The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

What was that Iraq resolution really about?

The GOP resolution plan for Iraq has been called a cave-in from the right and stealing a Dem idea from the left. I admit my first reaction was that the GOP is getting wobbly under pressure, and it may be the case. As for the GOP stealing the Dem's one idea, well in their form it was not a very good idea at all. The very fact that the Dems cannot see the serious danger of releasing a timetable for the likes of Zarkowi to see shows again that they have no business ever being in charge of our national security.

What we may want to evaluate, however, is the investment that the Dems have in this Iraq issue. Considering the issue and how they have signaled they want to use it in the '06 election cycle what would they fear happening the most that would derail their strategy? The answer is troops beginning to come home after the December Iraqi elections in small groups to continuous praise for a job well done. While I have no insight for when troops would start coming home, there is a possibility that we would start to see that happening at some point in '06. We just saw a great joint effort between our troops and trained Iraqis in that border town near Syria. It would not be surprising after a third succesful election day in Iraq to see the shift in Iraqi participation increase aggressively.

Could it be that the '06 timetable the Dems are wanting is to cover their strategy for when troops might actually come home. They could then easily attribute it to the timetable they pushed. They could not only claim what a disaster Iraq was, but then take credit for pushing for the troops to come home.

While it could be that the GOP were wobbly, it is possible that the strategy was to deny the Dems to cash in on their Iraq '06 investment. Additionally, the reporting from Iraq that is now going to be demanded of the White House can accomplish a couple of things. The WH has been weak on defending good decisions and good policies. In addition to Bush coming out swinging lately, this will provide an additional periodic cycle for Bush to report about all the good things happening in Iraq. It just might force a couple of news cycles to show that there are positive events happening in Iraq.

So what is it: wobbly, thievery or strategy?

posted by All_I_Can_Stands @ 5:12 PM  

18 Comments:

  • At 7:48 PM, Blogger LA Sunset said…

    You may very well be right. I cannot imagine that after getting beat again, in 04, they continue the same strategy right into midterms. But they do.

    If I am working for the GOP, I say to the President, keep hammering away at the case with the same fervor that they are. Come out with a list of quotes of every last damned hypocrite's name and quote on it. And put it up like the pie charts, Reagan used to use.

     

  • At 9:03 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    It is unfortunate that in society there cannot be straightforward and honest debate and so politicians on both sides must resort to strategy. But when you know you are not going to get a fair shake from the media, what else can you do?

    I think we all are confident that if we could have honest public and frequent debates, that conservative ideas would win the day. Until then it takes strategy to get past the MSM filter.

     

  • At 7:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    There is lots to read here from many sources.

    And this from the US Army War College

    "The invasion of Iraq I believe will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in United States history."Gen. William Odom, head of NSA under Reagan

     

  • At 11:50 AM, Blogger LA Sunset said…

    Anonymous,

    I have perused the material you linked to. Here are my opinions:


    Did the administration miscalculate the resistance?

    That's a fair question to debate.


    Should we have gone to war?

    Again, a fair question.


    Should we rewrite history over why we went to war?

    NOT a fair question. Especially when the bozos that are screaming the loudest had their opportunity to discredit the intelligence at the time it was presented for debate.

     

  • At 2:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Should we rewrite history over why we went to war?" Absolutely not. It's irrelevant whether it's a fair question or not.

    I agree wholeheartedly that history should not be re-written as to why we went to war. Not by anyone, Democrats or Republicans. But most definitely not by the Bush administration that was the driving force behind invading Iraq.

    We went to Iraq based on WMD threats. Or do you disagree?

    The American people and the American Congress most definitely would not have endorsed invading a sovereign nation unprovoked solely for the purpose of "regime change" or "Iraqi liberation." Especially a nation which we had been bombing consistently for 12 years, 1/2 its geographic regions under "No Fly Zone" restrictions. Especially not a country that was not harboring bin Laden.

    Are you suggesting We The People and our elected representatives aren't supposed to trust our Commander in Chief when they make such grave charges as urgent threats from nukes and WMDs? Especially in the wake of 9/11?

    Do you hear the Bush administration arguing that we went to Iraq for WMDs anymore?

    I don't.

    So who's rewriting history again?

    As for this gem "Especially when the bozos that are screaming the loudest had their opportunity to discredit the intelligence at the time it was presented for debate."

