Jesus. First Kerry comes out and belittles his fellow comrades and called them war monsters, fakes throwing his medals over the whitehouse lawn, takes an Anti-Iraq position, and now has his "advisors" saying its worse then vietnam.

Well, like Kerry would know since he was there for a whole 4 months, right? What an asshat. I am 23 yrs old, so I have no clue what vietnam was like, though I have seen movies, pictures, etc... but even I am not stupid enough to compare Iraq to vietnam. geez.

Thanks for the comments.

It's amazing, isn't it? They are just unrelenting on attacking the President.

I forgot to mention that this is not just an advisor. This is the TOP advisor for the Kerry campaign. This guy could be in the Kerry administration if he wins. (God forbid) Do you want this guy to be meddling with our foreign policies thinking like this?

Holbrooke's statement is very rational, as the unilateralist invasion (not to mention Bush's cry of: "Crusade!") has had a domino effect in all Islamic nations.

That's over a billion people most of whom now hate the US where formerly most held favorable opinions.

Even General Abizaid agrees with this, and just a few days ago said that Anti-Americanism and terrrorism have spread and increased in countries "from Pakistan to Morocco." He didn't mention the Philippined and Indonesia, but we know the terrorists have gained ground in both places, and are far more of a threat than they were before the Bush response to 9/11.

It's far worse than Viet Nam because the effects will last hundreds of years, if not millennia.

Results matter, and Bush has been an overwhelming failure on fighting terrorists.

The threat will always exist. You cannot wipe out an ideology or tactic.

But we are safer now than before 9/11 because we now know of the threat.

As for anti-Americanism, frankly, I couldn't care less. Don't come to our colleges and don't take our foreign aid.

You're wrong that "we are safer now than before 9/11 because we now know of the threat."

Instead of bolstering American security, this president shouted "crusade" and attacked an Islamic country. His approach was designed for failure.

We knew of the threat before 9/11, but because of this president's response, there have been more terrorist attacks and more terrorists created since the unilateralist invasion of Iraq, both in Iraq and around the world (ask Rumsfeld and Abizaid). Trying to claim that we "took the fight to them" is ridiculous, as "them" were not in Iraq until we sent in Americans with bull's-eyes painted on their back.

And none of that effort has made this country safer at home, in fact it is less safer because many first responders who could be protecting the homeland are in the Guard and in Iraq.

98% of cargo entering this country is still not inspected, and our porous borders are even more porous than ever before (see latest issue of Time magainze). And what is done on the border is done incorrectly. Last year, for example, 20,000 non-Mexican aliens were detained and guess what was then done with them? They were released directly into the U. S. population. And 3-8 times as many were not even stopped.

Is that your idea of "safer?"

It's not mine.

I'm assuming you're a kerry supporter. So what has Kerry done to "improve" the situation?

The President was told that Iraq was a threat by the CIA, and almost every other intelligence agency in the world. (Mossad, British intel, etc.)

What is he to do? Ignore it? Putin told him that Saddam was about to strike the US. What is he to do? Ignore it?

The President's response? Should we have whimpered and not do anything?

Also, we did not "unilaterally" attack Iraq. We had what... 31 nations with us?

The unilateralist U. S. invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (not legitimately, but see below) and nothing to do with any kind of war against terrorists.

Iraq was attacked because the neoconservatives had wanted to do so since at least 1992. They tried with Clinton, but he turned them down, then 9/11 and a weak-minded, weak-willed president gave them their chance.

Bob Woodward, who seems to just love president Bush, tells us in his book "Bush at War" how it went:

p. 49: [this occurs on the day after 9/11/01] "Rumsfeld raised the question of Iraq. Why shouldn't we go against Iraq, not just al Qaeda? ... Rumsfeld was raising the possibility that they could take advantage of the opportunity offered by the terrorist attacks to go after Saddam immediately."

pp. 82-83: [9/15/01] "Another risk they faced was getting bogged down in Afghanistan, the nemesis of the British in the 19th century and the Soviets in the 20th. Rice was wondering whether it might be the same for the United States in the 21st.

" Her fears were shared by others, which led to a different discussion: Should they think about launching military action elsewhere as an insurance policy in case things in Afghanistan went bad? ...

" Rice asked whether they could envision a successful campaign beyond Afghanistan, which put Iraq back on the table."

'WHAT THE HECK IS A "NEOCON"?' - Part I

'WHAT THE HECK IS A "NEOCON"?' - Part II

'WHAT THE HECK IS A "NEOCON"?' - Part III

Hmm.

- John F. Kerry's foreign policy guru states that Iraqis worse than Vietnam

- John F. Kerry supported the retreat of US forces from Vietnam

- John F. Kerry keeps talking about "bringing out troops back home" in the near future

It sure sounds to me like John F. Kerry, as President, would cut and run from Iraq at the first opportunity.

