Tag Archives: Saddam Hussein

national news, political news

Well, that clears it up: Jeb wouldn't go to war

Jeb Bush has set the record straight … I think.

He now says he wouldn’t have gone to war in Iraq if he and the rest of the world knew then what we know now — which is that Saddam Hussein didn’t possess weapons of mass destruction.

Does that clear it up for you? The former Republican Florida governor — and likely GOP presidential candidate — surely hopes so.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/14/jeb-bush-clears-air-on-iraq-war-stance-says-would-not-have-authorized-invasion/?intcmp=latestnews

He went from “yes I would” go to war, to “mishearing” the question from Megyn Kelly of Fox News, to “misinterpreting” the question to now reversing himself completely.

MSBNC’s Rachel Maddow — and I’m acutely aware that she is no fan of any of the Republicans running, or thinking of running, for president — pointed out an important element of the botched answer to a simple question. She said Thursday night that Jeb Bush, whose brother George W. Bush, invaded Iraq in 2003, should have been aware that the question would come and he should have had his answer down pat.

He didn’t. He either hasn’t done his homework on the nuts and bolts of running for president, or doesn’t quite understand how the media work. Reporters are going to ask him repeatedly about the Iraq War and whether it was a good or bad idea for the United States to invade another country.

Jeb Bush remains one of the frontrunners for the GOP nomination, whenever he declares his candidacy.

I actually want him to do well as the nomination campaign ramps up.

But, oh man, he must stop fumbling the questions everyone in America knows he’s going to get.

national news, political news

Jeb 'misheard' question about Iraq War?

Mind-reading isn’t my thing.

Therefore, I cannot pretend to know what Jeb Bush heard or “misheard” when Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly asked him whether he would have gone to war in Iraq “knowing what we now know” about the absence of any weapons of mass destruction.

The former Florida governor and presumed Republican Party candidate for president said he would have gone to war.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ex-aide-says-jeb-bush-misheard-iraq-question/ar-BBjFW9y

Then he said, “And so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everyone. And so would almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got.”

Well.

Let’s just review for a moment. Then-U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton did vote to authorize war in Iraq. President Bush ordered the invasion in 2003, our troops toppled Saddam Hussein’s government then looked high and low for the WMD. They didn’t find any. They captured Saddam, pulling him out of that spider hole. He was tried and convicted of crimes against humanity and was hanged.

Clinton then said while running for president in 2008 that she was wrong to vote for the war authorization, based on what we now know.

Gov. Bush said he misheard Kelly’s question. I won’t quibble with that point.

I will quibble, though, with his characterization of what Hillary Clinton would do. She’s said she made a mistake.

His bungled answer has angered those on the right, who don’t like him too much anyway.

Time to hit the reset button, Jeb.

 

International news

Bush needs refresher on his own blunders

3 Comments

George W. Bush had followed his father’s doctrine upon leaving the presidency in January 2009.

Do not criticize the man in the office now. Be quiet and go about the business of doing other pertinent activities.

Then the 43rd president spoke to a group of Republican donors over the weekend and proceeded to rip into Barack Obama’s handling of crises in the Middle East.

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/27/the_swaggering_idiot_returns_george_w_bush_emerges_from_artistic_exile_to_rehab_his_disastrous_legacy/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

From what is known about President Bush’s remarks — they weren’t recorded visually or audibly — he apparently spoke without a hint of understanding about his own foreign policy blunders in the region and the mess he created and left for his successor.

Iraq? The war he started against Saddam Hussein because he was “certain” that the dictator possessed weapons of mass destruction? The former president made no mention, of course, of the fierce resistance our forces encountered in a country that his defense secretary and vice president said would greet us as “liberators.”

Instead, the ex-president chose to criticize the current president for seeking to negotiate a deal that rids Iran of its capability to develop a nuclear weapon. He talked about the chaos that has developed since the United States went to war against the Islamic State.

Think about this for a moment. The Islamic State has risen in Iraq because it wants to restore a Sunni government that U.S. forces evicted from power. Yes, ISIL is an evil organization, but the ex-president is showing no inclination for taking a shred of responsibility for what has developed because of what this country did on his watch in the White House.

