The Senate reports on Bush's deceit of the American people

Last month, the Senate released a report on whether public statements regarding Iraq by U.S. officials were substantiated by intelligence information. Is this really news? I was connecting the dots on the Bush administration's campaign of deceit back in August of 2005. I'm returning to the topic now because the evidence of this keeps piling on.

In 2002, Bush was unequivocal about Iraq "seeking nuclear weapons." He stated on October 7 that "the evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program." The de facto President, Dick Cheney, was even more adamant when he said on August 26 of the same year that, "They continue to pursue the nuclear program they began so many years ago … we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons."

Yet the intelligence of the time evidenced that Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program had been destroyed years earlier by American military strikes. The only evidence that Hussein was "reconstituting" his nuclear weapons program was the supposed uranium shopping in Africa and the aluminum tubes which were supposedly for weaponizing uranium. The uranium shopping was discounted by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and the aluminum tubes had already been determined to not meet the tolerances required for centrifuging uranium.

Even then defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who was noted for speaking in riddles and contorting his responses, was remarkably clear when he asserted that Hussein's weapons of mass destruction facilities were underground. He told the House Armed Services Committee of those facilities on September 18, 2002, that "a good many are underground and deeply buried" and so "not … vulnerable to attack from the air." The truth of the matter, the Senate report found, was that there was no intelligence-community report that supported Rumsfeld's claim.

In spite of the report's substantial evidence that the Bush administration twisted and hyped intelligence regarding the threat Iraq posed to the U.S. before Bush invaded her, Republican Senators stonewalled the public release of the report for years. Only two of the seven Republicans on the fifteen-member Senate panel supported the report. When the five dissenting Republicans failed to prevent the release of the report, they then tried to delete most of its conclusions. The GOP clearly does not feel that Bush should be held accountable for intentionally deceiving the American people into an illegitimate, disastrous war.

The impending end of the war in Iraq

In this campaign season, one of the questions on voters' minds is how much longer will the Iraq war continue? Senator John McCain has voiced support for the possibility of maintaining military troops in Iraq for as long as a century. Both Senators Obama and Clinton would withdraw our troops as rapidly as prudence allows after taking the Oval Office, with some minor variations of what that means between the two of them. What none of them are talking about is that the time is actually much more cut and dried than any of them would want you to know.

President Bush acquired his authority to invade Iraq under the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. Remember it? That's the one both Senators Clinton and McCain voted in favor of in 2002.

What the resolution says is that congress supports the president to "strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts." It's not as though Bush needed any encouragement but he does need the relevant Security Council resolution. There is a series of them which approves the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), the last of which was the Security Council resolution dated December 18, 2007. With it, the council "decides to extend the [UNAMI] mandate as set forth in that resolution until 31 December 2008." Finally it decides to remain "seized of the matter."

Whether the council remains seized or not, the administration is not requesting an extension of the resolution for 2009. That leaves the UN multinational forces, led by the US military, less than seven months to wrap up the war in Iraq. Considering Bush makes it crystal clear that the American forces will not be withdrawn from Iraq while he's commander in chief, it's unclear what authority he will use to perpetuate the war into 2009. If he follows his standard operating procedures, his authority is certain to be some grotesque contortion of US and international law.

Measured in blood and treasure

"Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle." This is a claim you'd expect to hear from a critic of Bush's foreign policy. But this was written by a former senior department of defense official, Joseph J. Collins. In the paper, Choosing War: The Decision to Invade Iraq and Its Aftermath, he goes on to say, "Our status as a moral leader has been damaged by the war, the subsequent occupation of a Muslim nation, and various issues concerning the treatment of detainees."

The latest of the Institute for National Strategic Studies' occasional papers published by the National Defense University Press, this one was released this month. The paper notes that the biggest cost of the war to the treasury is yet to come. "No one as yet has calculated the costs of long-term veterans' benefits or the total impact on service personnel and materiel," Collins wrote. And contrary to Bush's justification du jour for invading Iraq, he reports that our efforts in Iraq have caused it to become an "incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East."

