Compassiongate: Uncompassionate Voices

Compassionate Nominees	Moral Clarity aka Honesty	A Promise Made is A Promise Kept	Compassionate Policy
Compassionate Media, Uncompassionate Voices	Using Compassion Con credits	About CG/ Acknowledgements	Search CG

UNIVERSITY OF COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM (what is this?)

MEDIA COMPASSION
FOR AL GORE

COMPASSIONATE
MEDIA

UNCOMPASSIONATE
VOICES

COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM 610*
*Uncompassionate (conservative) voices on George W. Bush

In this course you will learn about conservatives suffering, should I say, momentarily lapses of compassion and displaying some ~~criticism~~ uncompassionate conservatism in the context of President George W. Bush. David Neiwert (Orcinus) recently wrote an interesting piece debunking Compassionate Conservatives who are busy calling criticism of Bush from the left "Bush-hating". If criticism of Bush is "Bush-hating" then I'd sure like to know if the collection in this page (below) is "Bush-loving." Put another way, the next time someone says you an anti-Bush partisan or a "Bush-hater", just send them this link and say you are actually a "Bush-lover". Hey, with all the love these Conservatives are showing Bush on this page, why not be compassionate to the Right?

At the same time, make sure you never visit this page as you head towards Election 04 (2004), for Ann Coulter might (conveniently) opine in the future that all these people hate America and Compassionate Conservatives may simultaneously opine how all this shows clearly Bush is the greatest President in American history who deserves to be elected to the White House in 2004. Needless to say, no Compassion Con credits are available from this course because most of the things you will learn here from the conservatives are uncompassionate.

I would like to acknowledge the following sites where I got some of the links from: Atrios/Eschaton, Calpundit, Buzzflash, Thinking it Through. Many of the links were from my own readings, Google searches, browsing and visits to websites of conservative/right-wing media or foundations, etc., unless otherwise stated.

CAVEATS
A couple of caveats are in order. Firstly, the citations below do not in any way represent the general voice of conservatives (this can't be a surprise considering that Bush's Elect rating in sky-high among them). Secondly, the statements are not necessarily a complete summary of the author's opinions. It is silly to expect right-leaning authors to only say ~~negative~~ uncompassionate things about the Bush administration. The point here is that there are uncompassionate things that have been said and I wanted to showcase those words.

Last Update: 11/11/03

IRAQ	NATIONAL SECURITY/ FOREIGN POLICY	MILITARY
ENVIRONMENT	COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM and CHARACTER	CIVIL LIBERTIES
TRADE	ECONOMY/TAXES/ BUDGET	SECRECY
.HARKEN/ENRON	CAMPAIGN FINANCE	.MEDIA
..	MEDICARE	OTHER.

UNCOMPASSIONATE VOICES ON IRAQ <back to top>

In addition to the conservative uncompassionate voices below, there were many more - as captured by EPIC-USA, Buzzflash, and Anita Roddick (letter from Republican business leaders against the war).

