Moot point??????

[Gimpy]

I think NOT!

********************************

Published on Tuesday, December 9, 2003 by the Minneapolis Star Tribune
'Moot Point': Andrew Card Goes Over the Line
Editorial

Andrew Card, President Bush's chief of staff, made the rounds of the Sunday interview shows last weekend. On CNN's "Late Edition," Wolf Blitzer pushed Card fairly hard on the war in Iraq -- not so much on how it's going, but on why it happened. At one point, after broaching the issue of the phantom weapons of mass destruction, Blitzer asked, "Was U.S. intelligence going into the war faulty?"

Card answered: "Well, intelligence -- I think, first of all, there was plenty of justification to go to war. He had stiffed the United Nations many, many times. He was a threat to his own people and a threat to the region. He was a threat to our interests. And we had called for -- as a country, we had called for regime change under the previous administration.

"But when you go there today and you see some of the mass graves that are there, where he murdered his own people, you just can't help but think that we are much better off with[out] Saddam there. So, I think that's a moot point."

Such an innocuous phrase, "moot point," but it is breathtaking in its significance and damnably outrageous of Card to use it.

As you will recall, and as people like Card keep hoping you will forget, Saddam Hussein's WMD stockpiles and programs were the fundamental reason the United States went to war in Iraq. Yes, there were secondary reasons as well, some of which Card mentioned. But without the WMD threat to the United States and its friends, never would the American people or the U.S. Senate have consented to war. They were assured the administration had a rock-solid WMD case against Iraq. And so the United States invaded Iraq, despite the misgivings of some of its closest allies.

The case against Saddam, however, turned out to be so much mush. It was based on faulty intelligence, which those who wanted war in the Pentagon and Vice President Dick Cheney's office apparently cherry-picked to make their case -- hyping that information which was supportive, dismissing that which was not. Numerous critics have accused the administration of using raw intelligence data from unreliable sources, which Cheney has denied. But just this week, Newsweek is reporting that the exile Iraqi National Congress had direct pipelines into Cheney's office and the Pentagon, through which they fed information gathered from exiles and INC sources, and most of which turned out to be so much hooey.

This was an intelligence failure of immense proportions and consequences. The American people were misled into war. That failure hardly qualifies as a "moot point." The price paid so far, and to be paid for who knows how long into the future, is just too horrific.

The little town of Tipton, Iowa, paid part of that price last week. Specialist Aaron James Sissel, 22, of Tipton was killed when his convoy was attacked in Haditha, Iraq. His photographs suggest an engaging, outgoing kid, big smile on his spectacled face. The obituary in the Iowa City Press-Citizen tells about Sissel. He was just four years out of high school. Sissel loved stock cars and NASCAR racing, bowling, the Iowa Hawkeyes and the Michigan Wolverines. Sissel was assigned to the Iowa National Guard's 2133rd Transportation Company. He thought he had a future: He left behind a fiance, Specialist Kari N. Prellwitz. She's also serving with the Iowa National Guard in Iraq.

Sissel and Prellwitz and all those who serve with them aren't so many throwaway pieces in some grand geostrategic game. They are American flesh and blood. Yes, they were soldiers pledged to defending their country, and they went about their tasks the best way they could. But they did not pledge to protect the civilian Iraqi population from the despot Saddam Hussein. They did not pledge to prevent more mass graves in Iraq. They were not asked to do those things. They were asked to help eliminate a threat to the United States posed by Saddam's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs.

They went; now Sissel is dead. For Andrew Card or anyone else in Washington to play bait-and-switch with such sacrifice is vulgar.

? Copyright 2003 Star Tribune

***************************************

AMEN!!!

With all respect,Gimpy,I have to agree with Card.To me it seems obvious that Saddam presented a clear and present danger to this country,our allies,and our intrests with or without the WMD's.9/11 should have shown us that we can no longer let known threats build and attack us at a time and place of their choise unless we're ready to fight these battles on our own soil.It might be remembered that no WMD's were used in 9/11 but it appears they got in a pretty hard lick anyway.

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Saddam had the most important WMD in his assanal-great wealth and many many oilwells pumping money into his warchest every day.All other WMD's follow from that.

I believe that Itaq HAD to be delt with WMD's or not.I believe that the people of this country had-and have-enough sense to realize this and this bit about "misled into war" is selling our country short.I think that our troops are doing what has to be done to protect the people of this country and doing it in an excellent and honorable manner.I find the article's implication that we are wasteing the lives of our soldiers because they haven't found WMD's to be highly offensive and potentially damageing to their morale.

[Gimpy]

Let me have you see what one of the most decorated and experienced battlefield commanders in recent history has to say regarding the information being refered to by the author of this article. Maybe then you'll better understand WHY I feel as the author does in many respects.

This was from a recent address given by General Antohny Zinni, U.S. Marine Corps (retired).

"Whatever blood is poured onto the battlefield could be wasted if we don't follow it up with understanding what victory is."

"Right now the question that has to be answered is: does our military expand its role beyond the military aspect, or will we continue to stick it with this mission without the resources, the training, the cooperation from others or the lack of authority needed to get the job done? If you're going to make the military the governors out there, if you're going to make them the proconsuls, if they're going to be the humanitarians and the reconstructors, then legitimize it in some way. Because we can't go on breaking our military and doing things like we're doing now."