Americans are in agreement that until recently, things have gone very poorly in Iraq. But since the 'surge,' the situation in Iraq appears to be improving. Does that mean there's light at the end of the tunnel? Unfortunately, Collins believes that "despite impressive progress in security during the surge, the outcome of the war is in doubt." He states that, "It is arguable whether the Iraqis will develop the wherewithal to create ethnic reconciliation and build a coherent national government." For many analysts, the war looks like a 'can't win.'

The central finding of this study is that U.S. efforts in Iraq were hobbled by a set of faulty assumptions, a flawed planning effort, and a continuing inability to create security conditions in Iraq that could have fostered meaningful advances in stabilization, reconstruction, and governance.

Collins lays the blame at the feet of the President for the impact made by "senior U.S. national security officials" when they "exhibited in many instances an imperious attitude, exerting power and pressure where diplomacy and bargaining might have had a better effect." They not only treated our allies this way but they even treated our own Congress autocratically.

Collins has substantial credibility to make such claims. He has a Ph.D. in Political Science from Columbia University. He retired in 1998 as a Colonel in the United States Army after 28 years of service. He was also a Special Assistant to the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. He makes Bush's claims that the war in Iraq is not a debacle ring hollow. Hopefully America now recognizes the folly of choosing war.

Everyone thought there were WMDs

President George W. Bush has repeatedly maintained that everyone thought there were WMDs in Iraq before he invaded her. But even back in 2005, I wasn't the only one connecting the dots to discover there was widespread disagreement before the invasion regarding the existence of the supposed WMDs. The arms inspectors were already coming up empty-handed in their inspections for WMDs in Iraq around the 2003 New Year.

A recent study found that Bush made 232 false statements about Iraq and former leader Saddam Hussein's possessing weapons of mass destruction, and 28 false statements about Iraq's links to al Qaeda. Conducted by the Center for Public Integrity and its affiliated group, the Fund for Independence in Journalism, the study states unequivocally that, following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.



The study was based on a searchable database compiled of primary sources, such as official government transcripts and speeches, and secondary sources -- mainly quotes from major media organizations. It found that president Bush and his top seven aides publicly made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the two years following September 11, 2001. The study concluded, "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

It was not important to Bush what the intelligence community thought or even what he thought, it was important to Bush that the American people believed Iraq had WMDs. To make them believe this without any evidence by conducting a campaign of deceit should be grounds for impeachment.

Taking annual inventory of the war in Iraq

Another year has passed since I last took a tally of the war in Iraq. Back then, the talk was about launching a 'surge.' Since then, Bush launched the surge and is now talking about withdrawing it.

The surge met with moderate success, squelching the sectarian violence in spots in Iraq. Unfortunately, it has not been successful at achieving the one key objective of the surge: creating an environment where political reconciliation can occur in Iraq. Moreover, according to the latest Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Quarterly Report to the United States Congress (12 MB PDF download):

notwithstanding this important progress on the security front facilitated by the surge, the overall security situation in Iraq still hampers recovery and reconstruction efforts. Attacks on infrastructure continue to adversely affect the availability of essential services.

Subsequently, the withdrawal of the surge does not mean success, it means switching to Plan B ... except that the Bush administration does not have a Plan B.

2007 is shaping up to be the deadliest year for American troops in Iraq. We know that 3,874 of them have been killed in Iraq since the war started. However, that count does not include the numerous severely wounded troops who were evacuated from Iraq and subsequently died of the wounds they sustained in Iraq while under medical care in places outside of Iraq like the Ramstein Air Base in Germany.

It's not so clear how accurate the number of casualties reported by the military is. While it reports over 30,000 troops injured in Iraq, there are at least 20,000 American troops who sustained brain injuries in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan who are not counted among the wounded. It took Freedom of Information Act filings to force the military to release the information which uncovered this 'oversight.' Does it make a difference that there are actually over 50,000 American casualties of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than 'just' 30,000? While it doesn't to their commander in chief, who stubbornly sticks to his same losing strategy in Iraq, it does to the families and friends of those 20,000 unrecognized wounded veterans.

