American families wake up to hope that troops will return home soon

[papau]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1107250,00.html

American families wake up to hope that troops will return home soon

Gary Younge in New York
Monday December 15, 2003
The Guardian

The air was thick with snowflakes and the murmur of incredulity in New York yesterday morning as early risers with eager tongues spread news of Saddam's capture. <snip>

Few were in any doubt that it would make a difference on the home front, where support for the war had started to climb last week after a steep decline through the autumn. <snip>


On army bases there was a feeling that the news might result in loved ones coming home sooner rather that later. <snip>


"I hope it does. But they still got to find that other guy who started this whole thing right here," he added, referring to Osama bin Laden and flicking his head in the vague direction of a depleted Manhattan skyline hidden by a thick blanket of snow.

[POed_Ex_Repub]

1. *Sniff Sniff*

Anyone else smell *'s poll numbers going back down?

[Zomby Woof]

2. the capture heightens expectations

And you know what could happen to Bush if his war creates more false hopes for the soldiers and their families...?

[jcc]

3. What false hopes?

Those of us waiting for someone in Iraq who are smart know better than to think that the capture of Saddam means anything. For those of us who don't know better I feel bad, but goodmorning to all of them, this is the real world. We have a tyrant in office, that is why you shouldn't vote for Bush. It should have nothing to do with extended demployments.

[hadrons]

4. you stole my post, ZombyWoof ....

and when the troops are still there and getting attacked, people - and not those with just loved ones in the service - will ask, "what are we doing there???"

[Tinoire]

6. Same shit we were doing from the get-go

Same shit we were doing from the get-go since capturing Sadaam never had anything to do with this-

securing oil fields
protecting pipelines
subjugating a people

The American people won't like those answers one bit and with every funeral, the anger will grow.

[lebkuchen]

5. This AM's Armed Forces Radio featured an audiofile of Rumsfeld

saying that he didn't think we would need the draft at this point in time because of the professional and dedicated solders we have now, who want to be there. On the other hand, a draft can be a good thing because young people can get the experience of traveling and seeing other cultures that they wouldn't otherwise have if they weren't drafted.

I interpreted Rumsfeld to mean that we won't have the draft before the election, but after, Syria, here we come.

[snippy]

8. Rummy is being a little more diplomatic about a draft now.

Some comments he made during a Jan. 7 press conference:

At the press conference, Rumsfeld addressed the fact that many of those who were drafted served only for a short time.

Troops from Vietnam War conscription added "no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time because the churning that took place, it took an enormous amount of effort in terms of training, and then they were gone," Rumsfeld said.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPentagon.asp?Page=/Pentagon/archive/200301/PEN20030117a.html

[aquart]

14. So think of it as junior year abroad?

Oh, he's funny.

[BiggJawn]

7. "Depleted Manhattan skyline"????

WTF was THAT a not-so-vague reference to, as if I really have to ask?

I really don't think anybody is going to be coming home soon. There's no US-approved government in place there, and sure, we want them to "choose their own government" as long as it is NOT a fundy Islamic government...

I'm listening to a piece on NPR right this moment where everybody's free-associating about how the "job" is really finished now....

[enough]

9. Military moms on NPR this morning

NPR interviewed several mothers of military people in Iraq or about to go back to Iraq. They are so full of hopeful excitement, thinking this means they will be seeing their children soon, or that they won't have to go back.

Hearing their emotion reminds you of what a hell this is for the families of the people over there. And what it will be like for them if they are disappointed again.

[chelaque liberal]

10. Doug Basham beat me to it-great commentary

This is what I would say if Doug Basham had't beat me to it:

The Capture Of Saddam Hussein Does Not Change AT ALL That This Nation Was Lied Into War And Our Soldiers Died As A Result.

December 15, 2003

A BUZZFLASH GUEST COMMENTARY

By Las Vegas Radio Talk Show Host Doug Basham

The capture of Saddam Hussein.