#	Date	Compassiongate summary of Uncompassionate Remark(s) made by author(s)/ individual(s)	Uncompassionate conservatism displayed by
JL1-01	11-4-03	Bush administration's Iraq policy/strategy one of the most misguided assumptions in the history of United States' strategic thinking. The longer we are there, the more we are going to be targets for their actions and we're setting ourselves up for a rationalization for anarchy and for terrorism against American interests around the world.	GOP Rep. Jim Leach quoted by Reuters (Yahoo): "..."The current (administration) thinking is that we'll be there six or seven years, people will realize that we're saviors and they'll want us to have many (military) bases and that this will be a bulwark in the Middle East for an American presence," said Leach, a 13-term House of Representatives veteran. "I think that is one of the most misguided assumptions in the history of United States' strategic thinking," he added... "If we stay longer, we are going to have more, not fewer, problems in Iraq, and ... consequently more problems around the world and potentially in the United States as well," Leach said... Leach worked for Rumsfeld, then an Illinois Republican representative in 1965 and 1966, and as a special assistant to Rumsfeld when Rumsfeld was director of the Nixon administration's Office of Economic Opportunity a few years later. During his stint on the White House staff, Leach shared an office with Dick Cheney... Leach, a member of the House International Relations Committee, said positive things were happening in the north and south of Iraq, but in Baghdad and areas in which the Sunni Muslims dominate, "it clearly isn't working" and "with each passing moment, it appears we're causing ... more problems than we're solving." Leach said very few citizens of Iraq or the Muslim world wanted to see a permanent American presence in Iraq and that having American soldiers in Iraq inflamed insurgents. "The longer we are there, the more we are going to be targets for their actions and we're setting ourselves up for a rationalization for anarchy and for terrorism against American interests around the world," he added..."
JM1-02	11-3-03	This is the first time that I have seen a parallel to Vietnam, in terms of information that the administration is putting out versus the actual situation on the ground.	GOP Sen. John McCain quoted by Howard Fineman (Newsweek): "...McCain for the first time compared the situation in Iraq to Vietnam, where he survived six years of wartime imprisonment, and began openly distancing himself from Bush’s war strategy. McCain, aides say, was rankled by what he saw as a useless, Panglossian classified briefing, especially after reading Donald Rumsfeld’s now infamous internal memo. In it, the secretary of Defense said that Iraq would be a “long slog,” and admitted the government had no “metric” for knowing if it was making net progress in ridding the world of terrorists... “This is the first time that I have seen a parallel to Vietnam,” McCain declared, “in terms of information that the administration is putting out versus the actual situation on the ground. I’m not saying the situation in Iraq now is as bad as Vietnam. But we have a problem in the Sunni Triangle and we should face up to it and tell the American people about it.” Also reminiscent of Vietnam, McCain said, was the administration’s reluctance to deploy forces with the urgency required for the quickest victory. “I think we can be OK, but time is not on our side... If we don’t succeed more rapidly, the challenges grow greater.” ..."
LT1-01	10-31-03	Bush administration treats Congress like a "nuisance" and an "appendage". Rumsfeld is "disdainful" of Congress and discourages questions even on important subjects like the war. Dealing with them is frustrating and getting information from them is like "pulling teeth".	GOP Senators/Representatives quoted by Janet Hook (Los Angeles Times) via Calpundit: "..."I don't think there is any one of us that hasn't been frustrated," said Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and one of the most powerful members of Congress, who complained that he had been stood up by a senior administration official the day he was to begin writing the final version of the Iraq funding bill. "They have treated us like a nuisance and appendage," said Sen. Charles Hagel (R-Neb.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee... Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's brusque manner leaves some lawmakers feeling disrespected. "He is so disdainful of members of Congress for daring to ask a question," said one Republican senator who asked not to be named. "It is like we are a pesky fly."... Stevens, probably the most important ally the administration had in getting its funding request through, was infuriated when L. Paul Bremer III, the top U.S. civilian official in Iraq, did not show up for a Tuesday meeting with him and House Appropriations Committee chairman C.W. "Bill" Young (R-Fla.). An administration official said Bremer had to cancel because he was only in the U.S. briefly and "had 50 other things to do." Stevens, who was about to begin final drafting of the bill that would give Bremer almost $20 billion, was unappeased. "He has to be as busy as we are," Stevens said. "But if I were him, I would have met with the chairmen of these two committees." And Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.), chairman of the House subcommittee that handled the Iraq package, said getting information from the administration was "like pulling teeth."..."
WT1-01	10-30-03	The Bush administration is failing in many cases in effectively communicating U.S. ideals and win the war of ideas over Islamic terrorists.	Sec. Donald Rumsfeld quoted by Bill Gertz (Washington Times): "..."We are in a war of ideas, as well as a global war on terror," Mr. Rumsfeld said, noting that "ideas are important, and they need to be marshaled, and they need to be communicated in ways that are persuasive to the listeners." "In many instances, we're not the best messengers," Mr. Rumsfeld said, adding that the Bush administration should consider setting up a "21st-century information agency."..."
MM1-02	10-29-03 10-24-03 10-12-03 9-2-03	Sen. Richard Lugar: "...The president has to be president. That means the president over the vice president and over these secretaries..." The administration does not seem to have a coherent policy on Iraq. (Translated: who's in charge?) Sen. Chuck Hagel: "...administration “did a miserable job of planning the post-Saddam Iraq"..." Sen. John McCain: "...[adminsitration has been giving] too rosy a scenario [in Iraq]..."	GOP Senators quoted by Michael Moran (MSNBC): "...Beginning in early October, when the full impact of the administration’s $87 billion request to pay for a year of the occupation hit home in Congress, demands from within Bush’s own party have grown for the president to get control of subordinates not only with regard to Iraq policy, but in other areas as well, and to allow these issues to be subject to honest debate. “The president has to be president,” Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, longtime doyen of the Republican foreign policy establishment, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “That means the president over the vice president and over these secretaries.” Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska has complained that the administration “did a miserable job of planning the post-Saddam Iraq.” Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican, has criticized the administration for giving “too rosy a scenario.”..." GOP Sen. Rich Lugar quoted by Dana Priest (Washington Post): "..."The president has to be president," Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "That means the president over the vice president, and over these secretaries" of state and defense. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice "cannot carry that burden alone." In the first week of the administration's public relations campaign to explain its Iraq policy and highlight its achievements, Lugar noted that Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Rice had given speeches whose tone "was distinctly different" and that senators were rightly concerned about "the strength, the coherence of our policies."..." GOP Sen. John McCain quoted by Douglas Jehl and David Firestone (New York Times/IHT): "..."I think that up until the [Rumsfeld] memo was leaked they were giving too rosy a scenario," Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said..." Anonymous GOP folks/insiders quoted by David Ignatius (Washington Post): "..."The interagency process is completely dysfunctional," says one Republican former Cabinet secretary with decades of foreign-policy expertise. "In my experience, I've never seen it played out this way." Another Republican insider recalls that early on, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld admonished his deputies that he alone would speak for the Pentagon in interagency debates. Lower-level officials were not authorized to resolve disputes. That stance effectively gutted the traditional security council process..."