Meanwhile, the "coalition of the willing" is falling apart. Although their presence in Iraq was never substantial in the first place, nineteen countries have withdrawn from the Coalition. Even America's staunchest ally in the Coalition, England, reported in February that it would be withdrawing 2,100 of its 7,200 troops from Iraq. This will have little impact on America's commitment to the war since US troops have comprised around ninety percent of the Coalition all along.

Probably the most significant impact on the war in Iraq in the past year is what has not happened. President Bush has established no new policies to guide our action in Iraq. He has undertaken no new strategy for fighting the war (the surge was not a new strategy, it was just throwing more troops at the old one). And he hasn't come up with a new justification for the war this year -- Bush still claims it's the "front in the war on terror." This lack of addressing the failures of the war in Iraq means that America will continue to languish in the quagmire for at least another year.

Tightening the belt of the Defense Department

Congress finally did something right this week. They failed to appropriate more funding to the war in Iraq without a commitment by the commander in chief to withdraw the troops from there soon. After approving half a trillion dollars of "emergency appropriations" with no strings attached since the invasion, thereby perpetuating the war in Iraq, congress is finally responding to its constituents and leveraging more pressure to redeploy the troops.

Secretary of defense Robert Gates responded to the failure to fund the Iraq war with a threat to furlough as many as 200,000 civil servants and defense contractors this winter. This could potentially force the Defense Department to close dozens of domestic military bases. Gates couched his threat with a claim that the furloughs would be "the least undesirable" alternative to the lack of funding.

But Gates failed to acknowledge one very desirable way to respond to a lack of funding: an immediate and orderly withdrawal of troops from Iraq. That would save the Pentagon nearly $2-billion per week. Certainly that must be far more money than it costs to pay the 200,000 civil servants and defense contractors Gates threatened to furlough.

More importantly, this is how the American people want the Pentagon to tighten its belt. In fact, with the redeployment of the troops from Iraq, president Bush would not even need the $189-billion supplemental appropriation he's asking for in the first place. Congress did approve the Pentagon's $470-billion base budget, so no one can claim that it does not support the troops.

Atheists in the army

Freedom of religion in the USA is supposed to include freedom from religion. The Establishment Clause is supposed to apply to all Americans, including the troops. This is a basic right granted by the Constitution.

Ironically, the troops are the people making the greatest sacrifices in the name of freedom. Yet, the army is becoming a place of evangelizing to Jewish and Islamic troops. God forbid one be an atheist!

Last summer, US Army Specialist Jeremy Hall got permission to post fliers at Speicher base in Iraq announcing a meeting for atheists and other nonbelievers. When the meeting got underway, Hall's Army major supervisor disrupted the meeting and threatened to retaliate against Hall, including blocking his reenlistment in the Army. Earlier, he had been publicly berated by a staff sergeant for not agreeing to join in a prayer.

This intolerance in the military is not restricted to the Army and aimed only at atheists. In the 1990s, the Air Force published a Little Blue Book of core values highlighting religious tolerance. Nonetheless, it was discovered in 2004 that some faculty and staff at the Air Force Academy (AFA) in Colorado Springs, Colo., had significant problems with evangelizing cadets. It was reported that Lt. Gen. William Boykin visited churches in uniform and gave inflammatory speeches. Speaking of a Muslim warlord he had pursued, Boykin said, "I knew my God was a real God and his was an idol," and our enemies "will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus."

Among those feeling the heat was the son of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation's (MRFF) founder, Michael Weinstein, a former Air Force judge advocate and assistant counsel in the Reagan White House. His son, a Jew and a cadet at the AFA, was subjected to Christian evangelizing. Another alumnus of the AFA, Col. David Antoon (ret.), took his son to an orientation at the AFA in 2004. His son, Ryan, experienced an overt evangelistic approach during part of the orientation.

So what's a more tenable situation: to be a Jew or a Muslim in the US military? It seems that neither one is. But when it comes to being an atheist in the Army, you'd best follow the policy for gays: 'don't ask, don't tell.'

