The astonishing incompetence displayed in so many ways by the Bush Admin. in their occupation of Iraq, may be because they not only lied, they started to believe some of their own lies. What can you say about such people? Self-deluded fools wasting American and Iraqi lives pursuing pipe-dreams of world domination. Power-trippers whose only talent is weaseling their way into positions of power but lacking any real ability to do the job.
See the article on this other thread for more info supporting this view.
http://www.politicalforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=10383

How Cheney Fooled Himself
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062001177.html
Washington Post - Tuesday, June 21, 2005; Page A21

President Bush planted the seeds of the destruction of his Iraq policy before the war started. Salvaging the venture will require an unprecedented degree of candor and realism from a White House that was never willing to admit -- even to itself -- how large an undertaking it was asking the American people to buy into.

The notion that the president led the country into war through indirection or dishonesty is not the most damaging criticism of the administration. The worst possibility is that the president and his advisers believed their own propaganda. They did not prepare the American people for an arduous struggle because they honestly didn't expect one.

How else to explain the fact that the president and his lieutenants consistently played down the costs of the endeavor, the number of troops required, the difficulties of overcoming tensions among the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds? Were they lying? The more logical explanation is that they didn't know what they were talking about.

Because the White House failed to prepare Americans for what was to come, the administration now faces a backlash. Over the weekend Bush said that the terrorists in Iraq were seeking to "weaken our nation's resolve." But the rising impatience about which Bush complains is a direct result of the administration's blithe dismissal of those who warned just how tough the going could get.

The assertion of the "Downing Street Memo" that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of invasion has understandably become a rallying point for the war's opponents. But in some ways more devastating are other recently disclosed documents in which British officials warned that "there was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." The British worried at the time that "U.S. military plans are virtually silent" on the fact that "a postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise."

The most damaging document supporting this claim is not secret, and remains one of the most important artifacts of the prewar debate. It is the transcript of "Meet the Press" from March 16, 2003, in which Vice President Cheney gave voice to the administration's optimistic assumptions that have now been laid low by reality.

Host Tim Russert asked whether "we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there" in Iraq "for several years in order to maintain stability." Cheney replied: "I disagree." He wouldn't say how many troops were needed, but he added that "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."

Russert asked: "If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?"

Cheney would have none of it. "Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want [is to] get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."

Russert: "And you are convinced the Kurds, the Sunnis, the Shiites will come together in a democracy?"

Cheney: "They have so far." And the vice president concluded: "I think the prospects of being able to achieve this kind of success, if you will, from a political standpoint, are probably better than they would be for virtually any other country and under similar circumstances in that part of the world."

Was Cheney disguising the war's costs for political purposes? It's more likely that he believed every word he said. That suggests that the administration was not misleading the American people nearly so much as it was misleading itself.

Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska says in the current issue of U.S. News & World Report that "the White House is completely disconnected from reality" and that "it's like they're just making it up as they go along." Unfortunately, the evidence of the past suggests that Hagel's acerbic formulation may be exactly right. Those who still see the invasion of Iraq as a noble mission don't need to protect the policy from the war's critics. They need to rescue it from its architects.

postchat@aol.com

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

__________________
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. " --Noam Chomsky

Just how many of these "I Hate George W. Bush" threads can you start?

People are starting to ignore you.

__________________
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."

Well, at least you're not ignoring me, old buddy. You still manage to post the same dumb old stuff on every thread. "Any evidence that Bush is an incompetent, lying weasel must be lies by people who hate Bush and/or America." Why don't you tell us more about this vast, world-wide conspiracy of Bush-haters who are manufacturing all of this evidence at secret, underground locations. Pretty (*)(*)(*)(*) good at it too, aren't they? LOLOL

__________________
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. " --Noam Chomsky

Livefree, FYI, JP5 is a she. On various threads you seem to be assuming otherwise.

And trying to get her to admit that any member of the Bush administration other than George Tenet are incompetent is probably a waste of keystrokes. She even buys the "catastrophic success" excuse for the complete lack of post-war planning -- as if it's perfectly reasonable that post-war planning didn't even get started until a couple of weeks before the invasion.

__________________
Man up.

Funny how nobody ever "assumes" I am female. Guess some are so sexist they automatically assume if someone is strong in their opinions and debate....they MUST be male. Go figure!

I don't think George Tenet was incompetent.

And there WAS post-war planning. Some of the things they believed would happen and planned for....did NOT happen. Like they believed that Saddam's military would fight.....and not run off and hide in the civilian population to fight another day. They also believed there would be a great humanitarian problem.....citizens not able to get to food, water, etc. They also beleived chemical weapons could be used. And they planned for those possible events.