This is not the man we want in the White House if we actually want to win in Iraq, and in the larger War On Terror.

"Also, we did not "unilaterally" attack Iraq. We had what... 31 nations with us?"

I've debated the issue of "unilateral" here before. When confronted, the Left is forced to admit the term is inappropriate.

But then, a couple days later, they are using it again.

So, I give up. Let them lie. Lies are really all they have left (look at the candidate they support)...

I actually agree with the assertion of the statement but not the context. Iraq has impacted US relations with the world more than Vietnam ever did.

The context I do not agree with is whether it is a net positive or negative impact. So I would not have used the word "worse", I would have said something like the war in Iraq has had a higher/more significant impact than Vietnam.

Whilst on the subject if someone questions policies brought forward by Bush, the person defending Bush should focus on defending the choice, policy and implications and not attack the other party.

Tell me what you stand for and the implications and not point back at the other party as defense.

"This is not the man we want in the White House if we actually want to win in Iraq"(referring to Kerry) This confuses me, didn't we ALREADY win the war in Iraq? In fact wasn't the Iraq war over awhile ago? So if we leave now, how can we be "losing"? What if they have elections and somebody we don't like gets elected? Do we have to keep fightin? How will we ever "win" if we don't decide what "winning" is?

As for whether the Iraq war is worse than Viet Nam, there is at least one way that it is true. After the experience of Viet Nam, WE SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

There is a definition for insanity that is used in AA, insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. So let's just invade Iran now okay? Iran's getting weapons of mass destruction aren't they? And why do you think that? Well the administration tells you so, and why the hell would you believe the administration THIS time?

You know it's funny, people like to act as if there was unanimous agreement to invade Iraq, yet there were MORE countries who opposed it than favored it (many of them with their own intelligence departments (in hindsight, more competent ones)). There were many questions about the State of the Union Address BEFORE the Iraq war started. Do you recall Hans Blix? Let's not do any "revisionist history" about how popular this war was earlier on. I think this was the first war where people could see the mistake coming beforehand enough to print up "No Iraq War" signs BEFORE it started. It's not as if George might not have realized there was some doubts about the whole thing, but then this is a "faith based" administration, not a "reality based" one. And people seem to think that they have to re-elect President Bush based on slogan appeal rather than performance in office.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." --George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

Who was President when the worst terrorist attack in history happened? (Hint, he was NOT a Democrat), but hey, let's give Bush another 4 years, MAYBE he'll not screw up THIS time?

Give it up on the "31 nations," RJ.

The list is mostly countries like Costa Rica, which added only its name to the list but sent no troops, no money, no other support of any kind. And several, including Costa Rica, are pulling even their names out of the "fraudulent coalition."

In the invading forces, 90% of the troops, the costs and the deaths are American (many, many more Iraqis are dying, of course).

It was unilateralist, as even in those nations that did contribute, the majority of the populations were against doing so, and the politicians who went against their people's will - because of coercion, bribery and in one case perhaps sincere belief - are having problems at home.

By the way, on the reasonable assumption that you didn't read the material at the links I provided, here's what one of the neocons said on May second, the day after the infamous "Mission Accomplished" presidential photo-op:

"Relax, Celebrate Victory," By Richard Perle May 2, 2003

From start to finish, President Bush has led the United States and its coalition partners to the most important military victory since World War II. And like the allied victory over the axis powers, the liberation of Iraq is more than the end of a brutal dictatorship: It is the foundation for a decent, humane government that will represent all the people of Iraq.

"This was a war worth fighting. It ended quickly with few civilian casualties and with little damage to Iraq's cities, towns or infrastructure. It ended without the Arab world rising up against us, as the war's critics feared, without the quagmire they predicted, without the heavy losses in house-to-house fighting they warned us to expect."[Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute site or on the official State Department site] [Clearly this indicates that Perle understood Bush to say the war was over the day before.]

Isn't it more hurtful to belittle our the allies we all ready have?

Isn't it disingenous to pretend that this was not a US-driven invasion which none of the other countries wanted on their own, only grudgingly joined, and even then was supported only by politicians but was opposed by the citizens of the countries involved?

"Isn't it more hurtful to belittle our the allies we all ready have?" Speaking for Americans everywhere I would like to apologize to the 33 troops from Singapore and the 28 troops for Macedonia and all the other members of our glorious coalition for not acknowledging that they are the greatest powers on Earth. Some have sent more and the total from this site (counting some not actually in the country of Iraq) is about 26,000. So we have over 100,000 Americans, that works out to a coalition that is 80% American. Not uni-lateral perhaps, but not an international surge of support either.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm

Some haunting similarities:

Viet Nam =
A mistake based on lies and scare tactics.
Lasted for years.
Unwinnable.
Quagmire.
No-Exit Options.
Lots of useless dead American GIs.
Divided America.
Drained resources.
A guerilla war against unknown, unseen, often non-military (civilian) adversaries.
Boosted Military-Industrial profits.

