I'm not reassured. . .

Hi all, Sarah here, trying to fill Luke's shoes until his return tomorrow. Been reading about the recently declassified documents supposedly showing the top guys didn't authorise the abuse of prisoners in Iraq. Puh-lease. . .giving permission to do something, then withdrawing it a few months later because lawyers said it could look bad? They'd have been better off continuing to deny all knowledge--now I'm envisioning Rummy and Co saying "We can't torture people, of course! (wink wink, nudge nudge)". Officially now, they can blame the torture of Iraqi prisoners on a few bad apples--just seems a bit too convenient for me.

Comments

[Jim]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/28/iraq.handover/index.html

Let freedom ring. Let the whole world sing.

[Chrish]

Isn't that incredible Jim? They pulled a fast one
on the terrorist and insurgents by doing the handover ahead of schedule. Pray for the Iraqi interim government, the Iraqi people, and for Our people.

Keep up the hope and the positive cause there is going to be a whole hell of a lot of negativity and pessimism about this.....

[Jim]

I pray for all of them, Chrish. There will still be "dead enders" in the country who will try to stop the elections early next year, but they will go on. It won't be easy, but I can see great things for the future of the Iraqi's.

Brilliant move to to the official handover two days early.

[j.j.]

I am delighted on one hand, on the other hand, I am very curious to see what happens next. Gotta say this though, today would not be happening if it wasn´t for the bloody resistance Iraqis put up to our occupation.

I don´t think attacks on us will stop as long as we are there. This actually puts Bush in a huge conundrum. We can minimize our military presence if we retreat to military bases outside of major population centers, which he is likely to do since he won´t want any more deaths ahead of election. But if we just sit there and do not provide security, then Iraqis, military families and those with an eye on the US budget will wonder why the hell we are still there. If we do go out and about, there is no question we´ll be attacked again and will have to respond. A response will also result in almost guaranteed civilian deaths, begging the question by Iraqis of what the hell are we still there. Then they´ll retaliate and, well you know the story. In the end, we may retreat from there altogether and Iraq will likely engage in a brutal civil
war.

This to me sounds like damned if you do and damned if you don´t. Yes, I know, I will be labelled a pessimist by some. But I have borne that title since Bush officially announced his intention to invade Iraq back in August 2002 and
have been proven right time after time. Hopefully I´ll be wrong this time.

[j.j.]

speaking of let freedom ring, anyone read about the Supreme Court decision? They did the right thing; of course, the ultra-right wingers dissented, but thankfully the rest have some brains. Now about that retarded Patriot Act.

[Jim]

Wow, I didn't think it would be possible to turn the turnover into something negative. We are now officially there at the request of the Iraqi government. Of course the average Iraqi doesn't want to be occupied. Who would? But it's the lesser of the two evils - the other being probable civil war.
By the way, the vast majority of attacks by the "insurgents" over the past couple of months have targeted normal Iraqi's - not Americans. Therefore these terrorists are not so much anti-American(occupier) now as they are anti-freedom. Now they are even threatening to cut off the heads of fellow Muslims. Talk about hijacking a religion. The terrorists want their own "fellow" citizens to live in fear.

And yes the Supreme Court did the right thing. Oh wait I keep forgetting I agree with the Bush Administration on EVERYTHING - at least that's what I'm constantly accused of.

[Jeff]

I think you guys confuse negativity and pessimism with realism. As an American, why in the world would I not want things to work out exactly as our leaders say they will? Put this way, has the our government been right on anything, other than being able to easily defeat the depleted Iraqi army with the world's most powerful military?

If the Democrats were in power, maybe we'd all be bashing them for incompetence. After all, Clinton was in power for eight years and we were totally caught with our pants down on 9/11. It's not like planes have never been hijacked before... this threat alone was worth addressing, yet we did nothing. The WTC has already been bombed once, the Cole has been bombed, and we get killed by a couple of people with box cutters.

It made me sick to see the parade of politicians come in front of the 9/11 Commission protecting their own asses and saying that they had done all that could be done, again including the Clinton administration, because obviously it wasn't true. The people who were supposed to protect us failed miserably and we've since forgotten about holding people responsible. A get out of jail free pass.

Fast forward to the present administration. We can all fixate on the imaginary image of free, democratic, and American allied Iraq providing cheap oil, stability, a location for military bases and somehow fixing the Palestinian situation (doesn't the roadmap go through Baghdad)? I would like nothing better than for all of this to happen.

Now... what reason do we have to believe that any of this will happen? Nothing! Any WMD? No. Can we keep peace in Iraq without our allies? No. Can we trust the Iraqi exiles that we've put in charge? No. Do Iraqis trust us or the exiles we've put in charge? No. Is prisoner abuse limited to just a few soldiers? No. Are the insurgents all "dead-enders"? No. Do we even know who they are? No. Are we really handing over sovereignty? No!

Not unless sovereignty is defined as people we appointed with long time ties to the CIA, with our troops all over the place (and immune from Iraqi prosecution), and with Bremer signing about a million directives into law before we leave? With U.S. soldiers dying every day and every Iraqi who helps us scared for their lives?

How is your hope and optimism going to overcome the reality on the ground? Did hope and optimism help us "handover" security to the Iraqi police? Or would guns, training, uniforms, and shoes been more effective? If the people who are paying attention to the details don't know what they're doing, then your hope and optimism is doomed. Exactly what have they done to inspire our confidence? People keep dying and scandal after scandal pops up...

So... the turnover itself is nothing negative. But why don't we be honest? Officially, we are there at the request of the Iraqi government. But really, we're there at the request of people we appointed, with whom we have longstanding ties, and who wouldn't have any power whatsoever if not for the American military. The "Iraqi government" has no choice. I'm not saying that anything should be done differently, but going crazy over a handover that's not a handover just because it happens two days early instead of dealing with the details... what's the point?

[Jeff]

One last thing, exactly why was the handover done two days ahead of schedule, lasting only five minutes, and with no pomp or circumstance? Shouldn't there be a big speech, announcement of everlasting friendship between America and Iraq, and some wild celebrating?