Insurgent attacks remain high throughout 'surge'

In his weekly radio address yesterday, president Bush spoke about the briefing he received from General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker regarding the 'surge.' He said, "They told me about the progress they're seeing across Iraq." The primary purpose for the surge was to quell insurgent attacks so that the Iraqi government could make political progress. Apparently Petraeus and Crocker were not debriefed by the Defense Intelligence Agency regarding the incidence of insurgent attacks the past six months in Iraq. The report evidences that insurgent attacks against Iraqis, Iraqi security forces, and Coalition troops remain high.

Soothsayer Cheney

Just before president Bush ordered an invasion of Iraq, Tim Russert interviewed vice president Dick Cheney on Meet the Press. Russert stated, "The army's top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability." Cheney responded:

I disagree. We need, obviously, a large force and we've deployed a large force. To prevail, from a military standpoint, to achieve our objectives, we will need a significant presence there until such time as we can turn things over to the Iraqis themselves. But to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don't think is accurate. I think that's an overstatement.

Four and a half years have passed since Bush declared "major combat operations in Iraq have ended." Bush has 'surged' over 150,000 troops into Iraq, and there's no indication that he'll be withdrawing them any time soon. This is yet another of Cheney's expert prognostications on the war.

With his track record at foretelling the results of invading Iraq, Cheney is a shoo-in as a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom Award from Bush.

Let's get the story straight

The Associated Press made its pro-war bias clear today. The headline alone tells the tale. One word is all it takes to make the AP's bias apparent. If they wanted to tell the true story, the AP would have used the word "funding" in place of the word "withdrawal."

The headline reads, "Bush Vetoes Troop Withdrawal Bill," but what he really did was veto a troop funding bill. Bush asked for $124-billion to fund his surge in Iraq. Frankly, congress should not have given Bush a penny for this war because their constituents have made it clear that they don't want the war. Nonetheless, to avoid being branded as not supporting the troops, congress gave Bush his $124-billion appropriation.

Granted, the bill also included a condition that American troop withdrawals begin as early as July 1 and no later than October 1, with the non-binding goal of removing all combat troops by March 31. As well it should -- as stated above, this is what the American people demand of Bush. However, that wasn't the primary purpose of the legislation. It's primary purpose was to support the troops their commander in chief ordered to surge into Iraq. Let's get the story straight, AP.

Defense department disagreement

A recently released Department of Defense report details how the Pentagon linked Saddam Hussein and al Q'aeda. Four months after the 9/11 attacks, the DoD's number three official, the undersecretary of defense, was Douglas J. Feith. He led a year-long Pentagon project intended to convince the most senior levels of the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein and al Q'aeda were linked. His group of Pentagon officials and intelligence analysts from other departments deflected reports contradictory to the findings Feith wanted to end up with. They instead focused on whatever intelligence they could find, no matter how weak, which supported the link. The team persuaded top administration officials that they had powerful evidence of connections between Hussein's regime and al Q'aeda.

Yet, contrary to Feith, a different DoD official, the Pentagon's inspector general, Thomas F. Gimble, tells a different story. He reported that Feith's intelligence report on Iraq was faulted, with "dubious" intelligence which fueled the push for war. The report said that Feith's team "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Q'aeda," ignoring the conclusions of the intelligence community. The inspector general reported that Feith fabricated a link between al Q'aeda and Iraq "that was much stronger than that assessed by the [Intelligence Community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration." This is clear evidence that the Bush administration intentionally shaped intelligence to justify invading Iraq.

About face in four years

On March 16, 2003, vice president Cheney said, when asked whether the war would be a short one or a long one, that it would be measured in "Weeks rather than months." Fast forward four years (and three days, to be exact) and the USA is still mired in a war that has now lasted longer than World War II. Last week found Bush in the Roosevelt Room of the White House discussing his bloating troop 'surge.' Of the Baghdad security plan, the latest tactic in the war, Bush said "success will take months, not days or weeks." This is a direct contradiction of how the White House was representing the Iraq war to the American people before president Bush invaded Iraq.

With allies like this, who needs insurgencies?

England is supposed to be the right hand of the "coalition of the willing." One would think that would qualify the Brits as allies. Well, it seems that they're not so willing anymore. Just as Bush is beginning to surge 21,500 additional troops into Baghdad, his key ally in the war, Tony Blair, is pulling out 2,100 of his own troops from Basra.