Iraq = A mistake based on lies and scare tactics.
Will last for years (probably decades!).
Unwinnable.
Quagmire.
No-Exit Options.
Lots of useless dead American GIs.
Dividing America.
Draining resources.
A guerilla war against unknown, unseen, often non-military (civilian) adversaries.
Boosting Military-Industrial profits.

------------

I do hope Bush wins the election, tho.

In Texas, we believe that if you shit in your hat, you should have to wear it.

*Four More Years with a deadly pile of poop on his pointy little head. Can't wait!

*added benefit: will delegitimize and illustrate inherent errors and corruption of Neo-Con philosophy -- and hopefully put that baby monster to rest with a stake through its little black heart.

Go Bush!

That is what I'm saying. Calling Great Britian and Australia a coalition of the bribed is not going to make them like us more.

The majority of citizens in Auatralia and Britain were against joining the US unilateralist invasion.

But the object is not whether they like us or not; the point is that it was a stupid idea, it had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorists, and had everything to do with the neoconservative ideology.

And to get back to original post, the effects will be far worse and last far longer than the US invasion of Vietnam.

One reason is that as we speak, more than a billion Muslims have access to television programs showing another 59 Iraqis killed because of the occupying American forces.

The numbers change, but the pictures they see remain the same, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after ...

And the government decided it was in their interest to protect their country and they helped us. The government has far more information than common hacks in society.

Yeah, I know. We were there for the oil.

No, it won't. We have the country, we have the majority of the people rebuilding the country and putting in a democracy, unlike Vietnam.

Yeah.. occupiers. The term usually used by international media that is anti-American. Al-Jaazera, no bias.

The US were invaders then, after handing over pseudo-sovereignty to a few select Iraqis, became occupiers by anyone's definition. Surely you don't see the US military forces as Goodwill Ambassadors?

And nobody is "putting in a democracy" - that was a neoconservative pipe dream. Please read the info at the neocon links I provided, where they themselves describe this.

Note, though, that the neocons have since started pulling back on this and use terms like "limited" democracy as the best that can be done.

And control of the oil was, indeed, part of the neocon plan.

The other part was to help improve the security of Israel by removing Saddam - see A Clean Break, a policy paper prepared by some neocons for Israeli hardline right-wing prime minister Netanyahu back in 1996.

A few days after the report was prepared, Prime Minister Netanyahu presented it virtually verbatim to the US congress, looking for help from the US to get rid of Saddam. Congress didn't buy it, so the neocons pushed Clinton on the policy. He didn't buy it either, so the neocons got Republican Trent Lott and Republican Newt Gingrich to pass the Iraq Liberation Act.

This is serious stuff - please pay attention rather than just repeating ideological positions.

I see them as good people doing a tough job.. a job they believe in.

I know, because you have your position, I'm just a sheep in the trance of the government. I see now that the neoconservatives have a plan to take over all of the Middle East.

Did you read nothing the neocons themselves have said?

I guess it's still true that "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink."

The neocons were not shy in publicizing their policies, and I'm not convinced that you would support them if you knew what those policies actually were.

I've provided links to the "water."

Now it's up to you.

I refuse to drink.

Of course - it's the Stepford-Republican way.

I refuse to drink.

ROFL! Only in the blogosphere . . . or at Free Republic. Nah. No one who would even question Shrub's policy in the Middle East (except for anti-Semitic slurs against the neocons) would remain a member of FR for long. Only in the blogosphere.

Hal, you have a link at Mac-a-ro-nies.

that's swell - where's the link to Blogcritics? As we explained, any unreciprocated outgoing links reduce our search engine ranking, which in turn harms all fellow Blogcritics

Thanks, MD.

I'm constantly amazed at how many continue to unthinkingly swallow ideological assertions clearly contradicted by fact.

I suppose that, for some, it hurts to think.

Hal, though we often disagree, you do an excellent job of documenting, supporting and arguing your positions - you are very well-informed.

However, you are just as "ideological" as anyone else. It is beneath you to regularly pursue the line of reasoning that anyone who doesn't agree with your particular position on any given issue is somehow illogical, following blindly, is a "Stepford" this or that, and that whatever decision you make on a given issue is somehow logically and morally superior to any other potential position. People can very easily observe and consider the exact same facts and statistics as you and come to a very different conclusion without being an idiot, a blind follower, or an ideologue. Condescension never forwards a debate.

Eric, in this case it's pretty clear that the other poster refused to even read materials that would have educated him on his ideological position. It seems clear to me that he was, indeed, blindly following their assertions without really knowing and understanding what is behind those assertions. To me, that's Stepfordish.

