The Best War Ever

Friday, November 17, 2006


This is a bit long but I think that the important thing that is brought up here is the debate about what the Bush administration is notoriously famous for, redefining what words and phrases mean. Just my .02.

Monday, November 13, 2006

Gods Gonna Cut You Down

Friday, November 10, 2006

Oh ... and one more thing

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Sometimes "Its" just what it is

Let me introduce the world to some new realities:

Karl Rove is not a genius. He is the author of the biggest GOP defeat in most of our lifetimes.

America really hates George Bush. Tonight, America said to George Bush, STFU and cut the dumb shit. Bring the troops home, pronto.

America is helping Democrats to pitch a shutout so far, holding all their seats, completely overturning the GOP revolution of 1994 in the House. The Senate looks to me like a 51 vote win for the Dems now.

Thanks, Karl.

What we talked about earlier this week is holding up: the Old Confederacy is the big loser tonight, relegated to the minority in the House. There is no reason, none, nada, zilch, to allow legislation in the House to be held hostage to Southern authoritarian Theocrats and racists anymore. Buh-bye.

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Simulations ran in 1999 show what we know now about Iraq

A series of secret U.S. war games in 1999 showed that an invasion and post-war administration of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, nearly three times the number there now.

And even then, the games showed, the country still had a chance of dissolving into chaos.

In the simulation, called Desert Crossing, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence participants concluded the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs.

The documents came to light Saturday through a Freedom of Information Act request by George Washington University's National Security Archive, an independent research institute and library.

"The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops," said Thomas Blanton, the archive's director. "But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even with 400,000 troops on the ground."

There are about 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from a peak in January of about 160,000.

A week after the invasion, in March 2003, the Pentagon said there were 250,000 U.S. ground force troops inside Iraq, along with 40,000 coalition force troops.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Central Command, which sponsored the seminar and declassified the secret report in 2004, declined to comment Saturday because she was not familiar with the documents.

News of the war games results comes a day before judges are expected to deliver a verdict in Saddam Hussein war crimes trial.

The war games looked at "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios after a war that removed then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power. Some of the conclusions are similar to what actually occurred after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003:

"A change in regimes does not guarantee stability," the 1999 seminar briefings said. "A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability."

"Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic -- especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments."

"Iran's anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq," the briefings read. "The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad."

"The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development."

"Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government."

"A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners."

free web counters

Powered by Blogger

Get Thunderbird!

Web browser

Blogwise - blog directory

Blog-Watch - The Blog Directory

Blogarama - The Blog Directory\

Find Blogs in the Blog Directory

Subscribe in Bloglines

Rate Me on!