    You must be talking about the 93 page classified NIE delivered to Congress on October 1, the day before Senate hearings were to begin. Lawmakers could not take a copy with them for review. Less than 24 hours to review the classified version. The complete, classified version could only be examined under tight high-security conditions with no notes to be taken and no references to its complete contents could be made in public hearings on the war vote. The unclassified version of the NIE, the version that senators were allowed to take with them, the one they could quote from in the public hearings on the war vote, that version left out evidence, caveats and arguments contained in the full, classified NIE.

    If Congress could not cite classified sections in the debate, and the caveats were among the classified sections, how could they have challenged the intelligence?

     

  • At 3:25 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    "I agree wholeheartedly that history should not be re-written as to why we went to war. Not by anyone, Democrats or Republicans. But most definitely not by the Bush administration that was the driving force behind invading Iraq."

    Interesting how you word that. You seem to claim that it is worst if Bush rewrites history than if the Dems rewrite history. Otherwise you could have stopped after "...Democrats or Republicans."

    "Do you hear the Bush administration arguing that we went to Iraq for WMDs anymore?

    I don't.

    So who's rewriting history again?"

    Interesting how you leap from being silent on a subject to 'rewriting history'. Trying to blur the terms here?

    "If Congress could not cite classified sections in the debate, and the caveats were among the classified sections, how could they have challenged the intelligence?"

    So the Dems 'knew' there was no threat, but because they could not cite the classified report they would look bad, so they voted to authorize anyway. That explanation is supposed to make them look good?

     

  • At 4:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Yes, I do believe that as the President of the United States of America, Bush should be held to the highest accountability in the land. Do you have a problem with that?

    Read the qualifier. "But most definitely not by the Bush administration that was the driving force behind invading Iraq." The Bush administration brought the idea of invading Iraq to Congress, not the other way around. Yes, I think that puts the onus on them for the ultimate responsibility.

    The president did not seek a formal declaration of war from Congress (Congress being the sole branch of government with the constitutional authority to formally declare war), but he did seek and got congressional support for use of force. Congress can declare war, but it is the Commander in Chief that actually sends our troops into battle. Read the resolution. It gives him the authority. His decision. So yes, I do hold him accountable.

    Being silent on an issue??? The WMD issue. You've got to be kidding me. If the truth is supposedly on their side, then they will stand up (or perhaps you will for them) and remind us all again as to WHY we went to war in Iraq.

    24 hours to review the classified NIE. Not even 24 hours before the debate and vote began. You think that's more than enough time to debate the information and subject of sending American troops to attack a country that has not attacked us.

    That's weak.

    Where were you on 9/11? Know anyone who died? Were you a Congressman with a constituency scared out of their minds? Does it make you wonder how New York City, home of the main losses of 9/11, voted against Bush in 2004 by a margin of 3 to 1? Yeah, those in New York City are really all about "surrendering to terrorists." That's so arrogant, tired, unimaginative and wildly inaccurate. It's also a disgusting slam on the Americans who really lost something that day.

    I don't give anyone a pass who voted for the resolution to invade Iraq, Democrat or Republican. It seemed obvious to me that Iraq was a diversion away from bin Laden and al Qaeda. It seemed that invading Iraq would only create problems and would inflame the Arab world against the US. But that was my gut feeling. I had no NIE, no PDBs, no nothing but my gut and what I could glean from news and floor debates and all that.

    Still, I think it is fair, that as information continues to come out and be declassified that confirms or at least suggests wrong, faulty and or manipulated intelligence and use of that intelligence, that as a democracy that values openness and honesty, it is our duty to explore it.

    Would you want your kids over there just for regime change or Iraqi liberation? Do you think your lawmaker would have voted to support sending your kids over there just for regime change or Iraqi liberation? How much do you really care about Iraqi freedom?

    There's a whole ton of issues here and they're all very emotional, but the original Iraq resolution in 2002 was about WMDs. None have been found. All indications now are leaning toward the reality that there was much disagreement in the intelligence community that wasn't made known to lawmakers. I don't think it's unreasonable that lawmakers (and Americans in general) give the President the benefit of the doubt. Especially then in the wake of 9/11. Especially as it pertains to grave accusations of WMDs, bio, chem and nuke. But as investigations continue and more information surfaces, it looks more and more like the Bush administration played fast and loose with the facts. And now there's 2100 dead American troops. Countless Iraqi civilians dead. Tens of thousands are conservative estimates. $250 billion gone. And bin Laden is still out there.