I don't claim any moral superiority, but do claim that I at least make my decision based on more facts - and I do accept facts from all sides. I think that does give me a logical superiority.

As far as ideologies go, my only rock-solid position is that against the neoconservatives. They have undermined what it means to be "American," especially as they have projected this into the world at large.

There's a further neoconservative issue that those prominent in this ideology are also generally very wealthy and use their think tanks to increase their wealth behind the mask of various market theories. The American Enterprise Institute is very good at this. They have created a group of "Market Fundamentalist" followers (some true neocons may actually believe it themselves) that use claims like that of "Free Trade" to increase their wealth through arrangements that are far from free trade. The MFs (Market Fundamentalists) have gathered around them a number of followers who unthinkingly accept - and believe they believe - the MF's assertions, and are as zealous as followers of any other religion. I've blogged a bit on this, will continue more and try to put it in the context of what has happened through globalization, particularly since about 1980, as time goes on.

As far as any other ideologies go, I think I'm pretty free-ranging. I'd say I'm reasonably fiscally conservative, but have no particular love or loathing for Democrats or Republicans, Libertarians or Greenies, atheists or religionists, because of what they believe.

You'll see more of this after Kerry is elected and the neocons are removed from government. I have my non-partisan sights set on several Congressmen already, but first things first.

MFs = Market Fundamentalists. Hee! Hee! Hee!

Eric, I don't think you really want a link to that entry. I wrote it late last night after being peeved about the 'eff information' entries and comments I had read at several blogs recently. The difference between gibberish and informed opinion is too often overlooked in the blogosphere. Another example. There was a comment claiming Marion Barry, who is running for mayor of D.C. again, is semiliterate. I posted an excerpt from a bio saying he had been in a graduate program in chemistry before becoming an activist. There will be responses freaking out over that information. The fellow who posted the claptrap will be applauded. The entry was 'supposed to be' an opportunity to sneer, not an opportunity to provide information. That is what the blogosphere is like too much of the time.

"more than a billion Muslims have access to television programs showing another 59 Iraqis killed because of the occupying American forces."

Typical Leftist attitude. Blame America's military instead of foreign terrorists...

No, RJ, you obviously don't understand.

Now that we have tried the neocon plan of exporting democracy at the barrel of a gun, Muslims see the results of that process every day.

Regardless of whose "fault" the killings of the civilians are, Muslims around the world see civilians being killed, over and over and over again, in a country invaded and occupied by Americans.

The car bombs are obviously from the terrorists, but I doubt that the newscasts make much distinction between those deaths and those caused by Americans bombing and shooting up Falloujah or Sadr City.

This clearly is not going to get more Muslims to embrace "the American way," and many Americans tried to tell the neocons that before their invasion.

It's not working and never stood a chance of working.

Right now, the country is splitting up into zones, and civil war in the relatively near future seems the most likely outcome.

THE BAD NEWS: [Hal] "...Now that we have tried the neocon plan of exporting democracy at the barrel of a gun, Muslims see the results of that process every day...

...Right now, the country is splitting up into zones, and civil war in the relatively near future seems the most likely outcome."

THE GOOD NEWS: Thanks to the American invasion, many more Iraqis now have working TV sets.

(Oops.)

Oh, and Hal used "civil war" -- which Shark also has been harping on since before the invasion/occupation.

"Welcome to the Middle East, Mr. Bush!"

More on Viet Raq from the Sharkian Archives

President Bush's decision to invade and occupy Iraq is the worst American decision of the last one hundred years.

No weapons of mass destruction. No imminent threat. No connection between Saddam and 9-11. No welcoming throngs for our liberating troops. Not enough oil money to pay for the reconstruction. And the conceit that "major combat operations" are over, as broadcast from an aircraft carrier last May, has long ago faded.

Who can ever forget the deathly arrogance of a President who challenges our opponents to "bring it on" as if war is a drunken brawl among hormonal teenagers?

Of course, it was all wrong. And disastrously so.

Our military forces have been stretched to the breaking point, and we are vulnerable to crises erupting in other parts of the world. "Bush arguably has committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory. To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target." -James Webb, former Secretary of the Navy under President Reagan

And far from uprooting al Qaeda, our invasion and occupation of Iraq has energized the terrorists. The US occupation in the middle east is the best possible recruiting tool, and the International Institute for Strategic Studies recently estimated that al Qaeda now has more than 18,000 potential terrorists in more than 60 nations around the world. We are not safer, but more at risk.

The sad truth is that we should not be surprised. Few presidents were less prepared for office than Mr. Bush. Few had failed so often and had been bailed out by so many, or had such ignorance and disdain for the world beyond Texas than George W. Bush.

It will take the United States decades to recover. But we will. But in doing so, we must first recognize just how massive are the consequences of our Iraqi invasion. If George W Bush is incapable of recognizing any mistakes made, that should not prevent the rest of us from vowing never again