JP1-03	10-14-03	Bush administration is Orwellian Claiming we had to attack Saddam because Al Qaeda attacked the US on 9/11 is nonsense Claiming that U.N. sanctions did not work is false given we haven't found any WMDs Claiming that the increasing number of guerilla/terrorist attacks in Iraq are a sign of progress is BS as well since this would mean we are not progressing well if there are fewer attacks	James Pinkerton (Newsday): "...In his novel "1984," the British writer [George Orwell] imagined a Ministry of Truth that would be responsible for manufacturing news of victories and triumphs. Now, it's no longer fiction; it's your tax dollars at work. Another Orwellian concept was "doublethink," defined as the ability "to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed." This administration is doublethinking, doubletime, in its effort to justify the Iraq war - and so the inconvenient truth is shipped off to convenient oblivion. Last Thursday, for example, President George W. Bush declared, "America must not forget the lessons of September 11th . . . We must fight this war until the work is done." Bush seems to be saying that we invaded Iraq because Iraq was involved in 9/11. But, of course, that's not true, as Bush himself admitted in an off-message moment. The truth is that 9/11 gave the neoconservatives who influence Bush the excuse they needed for "regime change," which they had advocated long before 9/11. Now, after the fact, Bush is asking Americans to make the doublethink leap of faith: The United States was attacked by al-Qaida, so we had to attack Saddam Hussein. Got that? On Friday, as part of the same "truth" offensive, Vice President Dick Cheney recalled the efforts during the 1990s to stymie Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, such as United Nations inspections and targeted airstrikes. "All of these measures failed," Cheney said. No, actually, all those measures succeeded, which is why we haven't found anything resembling a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq. Others, too, are part of this Orwellian tactic, although they sometimes bobble their assignment. Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas) had just returned home from a government-sponsored tour of Iraq when she appeared on Fox News to comment on Sunday's car bombing in Baghdad. Proving she's a good listener, she insisted that the suicide attack was actually good news. How's that? Speaking of the American nation-building effort, she explained, "As it's working, there are more incidents like this, from people who don't want it to work." By that inverted logic, of course, it would be bad news if there were fewer bombings. But then, undercutting Granger's case, the interviewer noted that Granger and her fellow visitors had not actually stayed overnight in Iraq while they were visiting the country; each night, they were flown back to Kuwait, some 400 miles south of Baghdad. One might think for a moment about the implications of such a long-distance commute. If all the American security in Iraq can't make Iraq secure for VIPs, then maybe Iraq isn't so secure. Bush insists that America is following a "clear strategy" in Iraq, but it's about as clear as a kaleidoscope, as explanations and rationalizations rotate in an endless jumble..."
MG1-02	10-14-03	Calling in Turkish troops for sheer political expediency with an election looming is nothing short of a betrayal of the Kurds. We're making a mockery of many of our promises to the Iraqi people by shoving the Turks down their throats. It's shameful and outrageous and unworthy of our country. I've supported President Bush all through the war, the buildup and the aftermath, but I just find this despicable and foolish (direct quote).	Ralph Peters quoted by Michelle Goldberg (Salon.com): "..."Calling in Turkish troops for sheer political expediency with an election looming is nothing short of a betrayal of the Kurds," says Ralph Peters, a retired Army intelligence officer and author of the new book "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace." Peters is an Iraq hawk and a fierce critic of those who see only failure and quagmire there, but now he says, "We're making a mockery of many of our promises to the Iraqi people by shoving the Turks down their throats. It's shameful and outrageous and unworthy of our country." Peters, a columnist for the right-wing New York Post, finds himself in the unusual position of being in agreement with longtime leftist Clare Short, Tony Blair's former secretary of international development. Even as she traveled to Washington to argue that the occupation needs to be internationalized, she told Salon last week, "It's better not to have Turkish troops there, because there's too much complex politics and history. It's a further destabilizing development."... critics like Peters argue that it's a shortsighted, politically expedient fix that will backfire. "It's going to make the security situation in Iraq worse," he says. "The only thing we get out of it is the chance to bring back a few American troops, but we wind up sacrificing all that those troops have gained. This is an act of electioneering folly. I've supported President Bush all through the war, the buildup and the aftermath, but I just find this despicable and foolish."... "I'm appalled that there's not more attention paid to this," says Peters..."
WK1-03	10-13-03	The Bush administration is at war with itself. Different departments are not working well with each other and the responsibility for this lies in the President's hands. It is irresponsible to let this fester. The military in Iraq is stretched thin. Civilian efforts in Iraq remain spotty.	William Kristol (The Weekly Standard): "...The leak controversy has revealed an administration at war with itself, a war intensified by the difficult aftermath of the war in Iraq... With its submission of the $87 billion package to Congress, the administration has begun to come to grips with the problem, and seems committed to doing what needs to be done. But reports suggest that the civilian efforts on the ground in Iraq remain spotty and that the military is stretched very thin. And even more striking, as debate has raged on its $87 billion request, the administration has been virtually invisible in making its case to Congress or to the American people. One reason for this is that the civil war in the Bush administration has become crippling. The CIA is in open revolt against the White House. The State Department and the Defense Department aren't working together at all. We are way beyond "fruitful tension" and all the other normal excuses for bureaucratic conflict. This is a situation that only the president can fix. Perhaps a serious talk with Messrs. Tenet, Powell, and Rumsfeld can do the trick, followed by strengthening the National Security Council's role in resolving intra-administration disputes. Perhaps a head or two has to roll. But the present condition is debilitating, and, given the challenges facing us in postwar Iraq, in Iran, and in North Korea, it is irresponsible to let it fester. To govern is to choose. Only one man can make the choices necessary to get the administration back on course. President Bush has problems with his White House, his administration's execution of his policy, and its internal decision-making ability. He should fix them sooner rather than later. Time is not on his side."
GW1-02	10-2-03	Bush administration's reluctance to acknowledge that its "intelligence" n Iraq was wrong is disturbing. Unless the public is convinced that the government is learning from this war -- learning how to know what it does not know -- the war may have made the public less persuadable and the nation perhaps less safe [in the future].	George Will (Washington Post): "...Mature Americans understand that to govern is to choose, always on the basis of imperfect information. So why is it so difficult for the Bush administration to candidly acknowledge and discuss what Americans are not unnerved to learn -- that much prewar intelligence about weapons of mass destruction was wrong? ... [Powell] said, "We didn't put anything forward that we didn't believe was solid. But it was the product of the intelligence community." That is unresponsive to the pertinent question: How have we subsequently revised our criteria for judging solid intelligence? "... Powell's response to the difficulty of squaring parts of his Feb. 5 speech with what has been learned in the subsequent eight months is too defensive and diversionary. Defending the bureaucratic due process that produced U.S. intelligence claims and urging patience until Kay reports the findings of his 1,200 inspectors will not suffice, for two reasons. First, kicking the can of this controversy down the road places on Kay's report a burden -- of vindicating prewar assessments of intelligence -- that it cannot possibly bear. Second, complacency about prewar intelligence assessments paves the way to a future crisis. This president or a successor is likely to have to ask the country to run grave risks in response to intelligence from what the government will call "solid sources." So, unless the public is convinced that the government is learning from this war -- learning how to know what it does not know -- the war may have made the public less persuadable and the nation perhaps less safe..."
