Links Resource: The Mishandling of Iraq
Last Updated: April 10, 2006
When my pro-war friends ask why I think the war was disingenuously sold to the American people, and why I think it's being mishandled, I tend to rub my eyes in disbelief; it seems so obvious to me. But then, I tend to obsess on blogs, rss feeds, news sites, etc. Thankfully for the national economy, not everyone does.
Rather than attempt piecemeal explanations, it seems like a good idea for me to assemble some key documents in one place. Below are links to some good, "overview" type documents that help explain my conclusions that the Iraq War is a solution that is far, far worse than any problem Iraq posed before the war, and that the Administration is culpable for how it handled both the runup to war and the war itself. Of course, there are many more pieces to this puzzle, but this is a good "this is a football"-type beginning.
So: Want to know why I think what I think? Click away, and please keep an open mind.
Did the Administration cook the intel? In what way? Wasn't it really the CIA's fault?
Hersh, Selective Intelligence
Downing Street Minutes
But the Senate had the same intelligence the President did, and they voted for the war!
Nonpartisan Congressional Research Service memo on Congress' relative access to intel
Is the War Really Going So Badly? Why? Why Is The Iraqi Army Taking so Long To Come Up to Speed?
William F. Buckley, U.S. Has Failed in Iraq
Fallows, Blind Into Baghdad
Fallows, Why Iraq Has No Army
The Cost of War
NEJM Caring for the Wounded, A Photoessay
$1-2 Trillion Long-Term
Secret Pentagon Study: 80% of Upper Body Fatalities Would Have Been Avoided With Better, Readily Available Armor
Army Stretched to Breaking Point
Security chief says Israel may come to miss Saddam compared to Iraq now
Let's Just Do What the Troops Want Us To, How's That?
72% of Troops In Iraq Want to Come Home Within Year; 90% Believe War Is Retaliation for Saddam's Role in 9-11.
Bush on March 20, 2006: "I don't think we ever said... there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein."
The U.S. military is conducting a propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq... in a way that some military intelligence officials believe may have overstated his importance and helped the Bush administration tie the war to the organization responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Originally posted: Nov. 28, 2005, and subsequently updated.
link link link link
When my pro-war friends ask why I think the war was disingenuously sold to the American people, and why I think it's being mishandled, I tend to rub my eyes in disbelief; it seems so obvious to me. But then, I tend to obsess on blogs, rss feeds, news sites, etc. Thankfully for the national economy, not everyone does.
Rather than attempt piecemeal explanations, it seems like a good idea for me to assemble some key documents in one place. Below are links to some good, "overview" type documents that help explain my conclusions that the Iraq War is a solution that is far, far worse than any problem Iraq posed before the war, and that the Administration is culpable for how it handled both the runup to war and the war itself. Of course, there are many more pieces to this puzzle, but this is a good "this is a football"-type beginning.
So: Want to know why I think what I think? Click away, and please keep an open mind.
Did the Administration cook the intel? In what way? Wasn't it really the CIA's fault?
Hersh, Selective Intelligence
Downing Street Minutes
But the Senate had the same intelligence the President did, and they voted for the war!
Nonpartisan Congressional Research Service memo on Congress' relative access to intel
Is the War Really Going So Badly? Why? Why Is The Iraqi Army Taking so Long To Come Up to Speed?
William F. Buckley, U.S. Has Failed in Iraq
Fallows, Blind Into Baghdad
Fallows, Why Iraq Has No Army
The Cost of War
NEJM Caring for the Wounded, A Photoessay
$1-2 Trillion Long-Term
Secret Pentagon Study: 80% of Upper Body Fatalities Would Have Been Avoided With Better, Readily Available Armor
Army Stretched to Breaking Point
Security chief says Israel may come to miss Saddam compared to Iraq now
Let's Just Do What the Troops Want Us To, How's That?
72% of Troops In Iraq Want to Come Home Within Year; 90% Believe War Is Retaliation for Saddam's Role in 9-11.