I think being forced to have a secret handover says more than anyone ever could about how unsecure and dangerous the situation on the ground is. What is this more like, the British handover of Hong Kong or our diplomats retreating from Saigon near the end of the Vietnam War? Don't even accuse me of negativity or pessimism, it's the sad, hard truth.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5320332/

[Chrish]

Ahhh Jeff, I was wondering when you were going to bring in a comparison between Nam and Now? Such
pessimism you've just thrown out. It's amazing.
Yeah it is going to difficult nobody has stated anything differently about that fact; one of your realism's. Sure the Iraqi's are suspicious and
why shouldn't they be? We let them down once before what's to make them really believe we've
changed? "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me".

Given the circumstances these past number of months and more specifically the circumstances of the past two months how can you ask "Who are the insurgents"? The way you paint and dress it all up one would think All of the Iraqi people are running around with guns, knives, RPG's, and shooting at anything that moves or looks remotely
like an American. That ain't the truth, dude. The insurgents are Saddam loyalists who, it would appear, are teaming up or joining with terrorist cells, ala, Zarqawi types and also committing the majority if not all of those attacks, murders, and attacks. What don't you understand about that?

The coming months are going to be difficult and hard yes. Bush has not stated anything otherwise
nor denied that fact; another realism. Nato has agreed to help in the training of Iraqi forces and
appears they will also be sending people into Iraq
to further that training effort. It's not the most perfect of situations nor is it putting more boots on the ground but, at least they are starting to join in the effort; another realism.

From the actions of the Iraqi Interim Govt. a few weeks ago I would have to say they've already started to flex their muscles and aren't going to be the lapdogs of American Greed & Waste. It will be hard for them yes but, hopefully they will succeed in their efforts and Iraq will stand on their own two feet.

I do hope and pray and wish that the Iraqi people will take control of their own country and determine their own future, their own destiny irregardless of what Bush&Co or any other Govt., country, group, or entity wants or demands. They have had 35 years of pain, suffering, and anquish at the hands of a brutal dictator it's time they
had a taste of freedom. Let Freedom Reign.

That is my hope, my prayer, my wish, my realism and not your pessimism & negativity nor that of J.J's nor anybody else's is going to drain that away from me...

[Jim]

Well said, Chrish. Of course there will be problems. Nothing is perfect. And when there are elections in 6 months people will say, "well they are just U.S. sponsored elections." There will be problems. Others who have lost privileges will join Zarqawi (a Jordanian). But the Iraqi's will prevail. We're not running away. This is not Vietnam (which took 10 years and 56,000 American lives to lose). There is hope. And the glass is filling up.

[Jeff]

It's my hope and prayer as well Chrish, but we've been operating on that for over a year. How has it helped for you to believe and call me a pessimist? We all hoped that no more of our troops or Iraqis would die after Bush declared an end to the war. Did that help us? I would argue that it hurt us because we weren't prepared at all.

Things may pass exactly as you hope, in which case, credit would go where it's due, just as the blame has gone where it's gone. Sure Bush can't say that it's going to be easy because it's not. What's he going to do, stand on a carrier and declare victory again? He had no problem going alone a year ago without the U.N. and without NATO. It only took a whole mess of deaths to convince him to do the obvious.

To answer your other questions, I've seen countless quotes from the military that they can't honestly figure out who the insurgents are. Was the al-Medhi army full of Saddam loyalists? No. But if you're saying that they are simply dead enders, then how are they defying us? If they are foreign terrorists, how did they get in? Are you sure they don't have some popular support? I don't claim to know these things, but how can you quote the official line and ask nothing else? We're so afraid of them that we schedule a secret handover.

The Iraqi government... need our support, can't prosecute U.S. troops, need to try to look like they're independent of us (to garner public support), and keep getting killed on top of all that. Chrish... I'm really sorry, but your prayers aren't going to help them. The only thing that can help is for us to make the right decisions going forward. Since Bush had made so many wrong ones, let's hope that past performance doesn't predict the future.

[Chrish]

"We're so afraid of them that we schedule a secret handover.". For the same reason you can assume that "we're so afraid of them", I can assume that it was a way to throw the insurgents and terrorists off balance and avoid or minimize the number of deaths that would, obviously, have occurred had it gone on schedule.

I did not say all of them were either insurgents and terrorists. It's already a known fact that Al Sadr, wanted for murder, also had his followers resisting coalition forces. Al Sadr's motivations also come under suspicion since he didn't raise his head until after a warrant for his arrest had been issued by the Iraqi Council for the murder of another cleric. Do you recall that?

It is also a known fact that terrorist cells now in Iraq or other foreigners have come in through Syria, Jordan, and Iran. Surprise! They are also known to be Saudi Arabians, Iranians, Egyptians, and others. Surprise!

Yes, I'm sure there are a few everyday Iraqi's who are being drawn into the mix for various reasons or motivations but, I don't believe they represent the majority anymore than I believe Liberals, Conservatives, Right Wing, or Left Wing represent the majority of the People here in this country.

Of course the Iraqi government is going to need our continued support and backing for a time until they can handle their own security, their own issue, and their own problems. WWII, Germany and Japan also needed our support and backing until they were able to get onto their own feet.
They only difference there is they didn't have the insurgency nor terrorism as is going on in Iraq. Unless, of course, you want to call that period of time when Germany required an airlift because the Russians had surrounded and blockaded entry into that city. Whom do you think was there
one to jump to the ready to lend aid and assistance? We did. We didn't turn our backs on them, we didn't look the other way, we didn't wheel and deal with them. We ran the blockade by airlifting almost on a 24 hour basis the supplies, aid and assistance they needed until the Russians backed down. That is what Allies or
friends do; they help, aid, and assist the other.
But, I digress.

On one note I do agree with you but, has been that way for how long? That's this thing with
not prosecuting Our troops if they've committed
what would be considered as war crimes. I don't see where We are any different nor better than other's. a war crime is a war crime and those who commit such acts should be brought to trial and if found guilty punished for their crimes. Whether or not they are an American is irrelevant.