AS1-02	10-1-03	Why weren't forces directed to secure all possible WMD sites immediately after the invasion? Why were troops not sent to secure Saddam's conventional weapon sites immediately? The immediate post-war was a disaster. Shouldn't someone take responsibility?	Andrew Sullivan via TBOGG: "...Instead of attempting to parse the administration's arguments before the war, they'd do better to focus on the Pentagon's massive incompetence after the war. Two things spring to mind: why weren't forces directed to secure all possible WMD sites immediately? And why were troops not sent to secure Saddam's conventional weapon sites immediately? The Baathist resistance is now fueled primarily by those weapons. The fate of WMDs is unsure - a critical reason for the war in the first place. Did Rumsfeld even think for a second about these post-war exigencies? Why were these objectives not included in the original war-plan as a whole? I have no idea. The pre-war and the war were executed as well as we could hope for. The immediate post-war was a disaster. Shouldn't someone take responsibility?..." [CG note: Well, yes, someone should, ~~but not as long as people like you act like this administration's toilet paper~~. Whoops, pardon my French! ]
SC1-03	9-21-03	Bush "correcting" Cheney for the latter's flagrant lying about a Saddam-9/11 connection does not wash given how he and his pals subliminally promoted that link extensively. Invading Iraq claiming it had something to do with the war on terror was B.S. for many reasons. "Before March 19, when the war began, Iraq offered little hospitality to anti-American terrorists and little threat to American security. Today, it's a vast arena for any fanatics who are willing to risk their lives to spill American blood". On top of this the administration is spinning this as a "good thing".	Steve Chapman (Chicago Tribune): "...After eight years of Bill Clinton and 32 months of George W. Bush, it isn't news when a president dissembles, misleads, deceives, conceals, fudges or lies. News is something out of the ordinary, such as a president telling the truth. That's why Bush made headlines Thursday when he said something that was known to everyone--well, everyone except 69 percent of the American people. "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with Sept. 11," he informed reporters. As revelations go, this one was about as surprising as learning that Mike Tyson is not the Dalai Lama. But Bush's admission contradicted his own vice president--who earlier in the week had resurrected the tale that one of the hijackers had met with an Iraqi intelligence operative. For some truly inexplicable reason, the administration suddenly developed a fetish about accuracy, and one official after another trooped forward to disown Cheney's claim. Apparently the vice president violated Bush's strict policy, which is never to say anything bogus outright when you can effectively communicate it through innuendo, implication and the careful sowing of confusion. At a news conference shortly before the campaign in Iraq began, Bush invoked the memory of Sept. 11, 2001, no fewer than eight times. That was enough to foster the widespread impression that we were launching a retaliatory attack, not a pre-emptive one... he depicted the invasion as a vital part of the war on terror and continues to do so--even as the evidence accumulates that, from the standpoint of the war on terror, it was about the worst thing we could have done. Why? Three reasons. First, it diverted attention and resources away from Afghanistan, where we have not quite eliminated the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11--notably Osama bin Laden. If anything, the Taliban and Al Qaeda, far from being eradicated, appear to be making a comeback among a population fed up with our ineffectual efforts and short attention span. Second, our effort went into getting rid of an Iraqi tyrant who was not part of the terrorist threat. As a way to combat terrorism, it made about as much sense as invading Grenada. We had Saddam Hussein in a cage and could have kept him there indefinitely with minimal exertion--allowing us to put all our efforts into hunting down bin Laden's cells throughout the world. The president never tires of claiming, as he did last week, that "Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties." But "ties" is a mush word that suggests much and proves nothing. I have "ties" to Sammy Sosa because we work for businesses that are owned by the same corporation, Tribune Co. But that doesn't mean he leaves tickets for me at the Will Call window. The administration has yet to show that the flimsy connections it alleges presented a threat to Americans. The third problem is that instead of putting lots of terrorists in our gunsights, the war served to put lots of Americans in theirs. The administration says that some of the armed resistance in Iraq is coming from Al Qaeda fighters who have sneaked into the country to carry on their jihad. Pentagon officials think they may be getting help from terrorist groups like Hezbollah, which had previously had little interest in killing Americans... Before March 19, when the war began, Iraq offered little hospitality to anti-American terrorists and little threat to American security. Today, it's a vast arena for any fanatics who are willing to risk their lives to spill American blood, some of whom are succeeding. But take it from the administration, that's a good thing. Honest."
PB1-01	9-15-03	Our smashing of Iraq and our huge military footprint there now have turned millions of Muslims against us and forced friendly Arab regimes into making a painful choice. By sending an American army to occupy Baghdad, the seat of the caliphate for 500 years, we played into al-Qaida's hands. We are where they want us. We are where they can get at us. We are where they can kill us on their timetable, on their own turf. Somewhere, Osama bin Laden is saying to himself, "Mission accomplished".	Pat Buchanan (World Net Daily): "...Our smashing of Iraq and our huge military footprint there now have turned millions of Muslims against us and forced friendly Arab regimes into making a painful choice: Side with America and face the resentment of your countrymen, or separate and risk alienating the superpower upon whom your survival depends. To save themselves from Islamic wrath, the Saudis told us to take our troops out of their country, and the Turks, our old allies, refused – even with huge bribes – to join our invasion. By sending an American army to occupy Baghdad, the seat of the caliphate for 500 years, we played into al-Qaida's hands. We are where they want us. We are where they can get at us. We are where they can kill us on their timetable, on their own turf. Repeatedly, before the invasion, President Bush was warned against imitating Ariel Sharon when he crashed into Lebanon in 1982. Raging Bull himself created Hezbollah, which then drove Israel out with the same guerrilla tactics now being used against us in Iraq. But the president did not listen. Instead, like Pinnochio heeding the lazy and roguish Candlewick and heading off for Funland, where both were turned into donkeys, he heeded the neocons, who whispered in his ear about his being the Churchill of his time, who would strangle Islamofascism in the cradle the way our fathers should have strangled Nazism. When we march in, the neocons assured him, we will be welcomed as liberators, Muslim nations will fall like dominoes to democracy and peace will reign in the Mideast. Now we are in a sand trap... Somewhere, Osama bin Laden is saying to himself, "Mission accomplished."..." [CG note: Tut, tut, Ann Coulter is watching you.]
