John Glenn quote (warning, some content may incite anger)

We DID have a plan. Saying otherwise is hyperbole generated by those who are diametrically opposed to everything that this administration has done.

Well evidence shows we didn't have much of a plan whether you think we did or not. We had no inkling of what it would take to manage the peace and WE KNOW THAT NOW since we have the benefit of history as proof. If you want to quibble about semantics and the meaning or "we didn't have aplan" then go for it. What I meant and I think any reasonable person knows this is that whatever our plan was it was poorly constructed and appears to have been nothing but an afterthought. All in all it appears our "plan" wasn't much of a plan at all more than a vague naive notion of cheering crowds happy to see us liberate them. And as other s can atest to I am anything but "diametrically" opposed to this administration. I call it being honest and not being idealogical or partisan.

We did not go to war at the cost of at least 4,000 american lives for the sake of Rumsfeld consolidating power.

Think what you want but Rumsfeld's drive for power WAS a big motivating factor behind the entire Iraq theatre.

Anyone that presumes to know the innerworkings of the cabinet that decided action on this war either is delusional, believes everything they see on CNN and read in the NY Times or both.

Or maybe someone who doesn't has their head in the sand.

In what way? I am not sure I understand.
The "source" email is fact-grazing, and the sole purpose of this thread is flame bait. That's disappointing.

The "source" email is fact-grazing, and the sole purpose of this thread is flame bait. That's disappointing.

I couldn't disagree much more. The e-mail may be junk but the discussion has been reasonable.

Well evidence shows we didn't have much of a plan whether you think we did or not. We had no inkling of what it would take to manage the peace and WE KNOW THAT NOW since we have the benefit of history as proof. If you want to quibble about semantics and the meaning or "we didn't have aplan" then go for it. What I meant and I think any reasonable person knows this is that whatever our plan was it was poorly constructed and appears to have been nothing but an afterthought. All in all it appears our "plan" wasn't much of a plan at all more than a vague naive notion of cheering crowds happy to see us liberate them. And as other s can atest to I am anything but "diametrically" opposed to this administration. I call it being honest and not being idealogical or partisan.



Think what you want but Rumsfeld's drive for power WAS a big motivating factor behind the entire Iraq theatre.



Or maybe someone who doesn't has their head in the sand.

I don't think it's having my head in the sand to say "right or wrong, we're already over there so we need to finish this before we lose focus among all of the investigation and woulda, coulda, shoulda." It's realistic, simply a matter of focusing on the task at hand. There will be all eternity for the hindsight crowd.

There are a ton of lessons to be learned from mistakes that were made in this conflict. I don't think that's anything new...

I think it's very presumptious to say that the administration's idea was that we would be welcomed by adoring crowds. I think that was clearly the public's perception, but I know that we in the military were never given that impression. Our commanders were telling us that this was going to be a real difficult situation from the start. I think if the average american had realistic, non-idealized expectations of war then you wouldn't see so much hand-wringing now.

I never said the discussion hasn't been civil.

I don't think it's having my head in the sand to say "right or wrong, we're already over there so we need to finish this before we lose focus among all of the investigation and woulda, coulda, shoulda." It's realistic, simply a matter of focusing on the task at hand. There will be all eternity for the hindsight crowd.

I posted that about one quote from response not your entire argument with which I am inclined to agree on many points.


I think it's very presumptious to say that the administration's idea was that we would be welcomed by adoring crowds. I think that was clearly the public's perception, but I know that we in the military were never given that impression. Our commanders were telling us that this was going to be a real difficult situation from the start. I think if the average american had realistic, non-idealized expectations of war then you wouldn't see so much hand-wringing now.

I agree. Don't you think it was a failure of Administration to properly frame this entire deal? My biggest problem with the whole thing even from the beginning before it ever turned bad was that this wasn't about WMDs or Saddam. It was about establishing a democracy in the Middle East from which we hoped more democracy could bloom. The Administration though, sold it in simpler terms, relying on fear to convince Americans this was the right way to go rather than explaining that this was a long term proposition with somewhat less concrete goals than simply eradicating a tyrant and removing danegrous WMDs.

You seem to view the Administration and the military as one cohesive unit thinking in the same ways and tracking on the same course. Nothing could be farther from the truth. While the military commanders may have understood what they were up against in Iraq I don't think there is one shred of evidence to show that the Administration did. And the Administration, through Rumsfeld and his cohorts, were responsible for the "plan". My quibble isn't with the military in any way.

Finally, I would say that ignoring what went wrong just to focus our efforts on winning seems pretty simple to me. I'd like to think that we are smart enough as a society to do both at the same time. I feel like that point is made to simply put off thinking about how much we screwed this up because it will be hard and embarrassing.

Blame everything on Rummy, apparently Dick and W are not culpable any more. We are talking about guys who recently said "being in Iraq is romantic and I am envious" and another guy who said "so, public opinion doesn't matter, plus they volunteered" and "Iraq is going great. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/24/cheney/index.html)" If these guys don't turn your stomach, you really, really, need to check your humanity.

Blame everything on Rummy, apparently Dick and W are not culpable any more. We are talking about guys who recently said "being in Iraq is romantic and I am envious" and another guy who said "so, public opinion doesn't matter, plus they volunteered" and "Iraq is going great. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/24/cheney/index.html)" If these guys don't turn your stomach, you really, really, need to check your humanity.

I don't think either one is corrupt or "evil." I think they are both terribly misguided and lack sound judgment. You don't have to gate them just because you don't like their politics and think they've made some awful decision.

Are we counting the wounded and those that commit suicide after they come back? It's so sad that only the dead get counted and those who are not dead are forgotten. Also, are we counting the dead Iraq civilians too or is that collateral damage and irrelevant?

Your picture is incomplete at best.

Great points.

I agree. Don't you think it was a failure of Administration to properly frame this entire deal? My biggest problem with the whole thing even from the beginning before it ever turned bad was that this wasn't about WMDs or Saddam. It was about establishing a democracy in the Middle East from which we hoped more democracy could bloom. The Administration though, sold it in simpler terms, relying on fear to convince Americans this was the right way to go rather than explaining that this was a long term proposition with somewhat less concrete goals than simply eradicating a tyrant and removing danegrous WMDs.
You seem to view the Administration and the military as one cohesive unit thinking in the same ways and tracking on the same course. Nothing could be farther from the truth. While the military commanders may have understood what they were up against in Iraq I don't think there is one shred of evidence to show that the Administration did. And the Administration, through Rumsfeld and his cohorts, were responsible for the "plan". My quibble isn't with the military in any way.

Finally, I would say that ignoring what went wrong just to focus our efforts on winning seems pretty simple to me. I'd like to think that we are smart enough as a society to do both at the same time. I feel like that point is made to simply put off thinking about how much we screwed this up because it will be hard and embarrassing.

You are absolutely correct on the bolded point, I couldn't agree more.

Regarding your comment on Govt. and Military being a cohesive unit, definitely not. My perspective is from down to top, vs top down. I do honestly believe that GW and the rest of these guys had good intentions. It may be naive but I have no proof to the contrary. Was it ham handed? Without a doubt. I think that there were a lot failures along the way and it cannot all be laid solely at the feet of the administration. There's a lot of responsibility to go around.

As to your last point, I respectfully disagree. I do not believe that with the tremendous impact that the Fourth Estate has on popular opinion and therefore legislative decision making, that we can do both (finishing the war in Iraq and Performing an objective critical analysis of the process) at the same time. I simply do not have that kind of faith in humans. I'd much prefer us to have "tunnel vision," finish the task at hand and then evaluate it. The time for comprehensive analysis is before and after, not during a project.