On the matter of prayer Jeff. Science, quite recently, has started to discover the power of prayer and have only scratched the surface of the power of prayer. Yes Jeff, I believe in the power of prayer and, despite what you or others may say will continue to pray for the peace of Iraq and for their future.

Yes Bush has made mistakes, a number of mistakes and hopefully he's man enough to admit, at least to himself, those mistakes and make changes in his direction and decisions. But, let's not forget that other's before him also made mistakes
which put us at risk culminating in what we have today...

[Jim]

It's funny that people would actually criticize the fact that this handover was done ahead of schedule and without pomp and circumstance. Please give me a break. If there were a big ceremony with Bush and Blair, can you imagine the criticism then? And why was it done early? Precisely to avoid the terrorist bombings that were scheduled for tomorrow. This is typical of the Bush = wrong, Anybody But Bush = correct crowd. It will probably soon be "proven" that the Bush family had slaves prior to 1860.

[Jeff]

No Jim, the reason that it was done in secret and without pomp and circumstance is because they can't. Once again, you do twist my words... imagine if peace, democracy, and freedom were ringing in Iraq today. I would want a ticket to that party because it'd be the hottest in the world. We don't even have security and I don't know how you can overlook that because everything depends on it. How can you say that I'm anti-Bush just because I assign him the responsibility?

Chrish, what's the difference between being afraid of terrorists and planning the handover early so that we throw them off? So you say that terrorists are coming in from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and anyone but Iraq. That's funny, I thought we invaded Iraq because it was on the front line of terrorism. If they're foreign, then can't we conclude that they weren't there before the invasion?

Incidentally, you admit that Bush made mistakes and you hope that he's man enough to admit it. Do you get that kind of free pass at your day job? I'll bet when you make mistakes, people don't die either. You express optimism at NATO and U.N. involvement and somehow manage to give Bush credit, like he thought of it first! Once again, he was forced to change, mostly because people were dying.

In all of history, has any leader improved when his credit line is extended? The answer is no, but luckily in America we can fire our leader when he sucks. Given all the overwhelming evidence that no one can refute, I can't see why you would give him a second chance.

Just imagine your son or daughter, dead because we didn't have enough troops on the ground, dead in another al-Qaeda terrorist attack because we got distracted by Iraq and didn't go all out to kill Bin Laden, dead because we couldn't provide security to American firms working to reconstruct Iraq, dead because we didn't properly train Iraqi police, dead because we didn't armor our humvees, dead because the family of an abused Iraqi prisoner wanted revenge, dead because our president said, "Bring it on!", or dead because he invaded a country that posed no threat to us.

There are quite a few people who don't have to imagine any of this and every day there are a lot more, both American and Iraqi. Don't tell me that Bush didn't have plenty of opportunities to make fewer mistakes. If that's acceptable performance from the CEO of this country, then by all means paint sunshine all over the mass graves we're digging and just keep hoping it doesn't hit home one day.

[j.j.]

Jim,

if the Bush family had slaves prior to 1860, then that is irrelevant to this discussion or anything else, for that matter. What is relevant is how Jacques Chirac´s ass must have tasted when Bush kissed it over and over again and still got rebuffed each time.

Crish,
no offense, but why is it ok to use WWII analogies but not Vietnam one´s?

Jeff said so much so well. I'm glad Bremer and CPA is the hell out of Iraq, they weren't doing jack except to pave the way for a pro-American puppet regime. Everything else like rebuilding the country was just sheer propaganda. Look at Afghanstan, we've had nearly 2 years and outside of a couple of big cities, anarchy, violence and extremism is still the norm. And I don't believe that Iraq will be sovereign until we are gone completely.

[j.j.]

apparently Iraqis blow up our soldiers because they hate Eminem. It must have nothing to do with the occupation of their land. Or the humiliation when falsely arrested in the middle of the night in front of their families. Or the torture those said falsely arrested people are exposed to in prison by "a few bad apples."

from YahooNews:
ISTANBUL, Turkey - President Bush urged the Muslim world on Tuesday to put aside suspicion and hatred toward the West and embrace democracy, saying that does not mean Arab nations have to accept American pop culture.

"Some people in Muslim cultures identify democracy with the worst of Western popular culture and want no part of it. And I assure them, when I speak about the blessings of liberty, coarse videos and crass commercialism are not what I have in mind."

[j.j.]

while the Marines are, no doubt, looking for a few good men, Army intelligence and Rumsfeld's mercenaries are looking for "a few bad apples." Kind of a catchy slogan, don't you think?

[j.j.]

speaking of pessimism, the Bush/Cheney website is a non-stop express of blatantly negative images of Kerry.
Of course the website makes a lot of statements that are up to debate, but this one really got me laughing. I mean, the optimism is almost overwhelming:

Preserving the Beauty and Quality of Our Environment
President Bush believes that good stewardship of the environment is not just a personal responsibility, it is a public value. Americans are united in the belief that it is important to preserve our natural heritage and safeguard the land around us.

The President has launched initiatives that express this same commitment. His Administration has acted in a comprehensive way to achieve impressive results. By almost every indicator, environmental quality in the United States is improving with cleaner air, water, and land, and improved public health.

The President believes that the federal government has an important role to play in protecting our environment and he has introduced new and innovative policies to achieve these goals. The President favors common-sense approaches to improving the environment while protecting the quality of American life. Over the past two-and-a-half years, the Administration has introduced initiatives that have already begun to deliver significant environmental results for all Americans.

[Jim]

Analogies to WWII vs. Vietnam. Like Germany and Japan, we won in Iraq and we are rebuilding it. Like Germany and Japan it takes time. Like Germany and Japan, there was still violence and terrorism after the war was over.

