After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
confessed the following:

Here's a link you might find interesting--it's a balanced (rare that!)
discussion of the possibility of an AQ-Iraq connection.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...lndzv.asp?pg=1

Read it...Tenet reports'credible evidence, reliable information,
etc...IOW a "slam dunk." But nobody can produce this evidence.

Hayes contradicts Clarke. LtCol Kwiatkowski reported that the
political neocon appointees that setup shop in the Pentagon
cherry-picked the bits that fit their pre-determined outcome.

I suppose Pakastani Intelligence officers that happen to be muslim and
provided assistance to AQ and Taliban in Afghanistan are proof of Pres
Musharraf's support of AQ? The logic follows the same as Mr Hayes
article. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia allows wahhabi islam (OBL's
particular brand) to be openly taught so that makes them
co-conspirators? Hey we've got evidence to support attacking current
allies.

We bring democracy to Iraq to fight terrorism while closely allied
with the monarchy of SA...common sense...not to me. Goes back to the
nation building theme.

Regarding my contention that we were at peace up until 9/11...

Your first sentence says "YES" and your last sentence says "no". I
remember the explosion quite well.

Who the enemy was that bombed USAFE HQ? Who did Reagan declare war on?
Did Waco, Ruby Ridge, or McVeigh's bombing in OKC mean we were in a
civil war? Not at all.

If you chose to use Beirut, Khobar Towers, the USS Cole as evidence of
war, does it seem logical that we were at war (or should be) with the
entire Middle East except for Israel and maybe Jordan?

Before you answer you should recall that gwb said in his 2003 SOTU,
"As we fight this war, we will remember where it began -- here, in our
own country." I'm guessing the gwb thought we were at peace.

I won't disagree on the "bad decisions" at Abu Ghraib. Lots of
failures of leadership at all levels up to brigade commander.

Ummm, SecDef Rumsfeld confessed that he was responsible. And this is
one time I believe him. Dep SecDef Wolfowitz' visit to Abu Ghraib in
Oct 2003 (photographed with the Bridgade CO) was probably a
coincidence, he wouldn't actually learn anything about the operation
(strictly need to know I guess). Plausible deniability.

But the continued assertion that there was no plan for transition is
tougher to accept. Of course there was a plan--an essential element of
the Powell Doctrine is "exit strategy". The problem is that events
don't always flow exactly the way the plan predicts. If that is a
failure of leadership, then every plan ever devised exhibits the same
problem.

The bulk of our armed forces are not equipped for rebuilding or
caretaker operations, absent civil affairs, MP, civil engineering. I
dont' think gwb & co looked much beyond being greeted as liberators.

I'm not disputing the great things our folks are doing to make life
better for Iraqis. It just appears to be the sincere efforts of good
guys rather than "the plan."

I suspect you would need to talk to my students regarding that
assertion. It is a leap to unsupported conclusions.

No it was simply an observation, you gave no indication that you read
any cite I provided (I've read all of yours...both?); but you did
kinda give me the wave of the hand and the virtual "pfffttt." This
post has been the most honest IMO exchange on this subject. I
appreciate the effort.

For you to extend my debate with you on this topic to some
sort of student intimidation or doctrinaire requirements
for successful grades is ridiculous.

Not really, my political science advisor was a WWII infantry officer
(Normandy to the Rhine) he came to dislike the military. He often
initially dismissed opposing views without considering the message.

Snip an excellent approach to thinking, but then there's this...

Probably not the way it is taught in the Ivy League, but it's what
happens where I work.

Oh boy...