AZ1-01	9-5-03	Bad Iraq planning and underfunded reconstruction; risks breaking our military; blood could be wasted; you need not just the ability to kill and break stuff but also have the education, experience and intellect to take on this mission. "At the end of the third inning we declared victory and said the game's over. It ain't over." We can't put our men and women in harm's way "because some policy wonk back here has a brain fart of an idea of a strategy that isn't thought out" Is this Vietnam redux? "Why the hell would the Department of Defense be the organization in our government that deals with the reconstruction of Iraq?" ETC.	(Ret.) Gen. Anthony Zinni (links via Billmon and Altercation) Virginia Pilot "...The Bush administration risks squandering its battlefield victories in Iraq with a badly planned and underfunded reconstruction effort that threatens to ``break our military,'' a retired general who once commanded U.S. forces in the Middle East charged Thursday. ``Whatever blood was poured onto the battlefield could be wasted'' unless American policymakers also invest the money and human talent needed to rebuild and reshape an Iraq ruined by decades under Saddam Hussein, said Anthony J. Zinni, a Marine who headed the U.S. Central Command when his service ended in 2000... Zinni's remarks came at a forum sponsored by the U.S. Naval Institute and the Marine Corps Association and attracted several hundred military officers and defense contractors. When he finished, a flock of Marines lined up to shake his hand and dozens anted up $15 each for an audio compact disc of the speech... U.S. troops have shown their ability to win battles, but in the postwar environment, he said, ``I don't need someone who's only good at the killing and breaking. I need someone with the breadth of education, experience and intellect to take on the rest of these missions. ``These are culture wars we're involved with. We don't understand that culture,'' Zinni said...Many U.S. policymakers ``don't have a clue'' about the looming threat, not only in Iraq but in a string of countries stretching from Africa to the Pacific, Zinni said. ``It's not a phased conflict. There isn't a fighting part and then another part,'' he said in an apparent jab at Bush's declaration that major hostilities in Iraq had ended. ``At the end of the third inning we declared victory and said the game's over. It ain't over.'' David Corn in The Nation: "...Zinni continued: "When we put [our enlisted men and women] in harm's way, it had better count for something, It can't be because some policy wonk back here has a brain fart of an idea of a strategy that isn't thought out."... he said, "should never be put on a battlefield without a strategic plan, not only for the fighting--our generals will take care of that--but for the aftermath and winning that war. Where are we, the American people, if we accept this, if we accept this level of sacrifice without that level of planning? Almost everyone in this room, of my contemporaries--our feelings and our sensitivities were forged on the battlefields of Vietnam, where we heard the garbage and lies, and we saw the sacrifice. We swore never again would we do that. We swore never again would we allow it to happen. And I ask you, is it happening again? And you're going to have to answer that question, just like the American people are."..." Washington Post "...There is no strategy or mechanism for putting the pieces together," said retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, and so, he said, "we're in danger of failing."... Zinni's comments were especially striking because he endorsed President Bush in the 2000 campaign, shortly after retiring from active duty, and serves as an adviser to the State Department on anti-terror initiatives in Indonesia and the Philippines. He preceded Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks as chief of the U.S. Central Command, the headquarters for U.S. military operations in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. This was not the first time he has broken with the administration. He was publicly skeptical last winter of the decision to attack Iraq. Underscoring how much his views have changed since 2000, he implied that the Bush administration is now damaging the U.S. military in the way that Bush and Vice President Cheney during that campaign charged that the Clinton administration had done. "We can't go on breaking our military and doing things like we're doing now," he said. He also questioned the Bush administration's decision in January to have the Pentagon oversee postwar efforts in Iraq. "Why the hell would the Department of Defense be the organization in our government that deals with the reconstruction of Iraq?" he asked. "Doesn't make sense." In addition, he criticized the administration for not working earlier and harder to win a U.N. resolution that several nations have indicated is a prerequisite to their contributing peacekeeping troops to help in Iraq. "We certainly blew past the U.N.," he said. "Why, I don't know. Now we're going back hat in hand." Zinni's comments to the joint meeting in Arlington of the U.S. Naval Institute and the Marine Corps Association, two professional groups for officers, were greeted warmly by his audience, with prolonged applause at the end. Some officers bought tapes and compact discs of the speech to give to others." [CG note: All I can ask is -- why is Zinni not running for President?]
SC1-02	9-4-03	Bush lacks any coherent policy on post-war Iraq	Steve Chapman (Chicago Tribune) "...Back when the occupation of Iraq was expected to consist of a victory parade and a glorious flowering of democracy, the Bush administration was content to handle the job alone. But this week, it finally acknowledged that the only thing worse than being mired in a catastrophe is being mired there all by yourself. So it is soliciting the United Nations for volunteers to share its misery. This is quite a reversal for a president who previously thought the reason you need allies is so you have someone to alienate... the flood of misfortunes left the administration no choice but to cry for help. Though it says success in Iraq will take a long time, failure apparently operates at Internet speed. The postwar U.S. mission started out badly, soon turned into a vexing predicament, and is headed for catastrophe...Far from gaining control of a fractious nation, the United States is losing the shaky grip it had four months ago, when President Bush cheerily declared an end to major combat operations... The president, however, insists there will be no second thoughts. "Retreat in the face of terror would only invite further and bolder attacks," he informed the American Legion convention last week. "This nation will press on to victory." But where is the plan that promises victory in Iraq? UN forces, if they come at all, may not be coming in numbers sufficient to matter. Even if they do, they will merely ease the strain on the American military--not make the country any safer or more governable. We're going to persist with our current approach in Iraq mainly because we don't know what else to do..."
WK1-02	9-4-03	Rumsfeld screwed up postwar planning, underestimated troop requirements	William Kristol (quoted in the Washington Post) "Rumsfeld lost credibility with the White House because he screwed up the postwar planning. For five months they let Rumsfeld have his way, and for five months Rumsfeld said everything's fine. He wanted to do the postwar with fewer troops than a lot of people advised, and it turned out to be a mistake." [CG note: C'mon Bill, why do you repeatedly aid the terrorists?...That's not me asking, its Rumsfeld.]
JC1-01	9-3-03	Planners given insufficient time for planning Iraq's reconstruction "...Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) elimination and exploitation planning efforts did not occur early enough in the process to allow CentCom to effectively execute the mission. The extent of the planning required was underestimated. Insufficient U.S. government assets existed to accomplish the mission..." Planning was poor because "WMD elimination/exploitation on a large scale was a new mission area. Division of responsibility for planning and execution was not clear. As a result planning occurred on an ad hoc basis and late in the process."	Secret Bush administration report to Joint Chiefs of Staff (Washington Times) "... The report is titled "Operation Iraqi Freedom Strategic Lessons Learned" and is stamped "secret." A copy was obtained by The Washington Times. The report also shows that President Bush approved the overall war strategy for Iraq in August last year. That was eight months before the first bomb was dropped and six months before he asked the U.N. Security Council for a war mandate that he never received... Most war planning was conducted by Gen. Tommy Franks at U.S. Central Command; the Joint Chiefs of Staff, under the direction of Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman; and the Pentagon policy-writing shop led by Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith. "Late formation of DoD [Phase IV] organizations limited time available for the development of detailed plans and pre-deployment coordination," the report says. "Command relationships (and communication requirements) and responsibilities were not clearly defined for DoD organizations until shortly before [Operation Iraqi Freedom] commenced." In fact, the Pentagon was forced to scrap its original plan for rebuilding as violence increased against U.S. forces and basic services were slow to resume. L. Paul Bremer, a former ambassador, was tapped in mid-May to take over as Iraq's American administrator. On the weapons search — the prime reason Mr. Bush cited for going to war — the Joint Chiefs report states: "Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) elimination and exploitation planning efforts did not occur early enough in the process to allow CentCom to effectively execute the mission. The extent of the planning required was underestimated. Insufficient U.S. government assets existed to accomplish the mission." The initial search by military teams found no weapons at sites identified by the CIA and other intelligence agencies before the war. The Pentagon then replaced those teams with an overarching "Iraq Survey Group," which received additional expert personnel and new intelligence assets. Former U.N. weapons inspector David Kay is leading the search for weapons of mass destruction. The report said the planning was poor because "WMD elimination/exploitation on a large scale was a new mission area. Division of responsibility for planning and execution was not clear. As a result planning occurred on an ad hoc basis and late in the process. Additionally, there were insufficient assets available to accomplish the mission. Existing assets were tasked to perform multiple, competing missions."