Jeff and J.J. you guys criticize the handover while there is "no" security. There is never going to be 100% security. And there will always be some violence while we are there. It's not like you can just flip a switch and everything changes. As the Iraqi's get stronger, we start to pull out. You know this. But if it's not perfect and tied in a bow you will criticize it. Thank God we didn't have CNN during WWII. We never would have got that Greman oil.

[Jim]

That's German oil.

[j.j.]

crikey, what are you talking about, man?

[Jeff]

Jim, if you want to do WWII vs. Vietnam analogies, do it right. All of the so-called likenesses that you have projected, have yet to happen and may not happen, so how can we find any of those things persuasive? Why don't we go over a list of things that have happened?

Like Vietnam and unlike Germany and Japan, Iraq did not attack us and was no threat to attack us. Like Vietnam, we went in thinking we had the power to do anything and left slinking into the night. Unlike Germany and Japan, most of the world thought we were wrong and did not support our efforts. Like Vietnam, we showed incredible arrogance about spreading our way of government and support a puppet regime. Like Vietnam, we have no support in Iraq. Like Vietnam, our leaders block negative images (like caskets) to mask the fact that troops are dying. Like Vietnam, our leaders won't tell us how much money we're spending there.

Your rational is simply not supported by the facts. Of course, Iraq will never be 100% secure, there's more than enough crime on the streets of America. But it's not even secure enough to avoid importing oil from Jordan. It's not secure enough to restore the electrical grid to full power. It's not secure enough to protect Iraqis, American soldiers, foreign contractors, or Iraqi governing council members.

But forget all of that for a moment, what really bothers me is that we were powerful enough to prevent or limit all of these tragedies, but not competent enough. Before the invasion, the Army estimated that we needed 400,000 troops, but our civilian leaders thought they were smarter and only needed 75,000. Those same leaders thought that Iraq oil would pay for reconstruction. They also thought we would be greeted as liberators, followed a possible Iranian spy, authorized and did not control prisoner abuse, thought that a obviously forged nuclear purchase was real, ignored warnings for 9/11, the list goes on and on and on.

All of this went so terribly wrong that we don't even need to get into details. Many lives were lost because our leaders were incompetent and you and Chrish continue to gloss this all over with letting freedom ring, even though there's no security, forget about freedom and democracy. The handover is not even a handover, though I suppose if you call it that enough times, you'll believe it is.

Incidentally, how's security in Israel these days? Is giving it more time helping?

Last thing, Chrish, the Berlin Airlift example doesn't fit at all. We almost had 100% support from West Berlin. Imagine how it would have been if the citizens had been shooting at us. Security is so bad that Baghdad Airport isn't even open for business and the road to it is the most dangerous in the country.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5326841/site/newsweek/

[Jim]

We left slinking into the night. All except for the 140,000 who are still there trying their best to bring stability to the new government. Got it.

[Jeff]

Right on cue Jim, all you can do to answer is to take something, put it out of context, missing the point completely, coupled with a snide remark. Do you think we got half a million troops out of Vietnam over night or did it take a couple of years?

140,000 doing their best to bring stability, eh? Why? Because there is no stability. No stability and U.S. troops means that there is no handover. Nice try to have it both ways and once again you avoid answering all the tough issues that require thought.

[Jim]

Thanks Jeff

[Jeff]

You're welcome, Jim.

[j.j.]

sometimes I get the feeling that Jim is in fact O'Reilly or some other "no-spinner."

Quick poll, if I may. How many believe that "Let freedom reign" note was a spontaneous thought by Bush? How many believe it was yet another pre-orchestrated media skit by Karl Rove aimed at showing the public what a compassionate conservative Bush is?

I believe it could not have been the first; the Irish TV interview and the Moore movie have exposed how Bush reacts when things happen out of the blue. He is not so strong and fearless as he is when he struts around on an aircraft carrier or proclaims "bring 'em on."

[Jim]

Unbelieveable. How many people here think that when Bush walks down the street, it's not really him walking? It's just Andy Card moving his legs.

Let Pessimism Reign.

[extreme pessimist]

part of an analysis from AsiaTimes:

"A new, externally-supported Iraqi elite has been ensconced, one whose ideology was shaped by opposition to Saddam and long sojourns in the West. Five of the interim government's six top posts - including former Central Intelligence Agency asset Allawi - are former exiles. Some, including the national security advisor and national intelligence chief, were handed five-year terms in office through last-minute edicts from departed US proconsul L Paul Bremer, meaning that they will serve in the elected government as well, even though they they will not have been chosen by the people. The now-defunct 25-member Iraqi Governing Council also granted itself seats on Iraq's Interim National Council, the 100-member legislative body that will be chosen in July.

Bremer's nearly 100 last-minute edicts, combined with previous legislation, set Iraq's course. The interim constitution (or Transitional Administrative Law - TAL) bans former Ba'ath Party members from running for office and seeks to circumscribe the military's traditional influence on politics. In addition, Bremer signed a sweeping election law on June 15, creating an election commission with the power to disqualify candidates and political parties. Militia members have also been banned from running for office for three years, a provision apparently aimed at anti-US Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. There is, as of yet, no indication that Iraq's new leaders have either the political will or desire to undo these restrictions."

Not to mention that US soldiers are free from prosecution even if they repeat the shameful acts of Abu Ghraib. Let pessimism reign, indeed.
JJ

[Pete]

If the "Let Freedom Reign!" note wasn't a publicity stunt, how did the media get it? ....and can we see more notes between Condi and George that they didn't originally intend for the meeting to see?

[Pete]

Correction: not "meeting" - but media

P.S. George loves freedom!

[My thoughts exactly]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/01/opinion/01DOWD.html

Let Freedom Ring, you dumbasses

[Jim]

"Bush is the real criminal"

-Saddam Hussein, July 1, 2004

you folks are in good company.

[Chrish]

{No Name}, when you figure out who or what your name is then post your childish pissy little comments and show us all what a really intelligent fellow you are.