     

  • At 4:57 PM, Blogger LA Sunset said…

    "I agree wholeheartedly that history should not be re-written as to why we went to war. Not by anyone, Democrats or Republicans."


    Then stop.

    The left is trying to do just that. And if you are buying into the propaganda that "only Bush is to blame", that's exactly what you are doing.

    Everyone that agreed that the intelligence was accurate screwed up. Everyone. Not just Bush.





    "We went to Iraq based on WMD threats. Or do you disagree?"


    That was one of several reasons I heard from him when he made his speech to the American people. WMDs were the center point, but they were not the only reasons. it was a combination of all of those reasons. You are straining at a gnat and yet, swallowing a camel, here.

    Now let me ask YOU something. If he had not gone in and Saddam would have been found to have provided a WMD used in an attack against the US, would you be crucifying him? Would be saying the same damned thing you are now?

    I know I would, but with a different motive.

    It seems to me that it makes better sense to know for sure, even if you are proven wrong. Now we know for sure that he didn't have stockpiles. Much better to know that than to live with the anxiety of NOT knowing.

    Because God and the Heavenly Host of Angels all know fully good and well, that you and your leftist ideologues would have had a field day with it, if he had miscalculated that.

     

  • At 5:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    LA, I wish you would just go crawl back under your rock, but I'm guessing I will have no such luck.

    Bush took the idea of the Iraq invasion to Congress, not the other way around.

    You going to dispute that?

    How do you feel about that joke he made to the dinner audience about not being able to find WMDs under his desk in the Oval Office?

    That was a real class act. Go tell it to an Iraq war widow.

    Weapons inspectors were in there, at the behest of the entire world. And they weren't finding anything.

    Bush kicked them out so he could start the war. The was that did not have the rest of the world behind it.

    And now some ditz from Ohio has the audacity to call a 37 year Marine a coward on the floor of the House.

    Y'all are a real nice bunch.

     

  • At 6:11 PM, Blogger LA Sunset said…

    "LA, I wish you would just go crawl back under your rock, but I'm guessing I will have no such luck."

    Losing the argument? Getting frustrated that you can't tapdance your way out of this? You have finally met someone that you can't outflank with double talk?




    "Bush took the idea of the Iraq invasion to Congress, not the other way around.

    You going to dispute that?"


    No. But the time for dissent was then. There was very little and those that had the opportunity were in agreement with the President. They could have said what they are saying now, back then. But they didn't have the guts, did they?

    Are YOU going to dispute THAT?

    And let me re-direct you back to the questions I asked earlier (that you didn't answer):

    "If he had not gone in and Saddam would have been found to have provided a WMD used in an attack against the US, would you be crucifying him? Would be saying the same damned thing you are now?"

    Be honest now.

     

  • At 6:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    To quote the song, "dream on." Not outfalnked, not losing, not worried. You're just pretty crude and don't seem to be very smart. At least AICS can put a decent sentence together, can argue points and seems to at least read things through before being a knee-jerk reactionary. That's all.

    Go re-read my thoughts about time and reason for challenging the October 2002 resolution. There's no need to repeat myself over and over again.

    And personally, I was plenty satisfied with the IAEA and weapons inspectors and the jobs they were doing, coupled with the No Fly Zones and worldwide satellite network. It was a global effort and we had the world with us to help back then. We have few friends now and that is a national shame.

    You want me to crucify him over something? Ask me about ignoring the PDB of August 2001 titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within US."

     

  • At 7:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Pardon me. Typo. Outflank.

     

  • At 7:20 PM, Blogger LA Sunset said…

    "Go re-read my thoughts about time and reason for challenging the October 2002 resolution. There's no need to repeat myself over and over again."

    I have read everything you have written. I have yet to see a valid argument. I can read it over and over again and still not see any sensible argument from you or anyone of your ideology.

    And you still haven't answered my questions, have you?

    And by the way, nobody makes you have a dialogue with me or anyone else. You are free to ignore me.

     

  • At 11:39 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    "Yes, I do believe that as the President of the United States of America, Bush should be held to the highest accountability in the land. Do you have a problem with that?"