What a sad commentary it is on this country how political correctness has replaced good old fashioned honesty. No one seems to want to be the first to react to the capture of Saddam Hussein in the manner I feel is not only appropriate but honest. What the heck, I’m already anti-American, unpatriotic and unsupportive of the troops for having dared question this illegitimate regime in Washington for literally months now, so I guess I’ll just revisit the script I used when Saddam’s statue was pulled down, and when Udai and Qusay were “killed”.

With the exception of the temporary boost Saddam’s capture will give our drained and weary warriors, which to me is the only plus in this story, so friggin’ what? The capture of Saddam Hussein does not change AT ALL that this nation was lied into war and our soldiers died as a result. When everybody was gushing over the sight of Iraqi citizens rejoicing and dancing in the streets over the toppling of the statue, I went on the air and said “So friggin’ what?” At the time I also said, “Not collectively - not singularly - does the sight of one dancing Iraqi or every dancing Iraqi in the entire country – justify to me the death of even one American soldier." Nor was their “dancing” the reason we were given for the war.

When Udai and Qusay were “killed”, again I said “So friggin’ what?” I said the Iraqi people were not killing our soldiers because Udai and Qusay were still alive. I also said at the time that our boys were not being killed because Saddam Hussein was still alive, or at least, still unaccounted for.

When the statue was toppled, people called me on the air and told me what a BIG day it was. I told them at the time I didn’t see it as a big deal at ALL, and that if toppling the statue or Saddam himself was the main goal of our illegal invasion, we could’ve turned it over to the CIA and let them depose him, just like they deposed the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran in 1953. We didn’t have to attack an entire country. That is not why we were told we could not let the weapons inspectors have any more time, and why we had to go to war immediately.

And for those of you who are still clinging to the “gassed his own people” or “mass graves” ruses as a justifications for this war, just remember it was Ronald “I don’t swear and I love everyone who has AIDS” Reagan and the first Bush liar who sold Saddam the dual purpose technology and the precursors he needed to gas – not his own people - just more spin and lies by the Bush thugs - but the Kurds – AND – that Reagan gave them to him knowing full well he had already gassed the Iranians. Reagan continued to supply Saddam with germs, viruses and precursors even after he knew he had gassed the Kurds, in fact, the Kurds were gassed using American made helicopters. And yes, we’ve seen the film footage of SecDef Dumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand.

The time to be self righteous and holier than thou was not in the latter part of 2002 when this administration first started marketing this war like a half-off sale at J.C. Penney’s; and it was not in 2003 when the neo-cons coerced this uncurious, ignorant deserter in the White House to send our boys to die in Iraq. Rather, the time to get your edible undies in a wad was when the last generation of Republican thugs - namely Reagan and Bush I - were giving Saddam the dope he needed to be an evil bastard. That’s when you should have been concerned about the Kurds, or “his own people”, as they are now disingenuously referred to.

I think if anything, this “big headline” today serves only to prove #1) how dumbed down this country has become, with over 70% of them believing that Saddam has something to do with 9-11; #2) that his capture in some way excuses this criminal Bush regime from the lies they shoved down our throats for months to justify their cronyistic and ideological war of choice; and #3) that those of us who do pay attention and don’t feel any particular need to rubber stamp every one of this administration’s lies - how much we desperately – DESPERATELY… need to stay on topic.

And I know we will. People who listen to my show and read my columns care about their country. People who listen to “conservative” talk radio care only about their party and the truth be DAMNED! We need to stay focused on the big picture, namely, that Bush lied and our boys died and are likely to keep dying due to our reluctance to give the Iraqi people what the Bush regime keeps telling them, and us as well, is now the official reason we went to war, namely, to bring the Iraqis “democracy.” By the way, love the barbed wire around communities, George. Nice democratic touch. Should we look forward to that here in America any time soon? What’s that? I should check with Brother John Ashcroft on that? Gotcha’.

Every day we stay in Iraq proves the “democracy” premise to be just one more Bush administration lie to be thrown on the heap they’ve already foisted upon this nation with stunning rapidity and an even more stunning lack of accountability from either the American media - that would be the “liberal” media - or from the America people, with the exception of course, of you and me.