Chaos? President Bush created enough chaos to go around when he launched the Iraq War in March 2003.

I much prefer the George W. Bush who once understood what his father still understands: He’s had his time in the hot seat, which now is occupied by someone who’s doing the best he can to protect the nation all presidents profess to love.

 

International news

War is far from a perfect endeavor

Two aid workers — an American and an Italian — are dead because a drone strike hit a suspected terrorist compound.

U.S. intelligence did not know the men were inside the target area. Does this mean the air campaign using unmanned drones is a failure? No. It means that intelligence at times is incorrect.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/obama-expresses-confidence-in-us-intelligence-despite-mistake-that-killed-two-aid-workers-117325.html?hp=b1_r1

President Obama expressed his support for the U.S. intelligence network during a ceremony marking the 10th anniversary of the melding of intelligence agencies into a single national intelligence department.

Walter Weinstein and Giovanni LoBianco were killed when a drone-launched missile hit the compound where al-Qaeda terrorists were holding them. President Obama has expressed regret and sorrow at the men’s deaths. But he stands behind the intelligence network.

Do they get everything right every single time? No. We’ve suffered through many intelligence failures over many years. Do you remember the intelligence that became the basis for launching the Iraq War in 2003? Do you remember the assurance that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein was preparing to use them? It didn’t pan out that way.

Obama said: “Our first job is to make sure that we protect the American people. But there’s not a person that I talk to that’s involved in the intelligence community that also doesn’t understand that we have to do so while upholding our values and our ideals, and our laws and our constitutions, and our commitment to democracy.”

No matter the scope of the failures involved in intelligence gathering, it’s always critical to remember that human beings analyze this data and that those analysts do make mistakes. Thankfully, it’s not often.

Does that lessen the tragedy that resulted in the deaths of the aid workers? No. It does require, as the president said, that the nation “review what happened. We’re going to identify the lessons that can be learned and any improvements and changes that can be made.”

 

International news

Report: ISIL starting to fray

Can it be happening? Could the Islamic State be feeling the pressure of the intense bombing campaign aimed at “degrading and destroying” it?

The Washington Post is reporting signs are beginning to show that ISIL is starting to come apart amid dissension, tension, frayed nerves … hey, perhaps even fear at being killed by U.S. and allied aircraft?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/islamic-state-frays-from-within/ar-AA9xeOK

According to the Post: “Reports of rising tensions between foreign and local fighters, aggressive and increasingly unsuccessful attempts to recruit local citizens for the front lines and a growing incidence of guerrilla attacks against Islamic State targets suggest the militants are struggling to sustain their carefully cultivated image as a fearsome fighting force drawing Muslims together under the umbrella of a utopian Islamic state.”

Well, how about that?

These monstrous goons are showing some signs of cracking.

The Post reports that the findings are “anecdotal,” and might not be totally accurate.

But think about the impact of the relentless attacks from the air on military targets. Does it not have an impact, even on fighters who’ve built up this aura of invincibility? Sure it does.

ISIL might be on the run near Tikrit, Iraq, where Iraqi forces have launched a major offensive against the terrorists in the birthplace of the late Saddam Hussein, the Sunni Muslim who ruled Iraq with maximum brutality until he was ousted, captured, tried, convicted and executed for crimes against humanity.

Yes, the attacks likely are having their desired effect on ISIL. The threat to its existence, though, might be internal, as the Post reports: “The bigger threat to the Islamic State’s capacity to endure, however, may come from within, as its grandiose promises collide with realities on the ground, said Lina Khatib, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.

“’The key challenge facing ISIS right now is more internal than external,’ she said, using another term for the group. ‘We’re seeing basically a failure of the central tenet of ISIS ideology, which is to unify people of different origins under the caliphate. This is not working on the ground. It is making them less effective in governing and less effective in military operations.’”

Keep bombing ’em.

 

International news

ISIL making a stand in Saddam's hometown

Iraqi forces are launching a major offensive to take Tikrit away from the Islamic State.

Do we see the symbolism here?

http://news.yahoo.com/major-offensive-under-way-retake-iraqs-tikrit-army-081036649.html

Tikrit is the hometown of the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

ISIL is a Sunni Muslim cult that seeks to take Iraq away from the Shiites who now govern the country.