Some of the things they didn't plan so well on......was that Saddam's military would tuck tail and run and hide. And that so many would pour over the borders from other Arab nations....without those nations lifting a finger to help stop it.

But planning for war is not a sterile, laboratory exercise. Plans constantly need to be adjusted. In this war...and IN VIRTUALLY EVERY OTHER WAR EVER FOUGHT. And if you believe differently.....give me ONE example of where a war was fought and No adjustments had to be made based on what the enemy did or didn't do? Just ONE.

You are naive if you believe that wars are fought with a manual where one can check off what happens based on the original plans.

__________________
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."

More evidence that Cheney either believes his own lies or else just continues to lie thru his teeth in the face of all evidence.
I suppose some of you RWingnuts will want to tell us that the top American military commander in the Persian Gulf "just hates America and is saying this to embarrass The Sneer". LOL.
Check out this comment by Gen. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “Leaving before the task is complete would be catastrophic”. I can remember a number of very similar statements made at various points in the Vietnam War, and what happened there? It just got more and more catastrophic until we just had no choice but to pull out in a hurry with nothing to show for it but over 50,000 dead, many times more wounded and a wasted fortune of our national treasure. Plus the 2 million dead Vietnamese.
Hey neo/con wannabes, how many is too many American soldiers' lives lost in the wrong war for the wrong reasons in the worst place? Do we have to lose another 50,000 this time before we say that the war was a bad, stupid idea to begin with and that staying is just making things worse. Those Iraqis are a lot more motivated to fight us than to fight themselves.

Iraq insurgents still strong, general says
Senate comments contrary to Cheney's view of 'last throes'
The Associated Press - June 23, 2005
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8330207/

(excerpt)
WASHINGTON - The top American military commander in the Persian Gulf disputed a contention by Vice President Dick Cheney that the Iraqi insurgency was in its “last throes” and told Congress on Thursday that its strength was basically undiminished from six months ago.

Furthermore, Gen. John Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee, “I believe there are more foreign fighters coming into Iraq than there were six months ago.”

In a CNN interview last month, Cheney said that “the level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.”

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the committee’s senior Democrat, asked Abizaid if he realized he was contradicting Cheney.

“I don’t know that I would make any comment about that other than to say there’s a lot of work to be done,” said Abizaid. “I gave you my opinion.”

“The fact is that the insurgency has not weakened,” Levin said. “Our men and women in uniform are serving with great honor. They deserve an objective assessment of the situation in Iraq. They deserve a clear layout of the next steps there. They’re not getting either from the administration.”

Rumsfeld told the committee that "timing in war is never predictable. There are never guarantees.

“Those who say we are losing this war are wrong," he added. "We are not.”

But even some Republicans expressed open skepticism with U.S. policy in Iraq, with U.S. deaths now surpassing 1,700 since the war began in March 2003.

“Public support in my state is turning,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. “People are beginning to question. And I don’t think it’s a blip on the radar screen. We have a chronic problem on our hands.”

The Bush administration contends that Iraqis must be able to defend their own country against a lethal insurgency before a timeline for bringing home troops can be considered.

But progress has been slower than expected. In recent weeks, insurgents have increasingly targeted Iraqi security forces. And U.S. casualties, war spending and public skepticism continue to climb, ruffling both Republicans and Democrats.

“Leaving before the task is complete would be catastrophic,” Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the panel.

© 2005 The Associated Press.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

__________________
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. " --Noam Chomsky

LMAO

do you believe it was a war?...

and I'm falling into the trap of using "was"............

......standback.....look...........the USA+collition invade Iraq....

...reason..WMD's could be used against the free world!!!!!, and several more
good intention reasons...but no WMD found yet.....ya never know though..,

The fighting continues, and the solider and civilian on the ground is the cost, the loss....so much.......how much more?

and how much more will we hear the reports on the spread of democracy?

..The news headlines now on tv, reminds me of when I was young, listening
to reports ahout the north of Ireland......kids...they don't understand that the magic TVis trying to report reality.....it becomes the norm......until you smell, see, hear, the thumping in your heart, "this was real!?!?!?!?!?".....

I feel there maybe an environment of this feeling in the general public today....a feeling that ...oh hey...this news is the norm....it's terrible....but I've got my own problems,....and so on.....

I hear a polotician use the phrase "moving the goal posts" ..... this is indeed an art form, a powerful tool, that has been used on a scale thats probably unimaginable....it's unimaginable becasue I go by the shocking facts that have come to light, on events gone past. How many times have you heard about "situations", extrodinary events, from acient battle to modern war.....

.........Oh my god!!!!!! did that happen ????????? coupled with a strong feeling of opposition to the wrong doing..........

No doubt we'll be equally gob smacked as we review life in our old age, god willing, ALLl reading may have that luck of long life..!!!

what a very very interesting decade we have ahead ?


.