And while we’re discussing the “liberal media”, did you happen to catch CNN media whore Judy Woodruff questioning General Wesley Clark? She asked him “Does this take Iraq off the table as an issue in the presidential campaign?” Excuse me, Judy? Are you saying the capture of the leader of a country excuses the lies that took us to war in the first place? She then asked the General “Last Tuesday in New Hampshire, you called president Bush a reckless, radical and heartless leader and you said the war in Iraq cast doubts on his competence to be commander in chief. Do you stand by those statements?” General Clark, to his credit, replied that he did indeed stand by them.

And then Woodruff, apparently left speechless by the General’s candor, stuttered and stammered for a couple of seconds, and finally found it within herself to ask with as much disdain and condemnation as she could possibly muster “At a time like this?” The only thing missing from her last comment was a well aimed hork in the General’s direction. Fortunately for him, he was appearing via overseas camera. So much for the "liberal" media.

Back to your “At a time like this?” question. Yes Judy, especially at a time like this. Jeez, you’re supposed to be a news reporter. Instead, you’re acting like a little girl who’s all excited by the attractive icing when you know full well the main ingredient of the cake was Texas Bull Crap. And let me help you out Judy. The fact that we’ve captured Saddam Hussein does not change the fact that Bush lied and 450 of our soldiers have died. What’s wrong with these reporters and hosts? Just like Halliburton excuses their crime by saying “Well, we didn’t profit from it,” I guess it’s also OK now to excuse the lies that took us into this war with Iraq; the ensuing war crimes that took place in Iraq; and the number of our boys who died in Iraq just by saying but we caught the leader of Iraq. Welcome to hypocrisy and stupidity run rampant in GOP Nation.

Howard Dean took the safe route and opted for a PC answer. Dean said “This is a great day for the administration. I think the president deserves a day of celebration.” And he was right. Bush must be in cowpie heaven knowing that once again, the focus has been taken off his unadulterated lies that resulted in the deaths of 450 soldiers, none of whose funerals he’s seen fit to attend thus far, whilst sending out “form letters” of condolence to their families.

Joe Lieberman weighed in and in so doing, all but solidified his “capture” of the presidential nomination - for the republican party, that is. Lieberman said “If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today, not in prison.” Yeah Joe, but 450 of our soldiers would be alive; the country wouldn’t be as badly in debt; Iraq wouldn’t be a quagmire of resistance and suicide bombings; and the entire world wouldn’t hate our guts.

Oh yeah - and the first amendment would also still be alive and well in this country, instead of any questioning of our government being met with hatred, boycotts, threats, attempts to destroy people’s right to make a living, and ridiculous assertions that true patriots who exercise their right to free speech are somehow anti-American, unpatriotic and unsupportive of the troops.

So spare me the fawning, gushing and slobbering over this latest “big headline”. I’ll get excited when I read one that says “One Down in Iraq – One to Go in America.” Welcome to GOP Nation, wherein the daily task is to stay focused on what truly matters, namely that Bush lied and our soldiers died. Period.

Doug Basham broadcasts every weekday morning on AM 1230 KLAV in Las Vegas from 8 – 9 AM Pacific. The show is also simulcast on the Internet. For more show or guest information, to sign up for his free email newsletter, or to listen live on the web, visit. Doug can be reached at [email protected], or 1-866-DOUG-911.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST COMMENTARY

[dusty64]

11. I really think this

"capture" will make little to no difference. We weren't there to get saddam, I'm convinced we are there to "capture" their resources and make money for rightwing corporations. I think after the holidays when the attacks continue it will sink in that we aren't going anywhere.

[aquart]

12. This is just cruel.

[teryang]

13. I was told by a source in texas

That a "stop movement" order is in effect in the Army. 4th ID is not scheduled to return until April. 1st Cav and III Corps soldiers are deploying "shortly."

I recall reading recently that this a part of plan to have a "temporary" buildup in Iraq to meet local commander's desires for more troops.

[IndianaGreen]

15. If you want the troops home, vote for Kucinich

Dennis is the only political figure in this country that is calling for an immediate US withdrawal from Iraq. The capture of Saddam adds more impetus to that question: What are we waiting for?

The realist in me recognizes that the only reason US troops won't be home anytime soon is because Bush needs them to protect American corporate interests, and lucrative contracts.

