I am so tired of hearing pro-war Dems talking about 'poor planning'!

[plurality]

Just heard Edwards on CSPAN bashing Bush over dead soldiers in Iraq because of 'poor planning'. And realized that this is the bash du jour of Dem candidates that either voted for the war or want to keep our troops there. The reason our soldiers are being killed is because THE IRAQIS DON'T FUCKING WANT US THERE!!! How hard is that to grasp? No amount of planning would keep them from trying to kill our troops and it's stupid to use this as a campaign tactic. If you want to bash Bush on Iraq say it's because the war was a stupid idea and we should get out before it's a total disaster. But whether it's Bush or Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards, Dean, or Graham Iraqis are going to be killing our troops no matter what fucking plan they use. /rant off

[JohnKleeb]

1. Thank You

you're right its obvious they dont want us there.

[lcordero]

2. "pro-war Dems"...why does the word "accomplice" come to mind?

EOM

[TheBigGuy]

3. actually it WAS poor planning, and its a very vaid crit of W & Co.

The deal is they originally wanted to go into Iraq with an even lighter force, but the brass convinced them to compromise with a somewhat heavier force.

The problem was this was never enough to really secure the country. They planned on the win, but the planning stopped there.

Thats why you has such big chaos in Bagdad right affter the war (not enough troops to keep order), and why the occupation force is being stretched so thing right now.

W wanted the "easy win", but there was no conitigency planning, it seems, for the postwar occupation.

This actually was a pretty serious screw up, and Im glad Edwards is calling Bush and his gang on this.

[MoonAndSun]

4. We never should have gone into Iraq,

and I think that is plurality's point. All the best planning in the world does not take away from the fact that this was an illegal invasion. And I want the Dem candidates to come out and say that they were mislead and they voted for the war under false pretenses.

Will they? I doubt it. Very few politicians will admit to a mistake.

[plurality]

5. is there a plan you can think of

for invading Iraq that wouldn't result in Iraqis killing our troops? I don't think so. Even if we had invaded with 1 million troops and showered them with food, water, electricity, whatever, there'd still be people taking pot shots at our troops because they've been occupied before. They didn't like it, they say Saddam's gone, great, now get out and let us rebuild our country. Since we're staying there, they're killing us. I don't think Edwards, or any other Dem that wants to continue the occupation would have a plan that would have any other result than dead American soldiers.

[Cocoa]

6. Rummy gets a lot of the blame

Tons of reports of him meddling in the planning, in particular with the size of the force needed. They said he was too optimistic, and impatient with the military planners' conservatism, which it turns out would have been the wiser approach.

[plurality]

8. still

Is there any plan that would result in a zero death occupation? That is the main thrust of my argument. I don't think there's anyway we can occupy Iraq without our soldiers being killed. Whether Rummy/Cheney/Bush did the planning or Dean, Edwards, Lieberman, or Kerry, if our troops are there, they're going to be killed, period. It's stupid for them to say that they're being killed because of poor planning. Even worse, when they say this, they don't even say how they'd do it differently. It simply sounds like they're using the soldiers deaths to bash Bush, when they wouldn't do anything differently to keep the soldiers from being killed.

[TheBigGuy]

12. Exactley.

And I think this is a legimate issue to take to the campaign...Team Bushes hanlding of every aspect of this war.

Issue One...faslified intel, due to political pressure on the intel community to cook the books to justify the war

Issue Two...Politically driven military strategy resulting in undersized forces on the ground

Issue Three...no realistic exit strategy or contingency planning for the occupation.

Issue Four...unilateralist "good to hell Europe and UN" foreign policy means postwar transiton becomes a US occupation, rather than a UN/EU/USA peackeeping-transition action...more justification for the Iraqis to go to ground in a guerilla war.

So even if Edwards and the other Dems are "pro-war" there are lots of angles for them to seriously be hitting on Bush.

[Pepperbelly]

7. First ... you have to realize that not everyone yet agrees with your ...

assessment.

But for the fraudulent case presented by Bushco to justify this armed robbery (and make no mistake, that is what it was), the predicate was arguable from a security p.o.v. And if one undertakes such an operation from a security p.o.v., there are certain things that have to be planned in order to restore the population to a sense of normal life as quickly as possible. And, after the inspections to make sure that the predicate is eliminated (i.e. WMDs), get the country put back together, get some U.N. assistance to institute a Democratic government and get the fuck out.

What they are saying is that Bushco did not have a clue as to what to do to achieve the stated objectives. So not only did they commit U.S troops under fraudulent pretenses, if the predicate had not been fraudulent, they laid no strategy for the restoration of Iraq.

And they still don't have a clue about it. Instead, these evil bastards eye Syria and Iran, snickering over the oilfields.

Disgusting.

[Terwilliger]

10. wasn't the election of 2000 fraudulent?

