Mission Accomplished

Well, the only part of the Iraq War that worked, the toppling of Saddam, has ended. This is the best thing we have accomplished in our mission, and it didn't turn out pretty. How does America look now?

Joyce Marcel, Common Dreams:

"We Americans love our death. It's the star of most of our television shows, don't you know? And we love our death penalty even more. The civilized world long ago put a lid on revenge killing, but we flaunt it, don't we?

It's so barbaric. How, at the start of the 21st Century, did we suddenly find ourselves in the 11th? Did you know they used a new rope to hang Saddam?

The Daily News reported that at the beginning of this new, American-branded regime, they used Saddam's old rope. And one day it broke. It broke on the 13th man. And they had 14 more hangings that day. They hung 27 men in one day, imagine that. And these are the good guys.

Right after Saddam's neck snapped so loud the witnesses heard it, they hung two more men on the same gallows. The News didn't say if they used the same rope. The gallows? When was the last time those words appeared in an American newspaper? And those black ski masks on the hangmen? Could it get any tackier? O yeah, it could. The taunts and jeers. The dancing in the end zone. And the cell phone video of Saddam swinging by his neck, the one that made it onto Al Jazeera television."

I don't have any sympathy for Saddam, but this hanging did not serve our interests or justice.

Saddam-lite

WorldNetDaily: Time to face facts in Iraq:

"...perhaps we should consider empowering a military junta (which can operate behind the facade of a nominal democracy). We can arm it, finance it, and do business with such an entity. In exchange, this junta – or strong man as the case may eventually turn out – will grant us the petroleum we seek, the bases we need, and will agree, if we (and the Iraqi people) are especially lucky, to govern with a kinder, gentler face than was the case with Saddam."

Hey, why not just put a neutered Saddam back in power? Rumsfeld & Co. dealt with him well enough in the 80's...when he was committing the crimes he's on trial for now.

Is this the best we can expect from our war now?
I hate to say it, but it looks like we were all better off before we dethroned Saddam, even if he was a madman. For a while there though, back in the 80's, he was our madman....killing those pesky Iranians and befuddling the Soviets, establishing a non-Islamic government in the heart of the Middle East. Oh Saddam, we had it so good till you invaded Kuwait. Oh, and the Kurd killing, we didn't like that either. And the detentions. Well, Saddam was pretty much your typical a-hole dictator type....you know, about the best thing we could hope for in Iraq now, so we can eventually, someday begin leaving.

update 11/13/06: more Alternet:

"Rumseld met with Hussein in December 1983 and returned again on March 24, 1984--the very same day the United Nations released a report that Iraq had committed war crimes by using mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops. "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name," The New York Times reported five days later.The official transcripts of Rumsfeld's report on his meetings with then Iraq Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz and Hussein himself make clear that our defense secretary never even mentioned the brutal suppression of the Dujail Shiites, which has now earned the dictator a death sentence. The diplomatic message was clear: Hussein's brutality, and even his use of chemical weapons, was not an obstacle to warm relations between the United States and Iraq."

Hey, I know Saddam was a brutal dictator, but the reality is that he was better for US than what we have now. Even Rummy knew this 20+ years ago....I guess he forgot?

Walter Jones on the up and up

AlterNet Mobile Edition:

"Like many others on Capitol Hill, the White House sold him on the idea that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States and that there were links between Iraq and 9/11. Angry that our allies saw such overwhelming evidence in a different light, Walter Jones insisted that french fries be renamed 'freedom fries' in House office building cafeterias.

Since the invasion, Jones has distinguished himself by actually paying attention to facts as the Bush administration's arguments started to show cracks. He began to see in Iraq what he saw Vietnam: a war justified by false pretenses and empty ideology that had the real consequence of needlessly killing American soldiers. Jones started sending personal letters with handwritten words of condolences to the families of every soldier killed in Iraq. The hallways outside of his Capitol Hill office are lined with the faces of the fallen.

My family recently went to Washington to thank Walter Jones for his efforts. One of those pictures in his hallway is of my brother, Sgt. Sherwood Baker. One of those letters he sent is on my living room table.

Sherwood was killed in Baghdad last year. His death has kept my faith at the fore. That faith is challenged, quite honestly, when I hear the warmakers extolling their belief in Christ as their savior as they drop cluster bombs and commit other people's children to the hell of war.

Walter Jones could easily be considered one of 'them' -- a Christian conservative. I sat next to him in his office and quickly relearned how wrong it is to label a person. As a Christian myself, I understood immediately that his personal belief in Christ has been the basis of his actions. The most obvious aspect of our meeting was the authenticity of his humility.

He began by speaking specifically to my mother and the mothers of two other fallen soldiers who were with us.