"This administration came in with an idea of transforming the military into something?God knows what?lighter, smaller, quicker, whatever. The bill payer was going to be ground units, heavy units. And now we have a shortage of exactly what we needed out there. Nobody listened to the CINCs. As a matter of fact, they got rid of our name; we couldn't even be called CINCs anymore. You know, we're no longer commanders-in-chief; we're combatant commanders, whatever the hell that means. But you're at the edge of the empire and you see it firsthand. And you know what the requirement is. And we keep screaming back here into the system that we need more. We need to train our officers and leaders for a different kind of mission out there."

"Let me just finish by saying that we should be?as I know you've heard plenty of times here?extremely proud of what our people did, and are doing out there, what our men and women in uniform did. It kills me when I hear of the continuing casualties and the sacrifice that's being made. It also kills me when I hear someone say that, well, each one of those is a personal tragedy, but in the overall scheme of things, they're insignificant statistically. Never should we let any political leaders utter those words. This is the greatest treasure the United States has, our enlisted men and women. And when we put them into harm's way, it had better count for something. Not half-assed, inconclusive information that we "think" may make it necessary to send our troops into harms way! It can't be because some policy wonk back here has a brain fart of an idea of a strategy that isn't thought out."

"They should never be put on a battlefield without a strategic plan, not only for the fighting?our generals will take care of that?but for the aftermath and winning that war. Where are we, the American people, if we accept this, if we accept this level of sacrifice without that level of planning? Almost everyone in this room, of my contemporaries?our feelings and our sensitivities were forged on the battlefields of Vietnam; where we heard the garbage and the lies, and we saw the sacrifice. We swore never again would we do that. We swore never again would we allow it to happen. And I ask you, is it happening again? And you're going to have to answer that question, just like the American people are. And remember, everyone of those young men and women that come back, or does not come back, is not a personal tragedy, it's a national tragedy. "

Footnote.---
General Zinni has held numerous command and staff assignments with the U.S. Marine Corps that include platoon, company, battalion, regimental, Marine expeditionary unit, and Marine expeditionary force command. His staff assignments included service in operations, training, special operations, counter-terrorism and manpower billets. He has deployed to or served diplomatic missions in the Persian Gulf, the Mediterranean, the western Pacific, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.

******************************

I find it highly offensive and deplorable that we have political leaders who would subject our young men and women to these dangers and life threatening situations for the same reasons mentioned by General Zinni and the author of the article. There were alternative ways and means to achieve the removal of Sadam Hussein without having to LIE and DISTORT FACTS as this administration did to place our troops into situations where their very lives were at risk...........much LESS their "morale"!

[MORTARDUDE]

The War in Iraq was a mistake from the get-go. It was handled in an arrogant manner, evidence for WMD was manipulated and lied about, and our young men and women are dying needlessly. The sooner we set up some sort of government, get the U.N. involved, declare victory, hand over the keys, and get the hell out, the better off everyone will be. IMHO

Larry

[exlrrp]

Originally posted by MORTARDUDE The War in Iraq was a mistake from the get-go. It was handled in an arrogant manner, evidence for WMD was manipulated and lied about, and our young men and women are dying needlessly. The sooner we set up some sort of government, get the U.N. involved, declare victory, hand over the keys, and get the hell out, the better off everyone will be. IMHO

Larry

Larry--Dam Right!!!!
I don't think this war should have been fought at all and I said so when they went. As we know now, Saddam was never the threat that people made him out to be. we know now that he had no WMDs despite all th Bush administrations lies and that Bush/Cheney were dead set on taking us to war no matter what. Containment was actuallydoing a pretty good job and was costing the US a whole lot less in money and lives--now we're buried up to our necks in another quagmire and a very deadly one, with no end in sight
Sadddam knew how to keep thelid on his own people. Crimes against humanity? that didn't seem to bother Reagan or Bush I or Rumsfeld when he was in Iraq in the late 80s setting up the deals for the raw materials for WMDs. ever see the picture of him and Saddam embracing? My how quick things change--before the last election Bush was preaching noninvolvement in foreign rlations, now its domination--don't think th rest of the worl doesn't think so..
Saddam could rule Iraq but we won't be able to any more than we could rule th Vietnamese. the bush administration broke one of the main rules learned so well in Vietnam--don't go to war unless you have an end game in mind. The unilateral acton by the US and the inept plannning of the Bushites ensure that America will be seeing body bags coming home for a long long time.
And for what? A more peaceful Middle East? Bringing peace by bringing war never works
here's a suggestion--subcontract the war to the Vietnamese instead of Halliburton--they know how to win an undercover guerilla war
(oops I forgot Cheney wasn't CEO of Vietnam)

James

Well,looks like you boys HAVE forgoten.

[Gimpy]

that's just it. We HAVE NOT forgotten! That's why we feel so adamantly against what is taking place now.

[MORTARDUDE]

HAVE forgotten what ? That this administration, as were most before ( Johnson, Nixon, etc. etc. ), is full of money-grubbing, war-mongering, lying bastards....OH NO,... I haven't forgotten shit.

Larry

[exlrrp]

me neither, Larry
But thats what comes of government of the wealthy, by the wealthy and for the wealthy
I think that what Card means here is that its a moot point because of a fait acccompli--its already done so forget about it.
If Clinton had done anywhere near what Bush has done they'd have tried to impeach him even ifthey knew they didn't have the votes in the Senate--oh thats right they DID try to impeach him when they knew they didn't have th votes in the Senate and right when the Iraq thing was heating up, too. That mnust have helped him do a good job, I giuess they thought it was good for America but it was really just good for them (at the taxpayers expense)


James

[SuperScout]

Not surprisingly, Card's answer to the question has been grossly misunderstood, probably due to the poorly lit room in which it was read. But then, intellectual troglodytes are not noted for either their understanding of wattage, logic or common sense.