In total denial of the implications, the Bush administration is painting the withdrawal as a "sign of success." Vice president Dick Cheney said "I look at it and what I see is an affirmation of the fact that in parts of Iraq ... things are going pretty well." What Cheney failed to consider is that Basra is right on the supply line to Baghdad. With reduced security in the south of Iraq, the logistics supporting the surge are compromised, right at the time when they become most crucial.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi security forces are supposed to be the Americans' allies in Baghdad. Iraq's forces are leading American troops into Baghdad for the White House's 'new' Clear, Hold, and Build strategy (which didn't seem to make a dent in the insurgency when American troops tried it a year ago). However, it turns out the reason the mostly Shiite Iraqi forces are leading the American troops into Baghdad is so that they can warn Shiite residents to hide their weapons and other incriminating paraphernalia from the Americans. It seems the Iraqi forces are more like insurgents than national police officers.

The implication of Bush's 'surge' strategy is that, while there will be an initial swelling in forces, it will not be sustained. However, Gen. David Petraeus's counterinsurgency plan, which is setting up hundreds of "mini-forts" all over Baghdad and the rest of the country, will take at least five years to as much as ten years to complete. With 160,000 American troops leveraged all around Iraq for many years to come, and insecure supply lines, they will need more allies, not more insurgents.

Bloating surge

The Commander in Chief has ordered a "surge" of 21,500 troops into Baghdad. Considering the failures of past troop increases in Iraq, many question the effectiveness this one will have calming the violence in a metropolitan area of 8-million. With a majority of Americans now wanting their country to withdraw from the war in Iraq, the "surge" is widely considered just more of the same tactics that have only led to increased violence.

Americans could be happy that at least Bush did not go into six figures for the troop increase since many generals have said that's what was needed early on in the war. After all, it's only a little over 20,000 troops, right? Wrong.

The Congressional Budget Office reports that the deployment of of 21,500 troops could require as much as 28,000 additional troops to support the surge. It went on to say that the cost to sustain the surge could be as high as $27-billion if it's sustained for a year. Of course the cost that can't be calculated is the additional deaths that our military will sustain by having an additional 50,000 targets in Iraq.

To prevent Bush from following through on his planned surge, the senate is trying to pass a non-binding resolution opposing it. Of course, Bush's signing statements show his total disregard for binding law, so there's no expectation he'll pay any attention to the non-binding resolution.

An incomplete title

The New York Times today published an article titled U.S. Says Iran Meddles in Iraq but Is Delaying Release of Data. It actually should've been titled "U.S. Says Iran Meddles in Iraq but Is Delaying Release of Data Until the Bush Administration Gets the Chance to Finish Fabricating It." They're not successful connecting the dots with the data they have now.

Inviting the terrorists in

President Bush promulgates many fallacies to the American people but the greatest fallacy of all of them must be his "we'll fight the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here" adage. Every time he or one of his mouthpieces uses it in the media, it's like the elephant in the room. How can these "journalists" not call out the president on that line every time?

First of all, we're already fighting them here, even though we're also fighting them over there at the same time. Secondly, if a terrorist really wanted to take the fight to us in our homeland, why would he go to Iraq where he'll face nothing but the most battle-hardened American troops on the alert for terrorists? He could instead come straight through our vast unprotected ports to our own soil where millions of lax Americans are in huge groups in unhardened locations to fight us.

The Iraq Study Group Report says that in Iraq, "most attacks on Americans still come from the Sunni Arab insurgency." They are "former elements of the Saddam Hussein regime, disaffected Sunni Arab Iraqis, and common criminals," not terrorists. It goes on to say "most wish to restore Sunni Arab rule in the country. Some aim at winning local power and control."

Al Q'aeda, on the other hand, is just a "small portion of the violence in Iraq." Even at that, al Q'aeda in Iraq is now run by Iraqis, for the most part, and composed of Sunni Arabs. The Iraq Study Group found that "al Qaeda's goals include instigating a wider sectarian war between Iraq's Sunni and Shia, and driving the United States out of Iraq." These are not terrorists that would suddenly pack up and leave their homes in Iraq and come to a land as foreign to them as the USA is just because American troops leave Iraq -- driving the troops out of Iraq is precisely the stated goal of the insurgency.