    Highest accountability? We have 3 brances of government, which are supposed to be separate but equal powers. For the President to have the highest accountability means that the President is higher than the other two branches. That is not the case. All are accountable for their own votes and actions.

    "The Bush administration brought the idea of invading Iraq to Congress, not the other way around. Yes, I think that puts the onus on them for the ultimate responsibility."

    Only if you view the Congress as a rubber stamp. And isn't it the Senate that always boasts of having 'oversight' responsibilities. If the President is doing something wrong (which I don't believe was the case here) the Congress must act to stop him or be equally culpable.

    "We went to Iraq based on WMD threats. Or do you disagree?"

    The perceived WMD threat was very prominent in the arguements for war, but the elements of regime change and Iraqi liberation were discussed in the public discourse as well before the first bomb was dropped.

    "All indications now are leaning toward the reality that there was much disagreement in the intelligence community that wasn't made known to lawmakers."

    Sorry, there are no such indications. There are only liberal blogs and Democrats who make statements about either what they know to be false, or don't know to be true.



    New York
    Sorry, don't ask me to explain New York. It is like asking why some Jewish people vote for politicians who are anti-Israel. I can't explain that either.

    Bin Laden still out there
    Talk about tired. From the comments of liberals you would think Bush and Cheney were physically in Afganistan hunting for Bin Laden and he got away. No, it was the troops who were there and yes Bin Laden slipped across the border to Pakistan. To criticize that is to disparage the troops job in attempting to capture him. Bin Laden was a war veteran in that area for years and his experience and skill helped in escape past our good men. Are you suggesting we invade Pakistan to get to Bin Laden? That is what it would have taken at that time.

     

  • At 11:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Excuse the commentary, but I feel I must. If this were porn, this would be the money shot:
    "I can read it over and over again and still not see any sensible argument from you or anyone of your ideology."
    And while LA said it here, it could have dropped out of the pocket of most comment posters on political blogs. Politics is coming first, and all facts are pressed in the service of the political goal. This growing sport of political trash talk and disrespect masquerading as debate is not what builds a strong nation. And it certainly will not win any converts. Over and out.

     

  • At 4:46 AM, Blogger LA Sunset said…

    "Politics is coming first, and all facts are pressed in the service of the political goal. This growing sport of political trash talk and disrespect masquerading as debate is not what builds a strong nation. And it certainly will not win any converts. Over and out."

    Very true, Paw. I have been interested and involved in politics for many years. I have worked for government at three levels, at different points during my career.

    This is politics. I have warned Republicans and Democrats of this very thing for several years, as it has deteriorated.

    But like AICS has said, when all is said and done, the conservatives are the ones that have the best reasoned argument, ON THIS ISSUE.

    Debate the way the war is being handled, keep the adminstration honest and accountable, that's fair. But to keep going back over and over the same old lousy (and already discredited) arguments, for political purposes, is the main reason you have seen things hit a trough.

    When you have a propaganda factory like MoveOn.Org that spins, distorts, and even puts out downright lies as fact and you have people that count those inaccuracies as fact, you are going to get actions and reactions, like you have been getting.

    I support dissent, if and only if, it is RESPONSIBLE dissent. And to keep beating a dead horse over intelligence that was wrong, assigning the majority of the blame for it to the President (when it wasn't all gathered under his watch), and to dismiss the Democrats in Congress of any responsibility or accountability, is going to make for political moments like we have seen.

     

  • At 10:39 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Great comments LA. Of course while I disagree with paw and anonymous, I have appreciated the flavor and tone of the discourse over the last few days. No it wasn't holding hands and singing Kumbaya, but it wasn't loaded with brainless name calling like I see on other blogs. When I post on a lefty blog, I know that 90% of the responses will include a barrage of name calling. There is one guy in particular who thinks the pinnacle of intelligence is to cleverly call me "spinach boy" in reference to my alias.

    While we get agressive, it usually does not go to the gutter. Thanks all.

     

  • At 11:56 AM, Blogger LA Sunset said…

    No prob AICS.

    I argue ideas, thoughts, and opinions. I don't have time to get personal with anyone.

    I have many many liberal friends at work that I love, admire, and respect deeply. They are the best people to be associated with in or out of the work setting. But I still think they are wrong on their politics and we discuss it, from time to time. ;)

     

Post a Comment

<< Home