Hussein was a Sunni Muslim.

I would like to think of the battle for Tikrit to be some sort of ISIL’s Last Stand, if you’ll pardon the reference to a 19th-century American military officer.

Sadly, it won’t be a last stand. There will be other stands, other battles to fight, other cities to liberate from these monstrous terrorists.

But the Tikrit battle that is unfolding with a reported 30,000 Iraqi army troops taking part could give us a good indication of just how battle-ready the Iraqi armed forces are for the fight that lies ahead.

If the Iraqis succeed in recapturing Tikrit, they can turn their forces toward where it really and truly matters.

As the news agency AFP reports: “Commanders voiced hope the operation would be a step towards the recapture of Mosul, the jihadists’ main hub in Iraq.”

This is the Iraqis’ fight to win or lose. Their benefactors — the United States of America — need to know they’re up to the task.

 

International news, military news, political news

Let's stick to the singular 'war'

1 Comment

A Huffington Post headline contains a word that requires a correction.

It says, “Jeb Bush won’t talk about wars his brother started.”

The operative word here is “wars.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/14/jeb-bush-iraq-afghanistan_n_6683970.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

The Huffington Post is no friend of Jeb Bush or of his brother, former President George W. Bush. Having stipulated the obvious, I now shall make a crucial point.

The “wars” referenced in the article are the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. I hereby submit that George W. Bush didn’t start the Afghan War. The first shot — if you want to call it that — was fired on 9/11 when two jetliners crashed into the World Trade Center, another one plowed into the Pentagon and a fourth plane crashed into a Pennsylvania field as passengers fought to retake the aircraft that had been hijacked by al-Qaeda terrorists.

Nearly 3,000 innocent victims died on that terrible day.

President Bush responded to an act of war against the United States. The war began because terrorists headquartered in the Afghan wilderness plotted the dastardly deed and were plotting to do even more damage to this country and to others around the world.

Our military response was in retaliation for what the monstrous murderers did on 9/11.

As for the Iraq War, yes, Bush started that war. The Bush administration relied on bad intelligence — or perhaps fabricated a weapons of mass destruction scenario to justify a military invasion of a sovereign country. Whatever the cause, the Iraq War was ill-conceived and then sold to the public dishonestly as a relatively simple mission.

The world would then learn that Iraq didn’t possess WMD, which only worsened the public perception that President Bush was out to settle a score with the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

That is the war the former president’s brother, Jeb — who’s considering a presidential campaign in 2016 — should keep hidden in the closet for as long as he can.

The Afghan War? That one was justified.

It’s an open question about whether the effort in Afghanistan was worth it. The U.S. combat mission there is over and the Afghans will be left to defend their country against the Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists who are seeking to retake the country.

Jeb Bush, though, will have his hands full trying to justify the Iraq War and whether the cost of that bloody conflict — more than 4,400 American lives — was worth the fight.

military news, national news

Have a great day, fellow veterans

Younger readers of this blog might not remember this little tidbit.

There once was a time in this country when being a veteran wasn’t something to be honored or celebrated. Oh sure, many millions of Americans did honor veterans. Many millions of others, though, chose to scorn those who wore the uniform.

It happened during the turbulent decade of the 1960s. The Vietnam War was being fought. It split this country apart. Hawks vs. doves. War mongers vs. peaceniks. Conservatives vs. Liberals.

Some of us found ourselves caught in the middle of all this.

It wasn’t a pretty time. It was ugly.

Veterans Day parades drew protests from those who opposed the Vietnam War. Some of these protests turned ugly, even violent.

Perhaps the most reprehensible element of all was that Americans threw their greatest scorn at the service personnel who simply were doing their duty. They were ordered to go to war and they followed those orders, did what they were told to do and returned home to a nation that didn’t salute them. Their fellow Americans turned their backs on them.

Full disclosure. I was one of those veterans who spent some time serving my country. A little bit of that time was spent in Vietnam. I didn’t get spit on or cursed at when I returned home, as happened to some veterans. I returned and resumed a quiet life.

The good news would come later.