Bush's foreign policy is, in fact, creating the opposite effect of fighting terrorism. The Iraq war has actually caused an increase in global terrorism. Meanwhile, thousands of miles of our remote borders are wide open to anyone who wants to cross them, it has been demonstrated that the Department of Homeland Security is very vulnerable to and unprepared for a major terrorist attack, and our National Guard is not protecting us on American soil because they're deployed in Iraq. Sadly, fighting "terrorists" in Iraq is actually exposing us to a greater risk of being attacked by them here in our homeland.

Something to think about?

An email is being forwarded around the Internet with the Subject "Something to think about?" What is this thought-provoking content? Supposedly, the email was started by one Pam Foster of Pamela Foster and Associates in Atlanta. It is purportedly a letter to a family member serving in Iraq. Here is Foster's rant:

Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001?

Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan , across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania ?

Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?

And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I don't. I don't care at all.

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia .

I'll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.

I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.

When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured that I don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that I don't care.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care.

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and ---- you guessed it - - - I don't care ! ! ! ! !

As the Subject asks, I thought about it. I thought that I could understand Foster sending a letter like that to a son stationed in Afghanistan. However, it makes no sense in the context of him being in Iraq. I guess Foster didn't hear that his commander in chief himself admitted, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th." Perhaps she didn't know that before Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq:

• Iraq was a secular nation. Concerned about the threat to his control over her, Hussein suppressed Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq.
• Hussein had no substantive involvement with al Q'aeda. Usama bin Laden considered Hussein to be an infidel because of his secularism.
• Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. Tied down by international forces, Iraq posed no imminent threat to its immediate neighbors, let alone the USA.
• There was no terrorism in Iraq. Other than the abuses Hussein perpetrated over his own people, there was no security threat to Iraqis.

What Americans believe

Americans believe*:

• There is a civil war in Iraq now.
• With regard to Iraq, the US government should set a timetable for withdrawal.
• It was a mistake to take military action against Iraq in the first place.
• It is a good thing that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld will be stepping down.
• The nomination of Robert Gates, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), by President Bush to succeed Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense will make no difference to the situation in Iraq.

*Harris Interactive poll, 11/20/2006

Bush disagreeing with his Marines

The commander in chief apparently only believes in one way communication. The message he's sending down is directly contradicted by the message being sent up by his troops.

In a speech Bush gave in Latvia last week, he said "I'm not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete," speaking about his war in Iraq. He went on to say, "We can accept nothing less than victory."

Apparently, Bush did not read a classified Marine Corps intelligence report released in August. The report stated "the social and political situation has deteriorated to a point" that US and Iraqi troops "are no longer capable of militarily defeating the insurgency in al-Anbar," a Sunni dominated province in Iraq where the insurgency is at its strongest.

Yes, Bush made his speech three months after the report was released. But things did not improve in the time that transpired. The day before Bush's speech, a senior US intelligence official said, "The fundamental questions of lack of control, growth of the insurgency and criminality" remain the same.

Let's review: Bush insists that he will not pull the troops from Iraq and that he will only accept victory there. Meanwhile, his Marines say they are not capable of militarily defeating the insurgency. These opposing perspectives cannot be reconciled in spite of the fact that Bush claims he takes his cue on the Iraq war from the leaders in the battlefield.

American and Iraqi leaders disagree

When president Bush was recently in Vietnam, while discussing the prospects for peace in Iraq, he said, "We'll succeed unless we quit." However, even the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, disagreed with Bush when he stated today that politicians must realize "there are no winners or losers in this battle."

The American commander in chief sees his troops as the key to success in Iraq. Bush was asked at a press conference the day after the recent election about withdrawing the troops from Iraq. He maintained that he was "committed to victory" before he would redeploy the troops. Yet, prime minister al-Maliki concedes that America's military presence is not the solution to create peace in his country. Referring to it as a "political crisis," al-Maliki said the current violence in Iraq would only be resolved by politicians.