Bush on March 20, 2006: "I don't think we ever said... there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein."
The U.S. military is conducting a propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq... in a way that some military intelligence officials believe may have overstated his importance and helped the Bush administration tie the war to the organization responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Originally posted: Nov. 28, 2005, and subsequently updated.
link link link link
posted by
Anonymous | 2/08/2006 04:43:00 PM
9 Comments:
This is a very well organized post. Good job, old man, good job. I remember reading an article that was a series of quotes from soldiers on the front lines talking about the word, very poignant, but I can't find the link anymore. That would have been a neat link to close the post.
Thanks for your email invite, Thers. I'll post a link to this on my own site.
I think whether people be conservative, liberal, or "centrist" [whatever that means in the real world], or any shadings thereof, the majority of Americans don't support the notion of cults of personality, and plenty of people who supported Bush every step of the way so far have finally found one reason or another to doubt his veracity, much less his sanity. I think it is a noble endeavor to try to re-unite what the Great Divider has put asunder.
Thanks, OsakaJack and r@d@r! I'm plugging away at this -- not quite as frenzied as Atrios' 1,300-comment thread today, but hopefully more polished!
R@d@r, if you haven't, please check out the very first post, which is sort of a mission statement. I say:
"Nor are we "centrist" or "moderate" (which implies centrism or compromise on every issue; most issues require moderation and compromise but some demand unbending commitment to the moral position, and a wise person understands which are which)."
Instead, "What we need to do is reverse what TR did, and reestablish a movement that includes both parties and leads them both back into a constructive dialectic. If it works, we'll have two ideologically distinct political parties, in constructive tension with each other, in constant dialogue and even dispute, but both committed to fundamental American values and focusing on the problems of the American people."
PLEASE deconstruct, reconstruct, and propose your own formulations of the issues I'm working out here. I appreciate the visit!!
Just a thought -- you might want to consider adding a link to Kos or someplace talking about all the Iraq vets returning and running for Congress as Dems.
I doubt many Republicans are aware of it.
A good resource, thanks. I just addded you to my short list of favorites. I think I'll be referring to this info regularly.
- mac
Good stuff. Keep it up. Make this post a sticky.
As for cooking the intel, I prefer the British rendering: "sexed up the dossiere".
As for the pseudo-categories of "left" and "right" I find these to be more confusing than enlightening.
Consider what the true left of a political spectrum would actually consist of and then realize how very, very far from that we are. The idea of a compass is more useful.
See this site for a easy test.
Anyway, I'll quit hogging your bandwidth. Keep up the good work.
BTW, when this administration leaves, we should continue to prosecute them for their war crimes.
Great post, great links. It makes it easy to copy this thread and send it to friends, rather than sending them twenty different emails. Thank you for your tireless efforts, thersites.
Just one gripe. You got my hopes up when you said there was no chance the Port deal was going through. But it's leaking out now that the Democrats really don't care about this deal, as they are no better than the Republicans in terms of being willing to sell their souls to the highest bidder.
Now it looks like you were wrong. There'll be a delay, they'll put some lipstick on the pig to make everyone think it's a swan, and go ahead with the deal.
I am no racist, and anti the Iraq war, and pro business. But I am convinced with every fiber of my being that this deal does pose a potential threat to this country, and I am incensed about it, especially since it so exposes the corruption in the heart of all of our elected leaders.
So! Do you STILL think, in light of today's news about a deal being worked out between both parties, led by cat killer Frist, that this Port deal is not going through?
Or do you think that they will doctor up the deal to package it better, and shove it down our throats?
Thanks, thersites. Keep up the great work.
Anonymous from 9:54 pm: I addressed your question about the Dubai ports deal over at VichyDems. Link
Very good resource Thersites. We need more people to get the truth out. We need people like you to get the truth out! Keep it up. I hope you dont mind but I put your page on my blogroll.
Imouthes
Post a Comment
<< Home