Americans realized the error of their ways. It happened about the time of the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91. We went to war yet again to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait after the dictator Saddam Hussein invaded that country and captured its immense oil wealth. President Bush said the invasion “will not stand.” We bombed the daylights out of the Iraqis and then sent in in 500,000 or so mostly American forces to kick the Iraqis out.

The job was over in a few days.

Those returning vets came home to parades, music, banners, “Welcome Home” signs. They returned to a nation that had restored its pride in those who don the uniform.

That pride continues to this day. Even though some of us have criticized the policies that took us to war in Iraq yet again in 2003, Americans never again — I hope — will blame the warrior for doing his or her lawful duty.

This veteran is grateful that our country has learned once again to express its thanks.

International news, military news, national news, political news

Name's the same: It's called 'war'

The “fair and balanced” network that keeps proclaiming its journalistic integrity is at it again.

The Fox News Channel is trotting out a military expert to gripe that the war against the Islamic State doesn’t have a name, as in Operation Destroy ISIL or Operation Kill the Bad Guys.

The expert, whose name escapes me at the moment, was complaining that the Obama administration’s campaign to “degrade and destroy” the Islamic State needs a catchy name to rally the nation, to give the mission a sense of purpose, to send a message to the Middle East terrorist monsters that, by God, we mean business.

Then he went on to suggest that absent a name President Obama is engaging in some form of denial about the severity of the heinous organization with which we’re dealing in Syria and Iraq.

Sigh …

Someone has to tell me in language I understand precisely why we need to call this campaign something catchy.

I heard the Fox expert prattle on about national purpose and unity. However, if memory serves, Operation Iraqi Freedom — which is what the Bush administration called its March 2003 invasion of Iraq — didn’t exactly gin up a whole lot of national unity simply because we hung a label on it.

The only thing that produces such unity is battlefield success. Yes, the United States succeeded on the battlefield. Our forces defeated Saddam Hussein’s overhyped army with ease — just as we did in 1991 when we liberated Kuwait in Operation Desert Storm.

However, we weren’t greeted as “liberators,” as then-Vice President Cheney predicted would happen. Then that unity thing kind of fell apart as public opinion began to sour on our continued occupation of Iraq.

Did the name chosen produce the sense of mission and national esprit de corps envisioned at the time?

Hardly.

Let’s get back to debating the merits of the air campaign against ISIL. I hasten to note, incidentally, that more nations are taking part. We aren’t alone in this fight.

Thus, it would be helpful if critics here at home — such as the Fox News “experts” — would cease carping on these side issues.

They serve only as a distraction from the bigger fight.

International news, national news, political news

Baker says 'I told you so' … in effect

Former Secretary of State James Baker III didn’t have to wag his finger and say “I told you so.”

But he implied it anyway when asked over the weekend about the decision in 1991 not to march into Baghdad and overthrow Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Baker was interviewed on Meet the Press and the question came from moderator Chuck Todd: Do you still stand by your decision not to take out Saddam Hussein?

Yes, Baker said without hesitation. Why? Because, he noted, we would have encountered the same problem we’re encountering this very moment: trying to build a nation from scratch.

The mission in 1991 was clear: toss Iraqi troops out of Kuwait, where they had invaded in August 1990. The world would not tolerate one nation overrunning another nation and putting a massive supply of oil in jeopardy. President Bush sought permission from Congress and got it. He then went to the United Nations and got permission from the world body to use force to oust Iraqi troops.

The U.N. resolution was clear: Remove the troops from Kuwait, period. Don’t go any further. The president and the Joint Chiefs of Staff understood what the resolution said and the president would honor it to the letter.

James Baker brought together a coalition of nations to aid in that effort.

What the former secretary of state also seemed to imply — at least to my ears — was that tossing Saddam Hussein out in March 2003 is the source of all the trouble that is occurring in Iraq today. We’re still trying to build a democratic government in a country that’s never known freedom and liberty the way we understand the meaning of the terms.

The crisis in Iraq in Syria has gotten complicated almost beyond comprehension. It’s now up to the current administration to seek a solution. Still, it’s fair to ask: Did we really consider fully the consequences of what would happen the moment we decided to overthrow a sovereign government?

Did anyone back in 2003 bother to ask James Baker what might happen?