth being the first casualty in war, it should be the first cause of war. It is the only way the Congress and the American people can cope with getting through it. As credibility is strained, support for the war and support for the troops go downhill. Continued loss of credibility drains troop morale, the media become more suspicious, the public becomes more incredulous and Congress is reduced to hearings and investigations.

Instead of learning the lessons of Vietnam, where all of the above happened, the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense and the deputy secretary of defense have gotten this country into a disaster in the desert.

They attacked a country that had not attacked us. They did so on intelligence that was faulty, misrepresented and highly questionable.

A key piece of that intelligence was an outright lie that the White House put into the president's State of the Union speech. These officials have overextended the American military, including the National Guard and the Reserve, and have expanded the U.S. Army to the breaking point.

A quarter of a million troops are committed to the Iraq war theater, most of them bogged down in Baghdad. Morale is declining and casualties continue to increase.

In addition to the human cost, the war in dollars costs $1 billion a week, adding to the additional burden of an already depressed economy.

The president has declared "major combat over" and sent a message to every terrorist, "Bring them on." As a result, he has lost more people in his war than his father did in his and there is no end in sight.

Military commanders are left with extended tours of duty for servicemen and women who were told long ago they were going home. We are keeping American forces on the ground, where they have become sitting ducks in a shooting gallery for every terrorist in the Middle East.

Welcome to Vietnam, Mr. President. Sorry you didn't go when you had the chance.


--Max Cleland, former U.S. senator, was head of the Veterans Administration in the Carter administration. He teaches at American University in Washington.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
818
Tokens
Thanks Wil, I owe you a beer in this or some future life. Both great articles.

Cheers,

Mud
 

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
75,154
Tokens
Mudbone - I would love to tell you how to cut and paste but then I would have to (well you know).
icon_wink.gif


Seriously it is easy - get your article ready - then place your mouse cursor where you want to start. Left click and drag the cursor down to the last line you want to copy. This will turn the copy you dragged over to the color blue. Simply right click and put you cursor on the word COPY and left click to save story. Now open a thread or reply box here. Place the cursor in box then right click to open your rectangular mouse box and left click on the word PASTE. Thats it. Maybe someone can tell you an easier way.


wil.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,875
Messages
13,574,501
Members
100,879
Latest member
am_sports
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com