Let's see, complaints about notes, complaints about "Let Freedom Reign", and complaints about
how Bush does this, that, or anything else. Jim,
I believe you are right on when you say "Let Pessimism Reign". That state of mind appears to be truly shining brightly from Democrats. They
even complain about the handover, how it occurred, and why it occurred. Even to the point of trying in any way possible to try and read something into the passing of a note; kindergarten stuff. Gee maybe Moore will grace us with another one of his "Truthful", "Honest",
and "Unedited" "documentary's" covering that whole
episode with the note passing. I'm sure he could make a whole lot out of the interactions between
Bush, Blair, and other's. Perhaps he could insinuate their thoughts, what they were thinking, what they were feeling, blah, blah, blah.....

Jeff, J.J, it is not the "Iraqi's" who are committing the attacks! You make it sound as if it were all of the Iraqi people fighting us and the coalition. It isn't nor hasn't been. Just as it has not been all of the Palestinians committing terrorist attacks against the Israeli's. You're lumping all of them into one group and that's not stating the facts nor the truth.

Is that a common thing with the Democratic party or with members of the Democratic party these days? Just asking as I'm really curious about this apparent pattern I've been observing.

[Jim]

C'mon Chrish, you know every single Iraqi is attacking us and each other. There will be nobody alive tomorrow.
I'm kind of hoping that the Dems get their first choice for a keynote speaker at their convention - Michael Moore. Actually I think their first choice is in jail in Baghdad.

[Chrish]

You might be possibly correct. No doubt the very same pessimistic group will pick up on Saddam's
claim that he's a victim, Bush is a criminal, and
begin supporting his (Saddam's)defense.... Please
don't think I'm making that statement against those of you on this site. I'm speaking of other's.

I wonder if this "documentary" will get the same
publicity as Moore's "documentrary" by the news media? Probably not since it has a more positive, uplifting, and hopeful message:
http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/heartandsoul/flash.html

[j.j.]

ok, why don´t we give it 3 months and pick up the debate then. here is a joke:

Prison guard comes in and tells Saddam, "Well, I got good and bad news for you. The bad news for you is that we are gonna shoot you. The good news that it will be Beckham taking the shot."

Get it?

[Jim]

J.J.

I get it. That's funny. Becks needs the practice anyway.

[Chrish]

LOL!!!!! Thanks, J.J...

Hope you all at Expats have an enjoyable 4th of July. Do you guys celebrate that day overseas? No, I'm not getting a dig in I was just wondering if those who are Americans do or are able to have
some kind of celebration over there.

In my travels and stays overseas there never really was any kind of celebration that I had heard of so, I was just wondering.

Either way I do hope you all have a safe and enjoyable 4th of July....

[Chrish]

Perhaps another reason to be optimistic and hopeful for the future?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5344609/

There will still be difficulties ahead there's
no denying that but, I remain optimistic, hopeful, and continue to pray for the complete
handover to the Iraqi people....

[Jeff]

This "debate" over optimism and pessmism is really irrelevant and I'm not sure why we continue to use those words. We all analyze and digest the facts (and some non-facts) and come to certain conclusions. Just because those conclusions are different doesn't have anything to do with whether we are optimists or pessimists by nature, nor do any of these hopes have any bearing on what actually happens.

I also think it's helpful to avoid spewing rhetoric instead of dealing with the issues at hand. Accusing the "against Bush" people of saying the same thing Saddam says or Michael Moore says is really nonsensical and destroys the poster's credibility. Perhaps we're all guilty of this at times and I'm willing to take the same rebuke if I do it. But no one other than the Bush supporters has said anything about Michael Moore... so why is there a need to say anything at all? Have any of you even actually seen the film (note, I did not say documentary) in question?

[j.j.]

no real 4th of July celebrations here, though I have heard that in some countries, the US Embassies will have little festivities for US citizens. But not in Iceland, the embassy is tiny and has no real services such as those in Berlin or other larger places. Doesn´t mean that I don´t take the day off myself!!

[j.j.]

I have not seen Fahrenheit, and it probably will be a while until it is released out here. I have just seen the trailer. I have also read some of Moore´s books and realize that he is full of crap a lot of times, I don´t need anyone else to tell me that.
What I do want to see though, and you catch glimpses on the trailer, is the original footage of Bush that you frequently don´t see on the news. For example, the little speech he gave about the elite being his base is pretty annoying. So is the comment he makes about all nations having to "stop these terrorist killers." 2 seconds later, he says, "Now watch this drive." Believe it or not, I actually remember that distinct video clip on the news when he said it, but they didn´t show the rest. Now, having seen the rest, it puts it into a slightly different perspective! (hope that wasn't confusing.)
Moore himself refers to the movie as an "op/ed". Anyone interested in a documentary should watch Uncovered. Now that one is really infuriating.

[Chrish]

Jeff, pessimism, cynicism, optimism, and hope has a lot to do with it. They will, whether we like it or not, have a large effect on how we view, see, intrepret, digest, and analyze those very facts you're talking about. That's not your fault, my fault, nor anybody else's fault. It's part of the human condition. It is what it is.
But, out of respect for your opinions and postion I will try and refrain from the use of those words so long as you, in return, also are willing to stick to the facts or (non-facts), as you put it; agreed?

Also Jeff, on the main page of this site is a heading titled "London Hits The Fahrenheits" posted by Luke. Statements like "But no one other than the Bush supporters has said anything about Michael Moore..." is rather silly when it's sitting there right under your nose. And yes Jeff, I did go and see Moore's documentary and will refrain from saying anything more about it...

Aside from that Jeff you have a great 4th of July,
stay out of trouble and behave yourself.... :o)

[Chrish]

J.J.,

I've heard a little something about that
"Uncovered" but, haven't seen it anywhere. Do
you have anything else on that one?

Either way you also have a great 4th of July...
Stay out of trouble and behave yourself... :o)

[Jim]

Chrish,

Thanks for posting the MSNBC article about how the Iraqi National Guard is taking more control and is more willing to steop up with their new sovereignty. I think this is is just a taste of things to come. As they take more control, they have more pride, they become more enthusiastic. Also, as they take more control we can start to pull back and someday pull out. This is what everybody wants.