Tears have been easy for me to come by over the last 14 months since Sherwood died. The catalyst could be the unabated laughter of my nephew or the national anthem; anything, really, that brings Sherwood to mind.

When Walter Jones said this simple sentence, 'If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have voted for this war,' I found myself unable to hold them back.

I waded through the election rhetoric last year waiting to hear those courageous words. My brother was on the security detail of the Iraq Survey Group. He died looking for those non-existent weapons of mass destruction that President Bush used as a rationale for this disastrous war."

Yep, I was one of those...they sold me on the war too, with the lies of WMDs and Saddam's "intentions". It makes me feel like a fool now that the truth is plain to see, and I feel like they (the White House, neo-cons and spineless Democrats in Congress) took advantage of 9/11 and the country's desire to strike back and somebody, anybody. I'm afraid we've made things worse, the world is less safe and America is less safe because of invading Iraq. Anyway, I thought it was interesting to see one of our Congressmen in the spotlight, getting called out as a good guy on the up and up. Way to go Walter Jones!

More Damning than Downing Street

More Damning than Downing Street:

"Earlier this month, Jeremy Scahill wrote a powerful piece on The Nation's website, describing a huge air assault in September 2002,

'Approximately 100 US and British planes flew from Kuwait into Iraqi airspace,' Scahill writes. 'At least seven types of aircraft were part of this massive operation, including US F-15 Strike Eagles and Royal Air Force Tornado ground-attack planes. They dropped precision-guided munitions on Saddam Hussein's major western air-defense facility, clearing the path for Special Forces helicopters that lay in wait in Jordan. Earlier attacks had been carried out against Iraqi command and control centers, radar detection systems, Revolutionary Guard units, communication centers and mobile air-defense systems. The Pentagon's goal was clear: Destroy Iraq's ability to resist.'

Why aren't we talking about this? As Scahill points out, this was a month before the Congressional vote, and two before the UN resolution. Supposedly part of enforcing 'no fly zones,' the bombings were actually systematic assaults on Iraq's capacity to defend itself. The US had never declared war. Bush had no authorization, not even a fig leaf. He was simply attacking another nation because he'd decided to do so. This preemptive war preempted our own Congress, as well as international law."

One Thousand Dead

Frankly, when we launched the war, I expected it to be higher...I figured we might loose 2-3000 in the invasion alone. But, that was when I assumed that Saddam would attack our troops with chemical and/or biological weapons. Luckily (or not), many more of the wounded survive these days, thanks to specially designed "bullet proof" vests that ooze a blood coagulant when pierced.
The "casualties" (dead and wounded) in this war now are more than the dead and wounded from 911.
Had we found the weapons stockpiles....or even a fraction of what we expected, this sacrifice may have been worth it. Had we found direct terrorist ties with Saddam, something to suggest Saddam would arm terrorists with WMDs....it may have been worth the sacrifice.
But that's not what we found. Saddam had nothing....N_A_D_A. Iraq was a threat to no one but itself. There was certainly no imminent threat.
At some point before we stormed Bagdad, our troops were given the OK to remove all their Bio-Chem gear. How did we know so soon that those kinds of weapons were no longer a threat? I'll have to research that when I get back home.
Wether or not it was a good thing (for us) to get rid of Saddam, the fact is, we were sold a false bill of goods in the lead-up to the invasion. Even with these puffed up allegations, the Europeans would not support us. Why should we expect them to help us now.....now that they know George W. was misleading them (or trying to mislead them) into a war, they would be fools to trust George W and they would rightly be voted out of office. Had our troops been attacked with WMDs, it would have been easier for Chirac & Co. to lend us support. These leaders would have a much easier time selling their participation to their voters with John Kerry in office, even then it's not guaranteed, but something tells me he has some pull with the French, and their longstanding ties to Iraq would be helpful.
OK, now I'm babbling on and on about this....it's just that this election is so important for America....never before in my life has there been so much at stake. If we voters endorse Bush with a clear election win, it will send a message to the world that we, the American people, are complicit with W and his actions in Iraq. We, the American people, saw this president mislead us into war. Electing anyone who misleads their country into invading another country....it's all I can do not to invoke the dreaded 1930's Germany.
One thousand of America's best and brightest are now dead because of this war. What have we gained? Yes, Saddam is out of power, but Iraq is a more dangerous place than ever. We must leave, but not until we're sure it won't turn into an Afghanistan with oil, a terrorist haven, a theocracy, and now we have to deal with all the tribes, the Kurds, the Sunnis, the Shiites....damn, we had somebody to do this for us....Saddam! I for one, preferred Iraq when it was taking care of itself.
Ah, maybe we'll still find the weapons, right? Sure, I believe ya, George, tell me another one.