... ...on Aug. 29, 2002, Mr. Bush "approves Iraq goals, objectives and strategy." Three months earlier, the Pentagon began a series of war exercises called "Prominent Hammer" to judge whether the force could win in Iraq and still maintain a deterrent in other theaters, such as South Korea...[CG emphasis] The report awarded three grades. The worst was "capabilities that fell short of expectations or needs, and need to be redressed through new initiatives." Getting this low grade were the postwar planning and the search for weapons of mass destruction, as well as the mix of active and reserve forces, and the troop deployment to the region..." [CG note: Moral clarity at its best. Why? Well, the compassionate folks started planning an attack on Iraq months before 9/11. Which also fully explains why, when one person after another was warning them about Al Qaeda and terrorism, they were using up precious resources for war-gaming Iraq. Splendid.]
TW1-01	9-2-03	Bush administration’s postwar effort in Iraq as “anemic” and “totally inadequate". Bush's Iraq policy threatens to turn what was a major military victory into a potential humanitarian, political and economic disaster.	Thomas White - former Bush II ~~Enron~~ Army Secretary (MSNBC) "...Thomas E. White, forced to resign as Army secretary in May, has fired back in a book that describes the Bush administration’s postwar effort in Iraq as “anemic” and “totally inadequate.”...“CLEARLY THE VIEW that the war to ‘liberate’ Iraq would instantly produce a pro-United States citizenry ready for economic and political rebirth ignored the harsh realities on the ground,” White wrote...“Unbelievably, American lives are being lost daily,” he wrote...“We did not conduct the war this way and we should not continue rebuilding the country in a haphazard manner,” he wrote. “The result will be a financial disaster, more lives lost, chaos in Iraq and squandered American goodwill.”...“It is quite clear in the immediate aftermath of hostilities that the plan for winning the peace is totally inadequate,” he wrote. White wrote that the administration’s Iraq policy “threatens to turn what was a major military victory into a potential humanitarian, political and economic disaster.” The administration’s “anemic attempts at nation building” will be viewed with disdain by other countries, he said..."
AS1-01	8-31-03	Mission Unaccomplished. Hard to believe WH is in control of events. They don't seem to grasp the absolutely vital necessity of success in Iraq. Aircraft carrier landing was the dumbest political gesture of the last two years.	Andrew Sullivan (andrewsullivan.com) "MISSION UNACCOMPLISHED: I could forgive this administration almost anything if it got the war right. But, after a great start, it's getting hard to believe the White House is in control of events any more. Osama bin Laden is regrouping in Afghanistan; Saddam, perhaps in league with al Qaeda, is fighting back in Iraq. The victims of terror in Iraq blame the United States - not the perpetrators - for the chaos. And the best news of the war - that Shi'a, Sunnis, and Kurds were not at each others' throats - is now fraying. Worse, the longer the impasse continues the harder it will be to get ourselves out of it... The response so far does not strike me as commensurate with the problem, and I say this as a big supporter of this war... Are they losing it? So far, I've been manfully trying to give the administration the benefit of the doubt, especially given the media's relentlessly negative coverage of Iraq. But they're beginning to lose me, for the same reasons they're losing Dan Drezner. They don't seem to grasp the absolutely vital necessity of success in Iraq. And I can't believe I'm writing that sentence. [CG note: Poor Sully. Perhaps a fruitcake would help during the mourning?]. THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER LANDING: Can we all now agree that that was the dumbest political gesture of the last two years?" [CG note: Let's just say one political party will benefit greatly from airing it in an ad, and its not the GOP]
AC1-01	8-31-03	Saddam Hussein in not really gone, as Bush claimed earlier. The Bush administration has failed to involve Iraqis as partners and unleash the positive effects of their hatred for Saddam. The administration needs to do a lot more to improve security in Iraq and to really get rid of Saddam's "network".	Ahmad Chalabi (Washington Post) "...Saddam Hussein has been removed from power, yet he continues to inflict terror on the Iraqi people... " [CG note: Dude - where have you been since May 1st 2003? Don't you know your boss, President Bush I mean, said this on May 1st : "...We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more..."?] "...The United States has thus far failed to unleash and use the huge and latent anti-Hussein sentiment among the people. It is only by involving the Iraqis as true partners that the United States will be able to salvage the situation. The Iraqi people must feel they have a stake in their governance; they must feel that they are in control of their own land..." [CG note: But, but...dude! There is an Iraqi Governing Council of which you are a member. How can you be so uncompassionate!] "...There are other steps the United States needs to take immediately to combat the Hussein network and improve security Crack down on Saddam supporters at large in the country... Conduct a security sweep through the towns where resistance is concentrated... Control Iraq's borders. Foreigners are entering Iraq at will with virtually no questions asked... Move quickly to establish an Iraqi security force that can take on the burden of many of these tasks... Engage friendly Iraqi forces such as the INC, the Kurdish parties and others much more closely in the hunt for Hussein and remaining senior regime officials..." [CG note: So, dude, are you implying the U.S. in not doing its job well? Why do you hate America so?]
JM1-01	8-31-03	Paul Bremer lacks the resources and the political commitment [obviously from the WH- CG] to achieve his goal. There is an insufficient sense of urgency in Washington, and needs on the ground in Iraq are going unmet. Security remains a serious problem in Iraq partly because, contrary to administration assurances, our military force levels are obviously inadequate. The number of civilian advisers in Iraq is astonishingly low.	Sen. John McCain (Washington Post) "...We do not have time to spare. If we do not meaningfully improve services and security in Iraq over the next few months, it may be too late. We will risk an irreversible loss of Iraqi confidence and reinforce the efforts of extremists who seek our defeat and threaten Iraq's democratic future. Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, an able administrator, lacks resources and the political commitment to achieve his goal of Iraq's transformation. His operation is nearly broke, and he admits Iraq will need "tens of billions" of dollars for reconstruction next year alone. Yet there is an insufficient sense of urgency in Washington, and needs on the ground in Iraq are going unmet. Security remains a serious problem in Iraq partly because, contrary to administration assurances, our military force levels are obviously inadequate. A visitor quickly learns in conversations with U.S. military personnel that we need to deploy at least another division... The number of civilian advisers in Iraq is astonishingly low. I was struck by the near-unanimity of opinion among American officers in Iraq that civilian expertise -- on reconstruction, judicial reform and local governance -- is as important as our military presence..."
