Douglas J. Feith recaps the reasons we went to war in Iraq.

It won’t be popular as he avoids rhetoric and accusations, and instead lays out the real timeline and thoughts behind the decision to go to war from an insider’s perspective.

Agree or disagree with the reasons all you want, but it is important to stop the BDS and the Bush lied accusations and see the big picture.

A lot of poor commentary has framed the Iraq war as a conflict of “choice” rather than of “necessity.” In fact, President George W. Bush chose to remove Saddam Hussein from power because he concluded that doing so was necessary.

President Bush inherited a worrisome Iraq problem from Bill Clinton and from his own father. Saddam had systematically undermined the measures the U.N. Security Council put in place after the Gulf War to contain his regime. In the first months of the Bush presidency, officials debated what to do next.

As a participant in the confidential, top-level administration meetings about Iraq, it was clear to me at the time that, had there been a realistic alternative to war to counter the threat from Saddam, Mr. Bush would have chosen it.

…

The Iraq policy debate remained unresolved when the September 11 attacks occurred. Like all major national security issues, Iraq policy was re-examined in light of our post-9/11 sense of vulnerability and the heightened worries about terrorism and, especially, about the danger that terrorists might obtain WMD from a nation state.

When the president ultimately decided that the Iraqi regime must be ousted by force, he was influenced by five key factors:

1) Saddam was a threat to U.S. interests before 9/11. The Iraqi dictator had started wars against Iran and Kuwait, and had fired missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel. Unrepentant about the rape of Kuwait, he remained intensely hostile to the U.S. He provided training, funds, safe haven and political support to various types of terrorists. He had developed WMD and used chemical weapons fatally against Iran and Iraqi Kurds. Iraq’s official press issued statements praising the 9/11 attacks on the U.S.

The media has been gloating for days over news that a Pentagon report found no ties between Saddam and Al Qeada.

I wondered though, because there have been plenty of documents (out of the millions found) the bloggers have posted on in the past that refute that.  I also noted that the sudy cited 600K documents, not millions, so I wondered how conprehensive it really was.

I should not have worried.  Via Powerline:

The connection, take 54

The Weekly Standard’s Steve Hayes is the man who wrote the book on The Connection“The connection.”

The Bush administration long ago gave up trying to tell the truth about the issue, as it has on so many others where it has been beaten into submission by the elite media. And so when the Pentagon recently released its 59-page report confirming Hayes’s reportage, the media have been left free to misrepresent it with impunity, as McClatchy’s Warren Strobel does here, as the New York Times blog does here, and as the ABC blog does here.

Steve has now obtained and reviewed the report in its entirety. In a post previewing his article in the forthcoming issue of the Standard, Steve writes:

A new Pentagon report on Iraq and Terrorism has the news media buzzing. An item on the New York Times blog snarks, “Oh, By the Way, There Was No Al Qaeda Link.” The ABC News story that previews the full report concludes, “Report Shows No Link Between Saddam and al Qaeda.”

How, then, to explain this sentence about Iraq and al Qaeda from the report’s abstract: “At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust”? And how to explain the “considerable overlap” between their activities which led not only to the appearances of ties but to a “de facto link between the organizations?” (See the entire abstract below.)

Honestly, as I keep saying, you cannot make this up.

As this memory from September recalls:

Hillary Clinton in essence called Gen. Petraeus a liar when she remarked: “I think the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.” I wonder who wrote that line for her. It sounds like it came straight from James Carville, the former Clinton advisor. Earlier, Clinton had said: “I was against the Surge when it was first proposed.” Really? She voted for it. It’s funny how what Clinton says publicly, and what she does in the Senate are usually two different things.

And so her nuanced¹ position continues (emphasis mine):

Another one from MTP this morning, a day after the first fragile measure of political reconciliation passed the Iraqi parliament. Whom to thank? Not David Petraeus, whose claims of improved security and lowered sectarian tensions we were assured require “the willing suspension of disbelief.” Thank the Democratic candidates like Hillary Clinton — who opposed the surge, who opposed funding for the surge, who even opposed a symbolic resolution defending Petraeus from the “Betray Us” smear. It took the looming prospect of withdrawal by a Democratic president, she says, to finally get the Iraqis in gear, neglecting the fact that the election of the Democratic Congress in 2006 was also supposed to get them in gear and never quite did. Thus do the stars align for Hillary: the failure of her own party plus the success of an operation she dismissed produce a credit-taking opportunity only the dumbest Clinton supporter could fall for. The fact is, troop levels are increasingly out of her hands and nobody knows it better than the Iraqis she cynically pretends to be influencing:

Ok, not hell, but it is regularly described as being hotter than hell…From Sister Toldjah:

Via Reuters:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Snow fell on Baghdad on Friday for the first time in memory, and delighted residents declared it an omen of peace.