Again, I agree with you Chrish. Attitude is so important. We (people in general) can't wait until everything perfect to be positive. Only a positive attitude will help to make things right. If everyone walks around thinking things are aweful, it will never improve. This is not to say that we should walk around with rose-colored glasses. We owe it to ourselves, our government and the world to be critical. It's also necessary for the press to be watchdogs - even though they sometimes grind me with only dwelling on the negative.
Positive New: Why is Fox News the #1 rated cable news channel? Some say it's because the pander to the right. I won't argue this, but it's certainly no more than CNN, NPR (paid for with your tax dollars) CBS, NBC and others pander to the left. But there's more to it than that. Fox is one of the few networks that dares to show positive stories on anything. And I'm not going to sit here and defend every commentator on Fox, because a couple of them go a little overboard. But at least they will give you a different view than negative negative negative, blame America first. Don't blame me for this. Look at the ratings.

Anyway I hope everyone has a fun and safe Independence Day weekend. And that goes for J.J., Chrish, Jeff, Sarah, Luke and everyone else. Celebrate the people who had the guts to sign the Declaration of Independence, and the foresight to write a great constitution. And celebrate those who died so we may disagree.
Cheers.

[Pete]

The reason that everyone's started talking about "optimism" and "pessimism" is that the Election Campaigns have started talking in those terms.

Basically, Karl Rove approves an election message, and a few days later the terminology shows up here in Jim and Chris' posts.

[Pete]

"Blame America first"

Jim, did you get that one from Ann Coulter? Just wondering.

[While we're (not?) on the subject....]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/02/opinion/02KRUG.html

[Jim]

That's funny. For the record (and I believe I've stated this before on this site) I am not an Anne Coulter fan at all.
And I haven't got any phone calls from Karl Rove telling me to be positive either. Ah, to be criticized for being positve. That might take the cake.
Chrish, did you get that message from Karl Rove telling you to be positive?

[j.j.]

What Pete said is totally right, I think. Every 4 years, you hear politicians and their verbal garbage take up optimism and pessimism. Isn´t it counterproductive for the challenger to say positive things about the incumbent, and vice versa? Wasn't Bush negative about Gore in 2000 and vice versa?
I doubt that unless you are really really rich, Karl Rove called either one of you, but there are a lot of TV and web ads sent by Rove's team that say something along those lines. It is very typical for the partisan group to pick up that type of lingo (including myself.) And I will give you a fact that can be backed up by statistical evidence: a couple of weeks ago, a major review was done by a university political science team on this year's election. It found that ads that blemish the truth have already surpassed a record. They castigated the Kerry campaign as well, but pointed out Bush in particular as having laid out the most deceptive ad campaign in history. They also noted that of Kerry's TV ads, 27% were negative about Bush, while 74% of Bush's ads were negative about Kerry. They had a great website in which they broke down every TV ad by either man, showed what was said, classified the ad and then commented on what the reality was. It is really too bad that I no longer have the link to the site, not only to prove that I am not just engaging in heresay, but also because it is a general interest site.

Thanks for whoever posted the Krugman link above. Yes, Krugman is partisan, no surprise there. I love reading his articles, mostly because I like his style, though I find myself disagreeing now and again. But in one of the paragraphs, he hits exactly on why I want to see the Fahrenheit movie. Like I mentioned earlier, it gives us access to see Bush in a way not typically portrayed by the media (right, left, or center):
"For example, audiences are shocked by the now-famous seven minutes, when George Bush knew the nation was under attack but continued reading "My Pet Goat" with a group of children. Nobody had told them that the tales of Mr. Bush's decisiveness and bravery on that day were pure fiction."

Crish,
the Uncovered movie never hit the movie theaters, it was released on DVD and is shown in film fests. You can watch some clips and order it on this website:
http://www.truthuncovered.com/home.cfm

[j.j.]

from YahooNews:
"Poland said its troops in Iraq had stopped old artillery shells from Saddam's era containing the deadly nerve agent cyclosarin falling into the hands of militants by buying the weapons after tip-offs. It gave few details."

Just a quick fyi, according to AP, the artillery shells are left over from 1991. That makes the cyclosarin about as deadly as toothpaste. I suppose you could choke on it if you tried hard enough, but you would hurt more people by throwing rocks in a crowded subway station. How do I know this? I have a MS in Organic Chemistry and 5 years of pharmaceutical medicinal chemistry experience. This is why I had to laugh whenver, before the war, UK Foreign Sec. Jack Straw demanded that Saddam disclose "the location of the vast arsenal we knew he had after the Gulf War." What Straw/Bliar and the rest failed to mention was that the question was moot. Even under ideal storage conditions, biological and chemical weapons don't last more than 3 years max.

My guess is that the Poles are tooting their own horn to justify to their people about why they are in Iraq, but that is purely my own speculation.

[Jim]

I was really hoping that the President would have run yelling and screaming out of that classroom.
And he really should have shot down the other two planes. Let's just try to imagine the backlash had the F-16's actually reached those planes and shot them down.
Mo(o)re Monday morning quarterbacking.

You're right J.J. in that incumbants by nature have to paint a more positive picture and challengers have to be more negative. And Bush did run some negative Kerry ads after he had been attacked by everyone for Kerry. moveon.org, etc.
Anyway, this whole positive/negative discussion didn't start out about campaigns - it was about trying to see the positive things happening in Iraq vs. dwelling on the negative only.

[j.j.]

so you are telling me that you would rather have 3000 dead than us shooting down a plane and limiting the deaths to about 200? Please never be in a job where you have to make life and death decisions.

As for Bush, there is a difference between "yelling and screaming" and actually taking charge of the situation. When I heard about a second plane, I instantly (repeat INSTANTLY) thought terrorist attack and ran to the phone to call my cousin who lived only about 7 blocks from the WTCs. That is the best I could do, so how come Bush gets a free apology card from Jim? The man froze, ran and then pretends to be a strong leader!! And you apologize for him. Don't you think that the idea of him trying to calm a scared nation is just a bit too convenient? He ran off to his nuclear bunker in Nebraska, so thank you for calming us all.