JP1-02	8-28-03	So-called "flypaper" thesis (attracting terrorists to Iraq as opposed to the US) is BS.	James Pinkerton (Newsday) "...What are we doing in Iraq? The latest explanation is the so-called flypaper thesis. That is, it's a good thing that we have 140,000 troops in Iraq, because the terrorists are going after our men and women there, lured like flies to flypaper. As President George W. Bush said on Tuesday, "Our military is confronting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and in other places so our people will not have to confront terrorist violence in New York, or St. Louis or Los Angeles."... It's an infinitely looping figure-eight of logic: The more we are attacked in Iraq, the better off we are at home. So bring 'em on. This argument is dubious, however, for three reasons. First, terrorism isn't fungible. As a practical matter, it is easier for, say, a Saudi Arabian to cross the border into Iraq than it is for him to get to the United States. Like crime, terrorism is a function of motive plus means; that is, plenty of crime is derailed or deterred by the impregnability or inaccessibility of the target. Second, the "flypaper" argument was refuted by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz less than four months ago. In an interview for the June issue of Vanity Fair...according to an interview transcript on May 9, the "flypaper" argument had yet to fly. Wolfowitz's point was that we had done ourselves a favor by taking over Iraq, so that we could withdraw our troops from Saudi Arabia where they were, according to Wolfowitz, not only attracting flies, but actually generating flies. As he said, the American presence was causing the number of al-Qaida recruits to swell. Which brings us to the third flaw in the flypaper argument. As Wolfowitz argued, the number of terrorists isn't eternally fixed and predetermined; terrorism is, in part, a function of circumstance - and thus the argument that it was good to leave Saudi Arabia. That was Wolfowitz's thinking in May, when he argued that it was good to leave Saudi Arabia. So how about Iraq? Are we not hatching more flies there? By putting American men and women - great fighters, but ill-trained for post-war "nation-building" and illiterate in local language and customs - into a country of 24 million, we have, in effect, spawned an unknown number of new enemies who might otherwise have never done anything more dangerous than shake their fist at a TV screen... Could the Pentagon's armchair warriors get away with such a bleed-and-switch? Why not? They've ginned up and used up so many reasons for war that it should be no trouble for them to invent a few more."
JP1-01	8-28-03	Rice's claim that liberating Iraq is equivalent to liberating African-Americans in Civil Rights era is mostly BS.	James Pinkerton (Newsday) "...In a speech last Thursday to the National Association of Black Journalists, Rice said that America must make a "generational commitment" to the task of transforming not only Iraq but the entire Middle East. Her remarks garnered headlines because they dramatically extended the time horizon of Americas's Iraq engagement. Not so long ago, we were told that we'd be there for a few months. Now, it's looking like a few decades... Recalling her own background as a child growing up in Alabama during the most tumultuous period of the civil-rights movement, she derided "condescending voices" who argue that Iraqis and Arabs are not ready for American-style freedom. "We've heard that argument before," she told the black journalists, "and we more than any, as a people, should be ready to reject it. The view was wrong in 1963 in Birmingham, and it is wrong in 2003 in Baghdad and the rest of the Middle East." And, one supposes, by that logic, Bush is the equivalent of Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, a compassionate man willing to use federal force to keep the peace and open up schools and polling places... Rice's claims are, to put it mildly, a stretch. In the '60s, Southern blacks - who were, after all, U.S. citizens - were truly "jubilant" to see federalized troops in Dixie, smiting Jim Crow, because they wanted their piece of the American Dream. By contrast, it's not so clear that ordinary Arabs are pleased to see us in their midst. The jubilation one sees on TV these days is Iraqis whooping it up after an American Humvee is ambushed... Yet one might wonder: What will happen if the U.S. government repositions Arabs as victims, rather than aggressors - in Iraq, and also, maybe, in the Palestinian areas? The most obvious answer is that such a view will lead to shifts in American strategy. After all, just a few years ago, the United States attempted to subdue Iraq through strangling economic sanctions. Post- Rice, surely we wouldn't do that again. That is, we wouldn't wish to further victimize the "victims." Indeed, if we regard Arabs as "needy," then presumably the spigots of American aid will be opened, just as they were during the Great Society '60s. Thus the irony: Today's Republican Party, which came to power decades ago in opposition to free-spending liberalism, is today poised to re-create the all-embracing nanny state - in Arab states..."
RP1-01	8-27-03	Mistakes have been made and there will be more mistakes made. We didn't manage to work closely with the Iraqis before the war.	Richard Perle - Prince of Darkness (quoted by Reuters) "..."Of course, we haven't done everything right," said Perle, according to the French text of the interview. "Mistakes have been made and there will be others. "Our principal mistake, in my opinion, was that we didn't manage to work closely with the Iraqis before the war, so that there was an Iraqi opposition capable of taking charge immediately," he said..." [CG note: Prince, surely this explains completely why Seymour Hersh is the closest thing in the U.S. to a terrorist?]
TK1-01	8-26-03	"...this war here, in Iraq, I didn't necessarily have it all worked out. It didn't work out for me. I know a tyrant is gone and all of that, but whether it was our duty to go do that, well, I haven't figured that out..."	Toby Keith (interviewed by Los Angeles Times via Hoffmania) "...As he sang the lyrics to his celebrated patriotic hit Sunday at Staples Center, red, white and blue confetti rained down on the curled brim of Toby Keith's cowboy hat and rocket-red pyrotechnics shot up past a video screen showing the Statue of Liberty. This was the Toby the crowd wanted and expected, the roadhouse patriot. But a few hours earlier, in a hushed dressing room, it was a different Keith — one who talked about the increasingly onerous challenge of playing the uncomplicated man in complicated times. Away from the firepower of the stage, this fighting man from Oklahoma said that he has decided to call a cease-fire in his ugly feud with the Dixie Chicks ("We had fun with it, but I'm just done with it"), that he still has lingering questions about the necessity of the war in Iraq ("Honestly, I'm still doing the math on that") and that he wonders whether the hit song, "(Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue) The Angry American," has typecast him ("People think I bang the war drum, and that's not me").... A song can shape a public persona too, and "The Angry American," Keith says, has also already typecast him in some ways. "People think because of the song, I just bang the war drum at every chance, you know, 'Go fight, join up,' but that's not me," the 41-year-old said. "It's OK to be antiwar, until the war starts. Then you support the troops. "Look, my stance is I pick and choose my wars. This war here [in Iraq], the math hasn't worked out for me on it. But I'm smart enough to know there's people smarter than me. [National security advisor] Condoleezza Rice, [Secretary of State] Colin Powell, George Bush — this is their job, and I have to trust in them. I support the commander in chief and the troops." Keith took a long pause to consider his words, and then added: "I was for Afghanistan, 100%. We got struck and the Taliban needed to be exterminated, but this war here, in Iraq, I didn't necessarily have it all worked out. It didn't work out for me. I know a tyrant is gone and all of that, but whether it was our duty to go do that, well, I haven't figured that out."..." [CG note: Poor you! Would you like a fruitcake Toby? That will certainly convince you that the White House is trustworthy and the troops are best supported ~~by sending them to their deaths under false pretenses~~ for compassionate reasons]
WK1-01	8-25-03	Bush's Iraq policy is bold but also heavily screwed up for multiple reasons.	William Kristol and Robert Kagan (The Weekly Standard) "...For all our admiration for this bold, long-term vision, however, there is reason to be worried about the execution of that policy in the first and probably most important test of our "generational commitment." Make no mistake: The president's vision will, in the coming months, either be launched successfully in Iraq, or it will die in Iraq... We believe the president and his top advisers understand the magnitude of the task. That is why it is so baffling that, up until now, the Bush administration has failed to commit resources to the rebuilding of Iraq commensurate with these very high stakes. Certainly, American efforts in Iraq since the end of the war have not been a failure. And considering what might have gone wrong--and which so many critics predicted would go wrong--the results have been in many ways admirable...[CG note: thanks for the compassion, guys!] But the absence of catastrophic failure is not, unfortunately, evidence of impending success. As any number of respected analysts visiting Iraq have reported, and as recent horrific events have demonstrated, there is much to worry about. Basic security, both for Iraqis and for coalition and other international workers in Iraq, is lacking. Continuing power shortages throughout much of the country have damaged the reputation of the United States as a responsible occupying power and have led many Iraqis to question American intentions. Ongoing assassinations and sabotage of public utilities by pro-Saddam forces and, possibly, by terrorists entering the country from neighboring Syria and Iran threaten to destabilize the tenuous peace that has held in Iraq since the end of the war. In short, while it is indeed possible that, with a little luck, the United States can muddle through to success in Iraq over the coming months, the danger is that the resources the administration is devoting to Iraq right now are insufficient, and the speed with which they are being deployed is insufficiently urgent. These failings, if not corrected soon, could over time lead to disaster. [CG note: C'mon Bill/Robert! Why do you hate America, so?!]