“It is the first time we’ve seen snow in Baghdad,” said 60-year-old Hassan Zahar. “We’ve seen sleet before, but never snow. I looked at the faces of all the people, they were astonished,” he said.

“A few minutes ago, I was covered with snowflakes. In my hair, on my shoulders. I invite all the people to enjoy peace, because the snow means peace,” he said.

Traffic policeman Murtadha Fadhil, huddling under a balcony to keep dry, declared the snow “a new sign of the new Iraq.”

“It’s a sign of hope. We hope Iraqis will purify their hearts and politicians will work for the prosperity of all Iraqis.”

The streets of the capital were largely empty as big, thick, wet flakes fell on Friday morning, a weekend day in Iraq. The temperature hovered around freezing and the snow mostly melted into grey puddles when it hit the ground.

Wonder what it looked like through the eyes of this child:

Think about what that means:  They just missed a white Christmas in the Middle East.  Lots to think about there…. 

 Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Rosemary’s Thoughts, 123beta, Right Truth, Adam’s Blog, Shadowscope, The Amboy Times, Cao’s Blog, Big Dog’s Weblog, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Stix, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Crystal clear words from Michael Yon.

Resistance is futile: You will be (mis)informed

A gulf.

A gap.

A chasm.

A parallel universe.

All describe the bizarro-world contrast between what most Americans seem to think is happening in Iraq versus what is really happening in Iraq. Knowing this disconnect exists and experiencing it directly are two separate matters. It’s like the difference between holding the remote control during the telecast of a volcanic  eruption on some distant island (and then flipping the channel), versus running for survival from a wretch of molten lava that just engulfed your car.

I was at home in the United States just one day before the magnitude hit me like vertigo: America seems to be under a glass dome which allows few hard facts from the field to filter in unless they are attached to a string of false assumptions. Considering that my trip home coincided with General Petraeus’ testimony before the US Congress, when media interest in the war was (I’m told) unusually concentrated, it’s a wonder my eardrums didn’t burst on the trip back to Iraq. In places like Singapore, Indonesia, and Britain people hardly seemed to notice that success is being achieved in Iraq, while in the United States, Britney was competing for airtime with O.J. in  one of the saddest sideshows on Earth.

 No thinking person would look at last year’s weather reports  to judge whether it will rain today, yet we do something similar with Iraq news. The situation in Iraq has drastically changed, but the inertia of bad news leaves many convinced that the mission has failed beyond recovery, that all Iraqis are engaged in sectarian violence, or are waiting for us to leave so they can crush their neighbors. This view allows our soldiers two possible roles: either “victim caught in the crossfire” or “referee between warring parties.” Neither, rightly, is tolerable to the American or British public.

Thank God the House is acting on this critical issue:

House Votes to Ban Permanent Bases in Iraq

“The Democratic Congress will go on record – every day if necessary – to register a judgment in opposition to the course of action that the President is taking in Iraq. The Democratic Congress will go on record – every day if necessary – to fight for a redeployment of our forces as the central element of a New Direction strategy for Iraq.”

- Speaker Pelosi, 7/25/07

Today, the House passed H.R. 2929, Banning Permanent U.S. Bases in Iraq. This bill states that it is the policy of the United States not to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing a permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq. It also states that it is the policy of the United States not to exercise U.S. control of the oil resources of Iraq. The measure bars the use of any funds provided by any law from being used to carry out any policy that contradicts these statements of policy.

Why is this futile?

First I don’t recall anyone suggesting we do.  This is an empty threat.

Second, of all the military bases in the world, having bases in the middle east might actually be somewhat strategic, more so than many other bases. 

Congress seems to forget that we have military bases worldwide, over 700 in more then 50 countries.  The military should determine whether Iraq is strategic.

Not Nancy Pelosi.

There are a ton of actual important issues Congress is ignoring so they can trot out this dog and pony show to appease the nutroots.

 Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, guerrilla radio, Big Dog’s Weblog, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, third world county, Nuke’s news and views, Planck’s Constant, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Teddy had one too many.  Ignore the pictures and the photoshops in the video clip, they are the work of the person who posted it.  Just listen to the clip.  The money quote is with about 13 seconds left.

The liberals cannot stop living in Vietnam, so it’s no wonder no wonder they want us to lose this war the same way we lost Vietnam.  This is nostalgic and just like old times…The country would benefit from them learning to live in the present, not the past.

 Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson’s Website, Committees of Correspondence, Mark My Words, DeMediacratic Nation, Jeanette’s Celebrity Corner, Right Truth, Adam’s Blog, DragonLady’s World, Webloggin, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Conservative Thoughts, Right Celebrity, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Nuke’s news and views, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Planck’s Constant, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

I don’t easily jump on bandwagons, and immigration issues are one of my pet peeves.   But in this case, I think this clearly shows the unfair nature of the present system, and it deserves some attention. 

In an age where illegal immigrants are waltzing in untouched and ending up as 1/3 of the California Prison population, it is cruelly ironic that some people who have highly sought skills cannot come in from other parts of the world legally. 

A prime example is Alaa, a young Iraqi whom Bryan Suits (KVI 570am) spent a lot of time working with in Iraq a while back.  Alaa was helping Bryan’s unit translate and interrogate people in Iraq.   His actions there showed him to be a man of good character, and he was invaluable in helping our troops.

He is also a trained Pharmacist, something our country has a shortage of.  In short he can fill a necessary and useful role in American society, and unlike the illegals, cannot just jog over the line and then demand citizenship.

He has to contend with a US Visa policy in Iraq that had limited slots for persons helping the military because he wants to come here legally.

Help someone worthy to come into our country.  Watch this video (from Discovery Channel’s “My War Diary”),  of a day in the life of Alaa, on the day of the first Iraqi election, and ask if he deserves a chance at the freedoms you take for granted.

Then send an email to:

kenneth.murray@us.army.mil

And say something like:

(note:  The email must be directed To Whom it Concerns, do not address it to a specific person)

To whom it concerns,

I saw the video of the young man featured in the Discovery Channel “My War Diary”, introduced to us by Radio Host Bryan Suits.  I was so moved by Alaa’s story that I want to help this future citizen achieve the American dream for himself. 

The 4 years mark was of course marked with the usual moonbat protests.

What is ironic is how the Socialists are hijacking the anti war movement to move us closer to Socialism.  They contend that if we stop funding for the war we can build school, get socialized medicine, create jobs, build gulags….

Drop in at Little Green Footballs, Hot Air or Michelle Malkin for enough pictures and stories to make your blood boil.  And Sister Toldjah has some great links as well.

LGF includes the mandatory flag burning and the moonbats even burn a US soldier in effigy. 

See how the Liberals support the troops?  The F*** the Troops sign says it all.

Maybe I will catalog that tomorrow.

But behind it all, the question remains about what we are doing and its worth.

Bryan Suits tonight asserted that he could not envision a world today where we did not end up taking out Saddam.  I agree.  It may not have happened 4 years ago, but it would have happened. 

So does Christopher Hitchens.

Here are some excerpts form his must read Slate column.

So, Mr. Hitchens, Weren’t You Wrong About Iraq?

Four years after the first coalition soldiers crossed the Iraqi border, one can attract pitying looks (at best) if one does not take the view that the whole engagement could have been and should have been avoided. Those who were opposed to the operation from the beginning now claim vindication, and many of those who supported it say that if they had known then what they know now, they would have spoken or voted differently.

What exactly does it mean to take the latter position? At what point, in other words, ought the putative supporter to have stepped off the train? The question isn’t as easy to answer as some people would have you believe. Suppose we run through the actual timeline:

Seriously.  Most people see Hillary or Pelosi as the key players, but in reality, Lieberman at this time is the person in DC with the most control and influence, not just of the Senate, but realistically of the Country as well.

Lieberman is a lifelong Democrat, with 18 years of Senate time.  He has also been a staunch supporter of the president and the war in Iraq, something that I admit surprised me..and pissed off a lot of liberals.  The Democrat’s 2000 nominee for the Vice Presidency was viciously attacked by the far left Soros inspired, Kos fueled Nutroots, who backed Ned Lamont in a primary election upset over Lieberman.  During that primary campaign he was snubbed harshly by the Democrats who feared the power of the Nutroots, who you can envision as the mob with torches and pitchforks in an old Frankenstein movie.  His former running mate¹ would not even endorse him.

Undaunted, Joe ran as an Independent, and amazingly, won.  I do not think it is wrong to assume that he had a lot of support from conservatives.

That left him in a very interesting position in the Senate.  He can Caucus with either party, as he sees fit, and frankly the Democrats have a lot to answer for when he considers the betrayal he suffered.

Back in November I was reflecting on the election results, and I wrote this:²

And Lieberman…he is now the luckiest and likely the most powerful man in DC.  Strange turn of events indeed.  Rumor has him inching closer to a defection to the republicans.

And it seems I was somewhat prophetic.³

Two stories surfaced recently and both indicate Joe may be inching closer to a defection, even if it is only a temporary one.  The issue?  None other then the war in Iraq…again.