[nolabels]

16. unless * has pumped the oil wells dry, I don't think that will happen soon

* has his fabricated terra war at hand. They will make sure this War goes on for generations as long as Bushitas are in power(They have said as much).

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cole2.html
Saddam Was Already Irrelevant
by Juan Cole
December 15, 2003
(snip)
A nightmare has ended. He will be tried, and two nations' dirty laundry will be exposed, the only basis on which all can go forward towards a new Persian Gulf and a new relationship with the West.

What is the significance of the capture of Saddam for contemporary Iraqi politics? He was probably already irrelevant.

The Sunni Arab resisters to US occupation in the country's heartland had long since jettisoned Saddam and the Baath as symbols. (See "Sunnis gear up" below.) They are fighting for local reasons. Some are Sunni fundamentalists, who despised the Baath. Others are Arab nationalists who weep at the idea of their country being occupied. Some had relatives killed or humiliated by US troops and are pursuing a clan vendetta. Some fear a Shiite and Kurdish-dominated Iraq will reduce them to second class citizens. They will fight on, as Mr. Bush admitted today.

My wife, Shahin Cole, suggested to me an ironic possibility with regard to the Shiites. She said that many Shiites in East Baghdad, Basra, and elsewhere may have been timid about opposing the US presence, because they feared the return of Saddam. Saddam was in their nightmares, and the reprisals of the Fedayeen Saddam are still a factor in Iraqi politics. Now that it is perfectly clear that he is finished, she suggested, the Shiites may be emboldened. Those who dislike US policies or who are opposed to the idea of occupation no longer need be apprehensive that the US will suddenly leave and allow Saddam to come back to power. They may therefore now gradually throw off their political timidity, and come out more forcefully into the streets when they disagree with the US. As with many of her insights, this one seems to me likely correct.
(snip)

They will maanage the news and the contempory US citizens will never hear of Saddams earlier life sanctioned by the CIA and various US agencies. I just wondering how long before they the revisionist start up the propaganda machine.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/index.htm
Saddam's Regime and What Might Follow

By the early 1970s, Saddam Hussein had risen to high rank in the Iraqi government and in 1979 he finally assumed the supreme leadership. His dictatorship ever since has been marked by extreme cruelty and repression against all his opponents. He waged a long and costly war against neighboring Iran (1980-88), backed by arms and aid from the US-UK, as well as France, Russia, Germany and others. No one in Washington complained about his nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs in the 1980s, while he was viewed as a useful ally against the Iranian “threat.” Rather, Washington gave him military advisors, satellite intelligence and even targeting for his chemical weapons attacks against Iranian forces. But Saddam provoked Washington’s ire when he invaded Kuwait in August 1990, leading to UN sanctions and then a UN-approved military action, led by the United States. Since then the former favorite Saddam has been pictured by Washington as one of the world’s most dangerous and violent criminals. This section looks at his regime, the Iraqi opposition movements, and various scenarios/proposals for a post-Saddam Iraq under US tutelage.

Also see our section on Post-War Iraq
(snip)

Anybody remember when the shot up Saddams nasty boys, things got better after that, yea, that's correct, isn't it?

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/politics/6369509.htm

Wolfowitz concedes postwar plan insufficient, contributed to unrest
BY DOUGLAS HOLT AND BOB KEMPER
Chicago Tribune

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - As President Bush heralded the death of Saddam Hussein's sons as a potentially crucial step toward stability in Iraq, a top Pentagon official made a rare admission Wednesday that faulty assumptions by U.S. war planners contributed to postwar looting and unrest.

After weeks of criticism that the case for war against Iraq had been exaggerated, Bush used a morning appearance at the White House to praise the work of U.S. troops in a Tuesday firefight that killed Odai and Qusai Hussein.
(snip)
(snip)
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, criticized Bush's Rose Garden appearance as an attempt to gloss over continued resistance to U.S. troops.

"Now is not the time for victory laps. Too many Americans have died in Iraq since the last one," he said. "The fighting continues in Iraq, and President Bush needs to be straight with the American people about how we are going to win the peace."
(snip)