... ...It is painfully obvious that there are too few American troops operating in Iraq. Senior military officials privately suggest that we need two more divisions. The simple fact is, right now there are too few good guys chasing the bad guys--hence the continuing sabotage. There are too few forces to patrol the Syrian and Iranian borders to prevent the infiltration of international terrorists trying to open a new front against the United States in Iraq. There are too few forces to protect vital infrastructure and public buildings. And contrary to what some say, more troops don't mean more casualties. More troops mean fewer casualties--both American and Iraqi. The really bad news is that the Pentagon plans to draw down U.S. forces even further in coming months. Their hope is that U.S. forces will be replaced by new Iraqi forces and by an influx of allied troops from around the world. We fear this is wishful thinking... It is simply unconscionable that debilitating power shortages persist in Iraq, turning Iraqi public opinion against the United States. This is one of those problems that can be solved with enough money. And yet the money has not been made available. This is just the most disturbing example of a general pattern. The Iraqi economy needs an infusion of assistance, to build up infrastructure, to improve the daily lives of the Iraqi people, to put a little money in Iraqi pockets so that pessimism can turn to optimism. There has also been a stunning shortage of democracy assistance...[CG note: All of this of course clearly explains why it was right to impeach Clinton.] Everyone returning from Iraq comments on the astonishing lack of American civilians as well. Until recently, only a handful of State Department employees have been at work in Iraq. The State Department, we gather, has had a difficult time attracting volunteers to work in Iraq. This is understandable. But it is unacceptable. If the administration is serious about drawing an analogy with the early Cold War years, it should remember that the entire U.S. government oriented itself then to the new challenge..."
GW1-04	8-22-03	Perhaps the administration should recognize that something other than its intelligence reports concerning weapons of mass destruction was wrong Their estimates on troop requirements was wrong from the beginning and mobilization of National Guard and Reserve troops threatens retention and recruitment	George Will (Washington Post): "...Perhaps the administration should recognize that something other than its intelligence reports concerning weapons of mass destruction was wrong. Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, was wrong in congressional testimony before the war. Although he said "we have no idea what we will need until we get there on the ground," he insisted that Gen. Eric Shinseki, a veteran of peacekeeping in the Balkans, was "wildly off the mark" in estimating that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in occupied Iraq. Currently, 139,000 U.S. troops and about 22,000 from other nations do not seem sufficient. And there may not be enough U.S. troops to do the job. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Texas Republican, writing in the Washington Times, says that to keep 370,000 deployed in more than 100 countries, "we have called to active duty an unprecedented 136,000 members of the Reserve and National Guard." Today's tempo of operations threatens the services' retention and recruitment. To those who say that further internationalization of the occupation of Iraq would lessen U.S. "control," the response is: Control -- such as it is -- should not be the grandiose U.S. objective. Neutralization of Iraq as a source of terror will be sufficient..."
DD1-01	8-21-03	"Flypaper" hypothesis to justify terrorist attacks happening in Iraq is nonsense. We don't want Iraq to be a Terrorists 'R Us and we certainly wouldn't be worrying about Iraq's border security if we believed this theory	Daniel Drezner (Blog): "...The thing is, I don't buy [the "flypaper theory"]. In terms of the broader neocon vision of transforming the Middle East, Iraq needs to be an oasis of stability, not a grand opening for Terrorists 'R Us... If the flypaper hypothesis is correct, then why would the administration be so concerned about border protection? Maybe the LA Times sources are way off (nothing like this appeared in either the NYT or WaPo stories), but if they're right, then either the flypaper thesis is a load of bulls@#t, or the Bush administration underestimated how sticky the Iraq flypaper has turned out to be..."
IS1-01	8-18-03	Iraq policy suffers from lack of funds. Claiming oil revenues would finance Iraq's reconstruction has proved bogus. Criticizing Larry Lindsey for his $100B cost estimate before the war has also proven to be invalid.	Irwin M. Stelzer (Weekly Standard): "...we are on the verge of getting a restructured Middle East consisting of vibrant, prosperous democracies, and on the cheap. How is this latest feat of economic legerdemain to be financed? Why, with Iraqi oil, of course. Both Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Office of Management and Budget director Josh Bolten managed straight faces when they told a congressional committee that it is impossible to estimate the cost of our nation-building adventure in Iraq. Of course, if one believes that there is no price too high to pay for a peaceful Middle East--a perfectly credible position--then one need not bother with anything so trivial as estimating the cost of attaining that objective. But, at least so far, the administration has declined to take such a position. Indeed, when former White House economist Larry Lindsey suggested that achieving an enduring peace in the Middle East might be worth the expenditure of 1 percent of our GDP, or about $100 billion, he ran into a firestorm of criticism from White House pols who believe the American people will back any war so long as it is costless. It turns out that Lindsey may have been a wild-eyed optimist... Revenue from the sale of Iraq's oil cannot begin to finance the reconstruction of the country. Bremer, in what may be his ticket out of Baghdad and into the private sector with Lindsey, knows this: "We are going to have to spend a lot more money than we are going to get revenue, even once we get oil production back to prewar levels." Which means that Wolfowitz is either innumerate (unlikely), or is being economical with the truth [CG note: Oooooh! How compassionately worded! You give me goosebumps.] when he says, "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."... So there you have it: a foreign policy that promises enormous long-run benefits, but requires enormous short-term outlays, for most of which the administration has refused to budget..."
RL1-01	8-10-03	Flawed assumptions by President Bush's advisers about postwar Iraq are contributing to Iraqis' resentment of the U.S. occupation and undermining its legitimacy	Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind) via Daily Kos "...Lugar recently wrote a newspaper opinion piece that said the administration's postwar planning was so poor that Americans are contending in Iraq "with ethnic and religious rivalries; a long-repressed people; a war-damaged infrastructure already decayed from years of neglect and corruption; a lack of Iraqi democratic experience; and a host of extreme clerics, looters, gangsters and warlords-in-waiting." Asked Sunday how the planning was lacking, Lugar replied: "I think a thorough misunderstanding of how complex the politics of Iraq are and continue to be; an inability to understand the decapitation theory — that is, getting rid of the top types while the workers continue — wasn't going to work," he said. "In other words, the basic assumptions, whoever was making them, at State, at NSC, at Defense, simply were inadequate to begin with." NSC is the National Security Council. He said the facts in Iraq show "that if we are theorists before the fact, we better all talk about it a great deal more."..."
KK1-01	8-3-03	If one is seeking the answers to why peculiar bits of "intelligence" found sanctity in a presidential speech, or why the post-Saddam occupation has been distinguished by confusion and false steps, one need look no further than the process inside the Office of the Secretary of Defense... In response to a cable answering a long list of questions from a Middle Eastern country regarding U.S. planning for the aftermath in Iraq...suggested that if this was as good as it got, some folks on the Pentagon's E-ring may be sitting beside Saddam Hussein in the war crimes tribunals	Karen Kwiatkowski (Houston Chronicle) "