But that left-wing liberal media didn't bother to show (or even mention) us the 7 minute frozen deer in headlight moments. I suppose there were much more important things to talk about then, but how about in the 3 years since? That's why I'm glad Moore made this movie, at least he's got people talking about it, even if it causes some of to continue apologizing for Bush. Excuse me, I have more Monday morning quarterbacking to do, like blaming "that liar Clinton" for showing weakness in the face of terrorism.

[j.j.]

in case you missed the stats, 74% compared to 27%. that is some negativity and pessimism there! but since you still believe in all of Bush's other lies, like letting freedom reign, then what can I do about it?

Let freedom reign? What for #%$& sake is he talking about? If he is gonna orchestrate a media event like that, shouldn't he be able to at least follow the script? Has he NO capacity for abstract thought? Freedom doesn't reign. Kings, dictators, conquerors reign. Perhaps it was something Freudian in him, suggesting that he really doesn't believe it. Or maybe he is just plain dumb.

There is about a 4-5 day delay in showing the Leno show here in Iceland. Did anyone watch the Bush video clip of Bush speaking at a technology conference, saying: "Isn't it amazing that we now have cameras that can distinguish between a squirrel and a bomb." huh? I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. So, is this in case a squirrel disguises as a bomb or a bomb disguises as a squirrel?

[Jeff]

Chrish, thanks for the props, though you're right, the Fahrenheit post is right on the page. I just ignored it because I wasn't really interested.

Back to optimism and pessimism, how about I put it another way. Yes, I agree that it has tremendous effect on the outcome of events. For example, the Iraqi people were probably optimistic when Baghdad fell, very pessimistic now with people dying every day, and slightly more optimistic from the handover.

The American people... very pessimistic after 9/11, optimistic when Kabul fell, optimistic when the war started and even more optimistic when Baghdad fell. All you need to track this optimism is to look at the stock market, which is in my opinion almost the perfect barometer. Since Baghdad fell though, Americans have been growing more and more pessimistic each day, with few bright lights like the killing of Uday and Qusay and the capture of Saddam.

Technically, I think you're correct that attitude of the public has a lot to do with the end result. However, the attitude of our leaders is largely irrelevant. Instead, it is their responsibility to make decisions that will generate optimism among the public they serve. Sometimes, certain individuals are so charismatic that they are able project positive attitudes upon us... but it never lasts for long in the U.S., if not backed up with results.

The proper measure for our leaders is the same as it is for our bosses at work: competence. Were we not all incredibly optimistic when Saddam's statue fell? I was... the war had gone much better than most would have predicted and the taking of Baghdad never came down to hand to hand combat in the streets. At that time, I believed that Saddam had WMD and I believed every word that Colin Powell said in front of the U.N. I thought that we should have given the inspectors more than a few months to operate, but given the easy result, who would have turned it down?

So consider the performance of our leaders during this past year measured only in terms of pessimism. Everything coming out has turned both the American public and the Iraqi public pessimistic, not to mention the rest of the world. So Jim and Chrish, you're still optimistic, but wouldn't it be better if the rest of us were optimistic with you?

Don't tell me it wasn't possible either. It was possible for Bush not to mislead about WMD and not to outright lie about the nuclear purchase from Niger. It was possible for Rumsfeld to have a plan for occupation in place... we could have stopped the looting (we voluntarily did not), we could have gone in with more soldiers, we could have garned more international support. It was and remains possible for the administration to give us a better idea of how much the war costs. It was possible to prevent much of the scandals involving prisoner abuse, Halliburton (god knows how many times they show up in the news), the outing of Valerie Plame, and the turning of Chalabi into an Iranian spy. Internally, it was possible to prevent the issuing of an erroneous terrorist report, leaks of torture memos, and calling Padilla a dirty bomber for two years before oops, changing the story and its believability.

Many people still believe that Bush is the man we want as President, but with each of these stories and each soldier that dies, fewer people are in that camp. This is neither in the country's best interest, or in Bush's interest. He's much better off with the 90% approval rating he had after 9/11 than what he has now. If he had that 90% rating, he would be able to ask not only Congress, but the rest of the world to do what he wants, everyone would be saying yes... and things would get done!

I'm not even talking about the merits of each of these scandalous events... just the fact that each of them hurts Bush and his reaction, either to be misleading or to stay the course (and not fire someone) hurts even more. Each event has resulted in the lowering of optimism in the entire world, but most importantly in Iraq. If it were 110 degrees out and you had no electricity, were afraid to go out, and had no job, how optimistic would you be? How willing would you be to help or believe the people who are in charge?

End analysis... Bush is incompetent and weasels out of responsibility at every turn. All of these things hurt him, he's the most powerful man in the world, and he couldn't stop any of it from happening. I really hope that everything turns out alright, but it's time for the four year review of the man's performance and his record sucks. He's got all this power and he can't even stop all these scandals for his own good. How can anyone think that he's the best guy for the job?

[Jeff]

From the House of Representatives on Bushies' public statements on Iraq... fair (in my opinion) and frightening. Keep in mind that they excluded statements that used the past tense and "statements that appear erroneous, but in hindsight were accurate reflections of the views of intelligence officers at the time they were made." Is it acceptable or not?

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

[Jim]

J.J. you know if any of those planes were shot down we would be hearing the stories of "The passengers had called there family, they were taking over the plane. There was no need to shoot it down." Be real.
I'm not apologizing for anyone, nor am I giving anyone a free pass, but if that's the brand you want to give me, so be it.

[j.j.]

Jim,
planes being shot down is kind of like triage; it sucks, but is the best overall result. I never thought I would say something like this, but it is the reality of the world.