Maybe they should have known he was lying before

[Pepperbelly]

11. a good tossaway but doesn't ...

actually address what I said.

[Terwilliger]

18. you're looking to excuse Dem complicity...I understand

what you said was obvious: if there really was a threat, their lack of planning is blatant incompetence.

One problem: thee was no threat. It was a Bush lie. It was a Bush lie among many Bush lies. When Bush came to the congress and said "such and such, and Saddam is evil...trust us" I think Dems who believed that should be fired.

[plurality]

13. that's true

but the problem is, the plan was to occupy for years all along. We knew that and I'm sure the Dems knew that. And they should have realized that the Iraqis weren't going to go for a permanent occupation. And regardless of how prepared we were for the post-war realities, we'd still be seeing casualties being there will undoubtedly be resistance. So this is not a good attack plan, because even if one of their plans (did they even have a plan or were they just along for the ride?) was being used our soldiers would still be dying.

[Pepperbelly]

16. If I believed for a second that ...

any of the Democrats running intended to participate in armed robbery and did not base their decisions based on national security needs, then I would probably never vote again.

[plurality]

19. I'm sorry but I don't see how they couldn't know

It seems all the 'intelligence' that was being handed out was the same shit they were dishing to us in the media, and I noticed that without fail every piece of it would end up being discredited within a few days. (Niger uranium was out in the media as a forgery long before it ever came up in SOTU) So either they knew or they're completely fucking oblivious, either way I don't want anything to do with them.

[Pepperbelly]

20. so you then allege ...

based on your perspective regarding the state of the evidence, that the Democrats who voted for authorize force in Iraq concurrent with UN resolutions actually intened to aid and abet Bush in stealing Iraq's resources?

Are you sure you want to say that?

[Iverson]

21. It need not be that precise construction.

The same result could be had by placing reelection above all else. Pandering to prejudices and preferences that you know are informed by lies will result in the same actions.

There is a substantial contingent on DU who argues that "winning" is tantamount to a first principle. Surely you've noticed.

[plurality]

22. well the only other reason is security reasons, right

And all the secruity reasons were proven false, usually within a few days of those reasons being given. Maybe they didn't want to rob Iraq, maybe they thought Saddam needed to go even though he wasn't athreat, or maybe they just wanted to give Bush the go ahead knowing he'd fuck it up. Either way, saying that you voted for war based on the 'evidence' is a lie, because all of that evidence was lies and it was proven all the evidence was lies before the vote.

[Aidoneus]

24. I would say that for some of them, yes

and also the urge towards opportunistic conformity from operating within a structure maintained by fear.

[TheBigGuy]

15. "dont have a clue how to proceed".

This postwar reconstruction/democratization thing was the classic "rosey scenario"....to come in and "uplift and christianize them" (to paraphrase McKinly on the US annexation of the Phillipines).

This postwar guerrilla thing could have been anticipated based on past experience. The Brits faces a similar problem in the 1920s, when they took over from the Ottomans...

I agree, We are in somewhat of a quagmire here.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Edwards is just covering his sorry ass.

He hasn't the courage to admit to voting wrong on backing BushCorp's little adventure that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Now that it's going sour and the Iraqi's aren't throwing flowers at their supposed "liberators" Edwards and the other collaborators are trying to cover their coldblooded vote for slaughter by nipping at Bush's heels.

They will do or say anything, move in any direction, kiss any available ass, in order to grab a few votes.

What a pathetic bunch of opportunists. Not one of them should rate more than scorn from progressive Democrats.

[plurality]

14. the thing is he's not the only one to have said it

I heard Dean say it the other day, as well as Lieberman, and Kerry, don't know about any of the others.

[Iverson]

17. pre-emptive invasion is, by definition, poor planning

So is overturning the Geneva Comvention.
So is a doctrine of American exceptionalism.
So is setting any example of flouting international law.

Good military tactics in pursuit of empire are possible, but they are poor planning too.

[Jacobin]

23. The plan to invade at all was poor,....not the execution of it

Since they lined up with the Fuerher on this one, they are now forced to parse little decisions here and there rather than blasting the whole idea of conquering a country to steal its oil and to "show Daddy how big his wittle boy grew up to be".

Fucking Dem sycophants will be the end of this country. We need a goodamned OPPOSITION party.....not a "well, I woulda done it a little different" party.

Go Howard Dean.

[plurality]

25. Did you hear Dean saying the same thing?

Because, on one of the Sunday talks shows (can't remeber which one) I heard him say the same thing. Granted he says he wouldn't have voted to invade, but he's still saying the deaths are because of poor planning, which is false. If he wants to bash Bush because our soldiers are dying, he needs to steel up his sack and come out with it. Our soldiers are dying because we sent them somewhere they shouldn't be on a stupid imperialist war.