Jeff,
I, for one, was never once optimistic. Not one time. I didn't believe the threat/911/freedom spiel. I felt we would open a pandora's box that we wished would never exist. Not to mention that I felt it immoral to justify a war with noble words like democracy when I thought the reality was economic interests. I was even pessimistic when Baghdad fell, though I (wrongly) felt at the time that it would be best to keep my big mouth shut. I was pessimistic after Uday/Qusay and was not any more optimistic when Saddam was captured (even though those two events I felt were the sole bright spots in all of this.) I didn't need a prisoner abuse scandal or any of the other 2 dozen debacles to make me pessimistic. I am not in the slightest bit surprised at how things turned out so far. It is because of all of this that I am not optimistic about some bs power transfer either. Everyone knows who ultimately calls the shots; the Soviets "transferred" power all over Europe and Afghanistan as well, but I think everyone knew better. Just cause we are doing it now instead of the Soviet Union doesn't mean we are any better in what we are doing. Iraq will be free when our last soldiers leave, not a day sooner.

Crish,
I forgot to mention, Metallica is playing in Reykjavik on 4th of July. I'd go, but $100 a pop, I thought the money would be better spent on the Kerry campaign. =)

[j.j.]

Oh man, thanks for the post about The Record On Iraq! Wow, what an amazing collection!

Crish/Jim, did you guys read it? Any thoughts?

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

[JJ]

oops, last post by me, JJ.

ok, I admit he didn´t use the word 'imminent.'

[jj]

besides the Rumsfeld quotes in the link above, here are some more by the Administration:

"You cannot distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam." Bush, Fall 2002

"The true threat facing our country is an al Qaeda-type network trained and armed by Saddam."
Bush, Fall 2002

"There is overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government" Cheney, Fall 2002

"There exists a sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network." Powell, Feb. 2003

"There clearly was a relationship ...and... overwhelming evidence." Cheney, June 2004

"Was Iraq involved with al Qaeda in the attack on 9/11? We don't know." Cheney, June 2004

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda was because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." Bush, June 2004

for more, go to that link that Jeff posted.

[Chrish]

Yes J.J, I read that article, "The Record on Iraq". Ouch!!!! BTW, Who are the Non-Proliferation Project - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Office of Strategic, Proliferation, and Military Affairs?

On the more important subject, Metallica, $100.00
a pop? I don't know J.J., I'd be hard pressed to
consider that choice; that's a toughie.. :o)

[Chrish]

Yes Jeff, it would be great if there were more who are optimistic, but that's not the case.

I will give both you and J.J that this whole Iraq thing could very well be a major F__K Up by Bush
and Co. and, in all likelihood, the reasons will never be known. That being the case the reality is that we are there and nothing will change that.
Even Kerry has admitted to that reality and I find it a rather hard sell for him to try and convince the rest of our so-called "Allies" to jump into the foray and help out. He also has stated that Our people will remain even should he win the election. So yes, I remain optimistic and hopeful that the Iraqi people will take full control of their country; the sooner the better.

It would be quite easy for me to follow the crowd
and be pessimistic and hopeless about this but, I choose not to follow that path....

In regards to the negative ad campaigns frankly,
I'm one of those who's rather fed up with all of that crap from both sides and the news media for propogating it, encouraging it, and instigating it.

I'm not interested in what this or that politican did, note past tense, I'm interested in where they stand on the issues and what their solutions are... We already know what this or that politician has done now, what the hell are they going to do about it? That, to me, is what is important.

The news media; another pathetic group of self absorbed moron's. Of all the groups or individual that have such power they, the news media, has it. They have the resources, the insider connections, the investigative talent to
report on where the individual politicians stand on the issues and what their solutions are. They have the vast amount of resources to dig into those politicians solutions to really inform us if they are viable, workable, and plausible solutions or if they're just a whole lot of BS.
Do they? Hell no. They, instead, find it necessary to dig up past events going back 30+
years and trying to make it relevant to what is going on today. And the sleezier the better.
What the hell difference if Clinton smoked or nonsmoked a joint 30+ years ago, whether Bush got a DUI over 30+ years ago, whether Kerry did or didn't throw his medals over the Whitehouse Gates over 30+ years ago, blah blah blah. The politicians continue to blow smoke up our arse's and the news media continues to help them..

I'm speaking about both sides of the aisles, Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal.
I guess in this particular instance I am a pessimist and a cynic when it comes to the politicians and the news media.... LOL!!

[Chrish]

Jeff, J.J., and Pete,

Time will tell whether or not the Iraqi people
will take control of their own destiny but, it
would seem that there are some in Iraq who are already beginning to take that step.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9DE078A3-FA50-47D6-ABE2-2F2D2169B2C9.htm

It could all be smoke but, they seem to be against
those who have come into their country and created more violence using Islam as their justification and want it stopped.

[Jeff]

Chrish, I appreciate your optimism, really do. But how about putting that energy to better use? Instead of sitting idly by while politicians who work for you lie and screw up, do something about it. Work to replace them with better people.

I'm no fan of Kerry, but in the case of planning for Iraq, he's left with no choice just like Bush. The difference however, is that he didn't create the mess, therefore he has a much better chance of getting out of it. The difference is that he supported the current plan a year ago. Bush told all our allies and the U.N. that we didn't need them. Now he's run back with tail between the legs asking for help, quite an unmanly display to the foreign countries he shunned before the war.

Beyond that, I see your reaction to all the lies. It's the only reaction you can have as a citizen. It's completely unforgivable! You employ them. If your workers were to lie, mislead, and otherwise show this much incompetence, you would need to fire them unless you wanted your company to go bankrupt. Help the Iraqi people and ourselves by getting these incompetent lying schmucks out of power.

[Chrish]

Jeff, as usual, you make some very salient points
and I confess I have no real rebuttal. I'm not particularly happy with Bush and I'm not particularly impressed with Kerry. I still see this as a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.

Of course I would love to see the current status quo erradicated from our politicians, of course I would love to see real people with real vision with real honest to God concern for the People
and the future of Our country foremost in their minds and actions; from the President on down.

People who aren't interested in fattening their pockets or bank accounts but, interested in making all of the people's lifes better not just a select few.

Oh well nice dream but, hardly achievable.