home

Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War

The current violence in Iraq was anticipated before Bush decided to take down Saddam. As these articles suggest, Bush and his confederates knew what would happen and they went ahead with their invasion plans anyway. They are responsible for this mess.

Gates of Hell Will Open If US Attacks Iraq, Say Arab States
Published on Friday, September 6, 2002 in the Times/UK

THE United States was told last night that a war to oust President Saddam Hussein would "open the gates of Hell" in the Middle East. The chief of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, issued the warning after a meeting in Cairo of the foreign ministers from 20 Arab states. He urged Iraq, however, to readmit weapons inspectors in co- ordination with the United Nations.

The ministers issued a resolution calling for a "complete rejection of threats of aggression against some Arab countries, in particular Iraq". Their statement did not specifically refer to weapons inspectors, but Mr Moussa said that the ministers had agreed that they must be allowed back as part of an overall solution.

'Gates of Hell' are Open in Iraq, Warns Arab League Chief
Published on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 by Agence France Presse

CAIRO - Arab League chief Amr Mussa warned that the "gates of hell" had been opened in Iraq, as ministers from the pan-Arab grouping gathered for a meeting set to be dominated by the war-ravaged country. The session opened as at least 60 people were killed in two deadly attacks by suspected Sunni Arab insurgents in and around Baghdad. 'The gates of hell are open in Iraq,' Mussa said, voicing hope that Arab foreign ministers could 'help Iraq through this crisis, reestablish sovereignty throughout the country and end the American occupation'.

Gates of hell are open
The threat of a large-scale civil war in Iraq is imminent
Martin Chulov, Middle East correspondent
February 24, 2006

IN a land of daily bloodshed and bombings, it took another explosion this week to hammer home what many in Iraq and among its Arab neighbours have already accepted: a civil war is already being fought in the nation the US liberated.

It was an audacious attack even by the brutal standards of the new Iraq. When the giant dome of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, the holiest Shia shrine in the country, fell just before 7am on Wednesday, the inter-Islamic battles of the past 12 months reached a new nadir.

The toppling of a sacred site urged into the open the Shia fighters who had previously battled the Sunni uprising in the back lanes of towns and villages. The Shias now have a lightning rod to make their rebellion public. The gates of hell, slightly ajar for a year, have been flung wide open.

On The Brink In Iraq
Robert Dreyfuss, TomPaine
February 24, 2006

With Iraq perched at the very precipice of an ethnic and sectarian holocaust, the utter failure of the Bush administration's policy is revealed with starkest clarity. Iraq may or may not fall into the abyss in the next few days and weeks, but what is no longer in doubt is who is to blame: If Iraq is engulfed in civil war then Americans, Iraqis and the international community must hold President Bush and Vice President Cheney responsible for the destruction of Iraq.

The CIA, the State Department, members of Congress and countless Middle East experts warned Bush and Cheney-- to no avail-- that toppling Saddam could unleash the demons of civil war. They said so before the war, during it and in the aftermath, and each time the warnings were dismissed. Those warnings came from people like Paul Pillar, the CIA veteran who served as the U.S. intelligence community's chief Middle East analyst, from Wayne White, the State Department's chief intelligence analyst on Iraq and from two CIA Baghdad station chiefs who were purged for their analysis. Pillar, who wrote this month in Foreign Affairs that pre-war intelligence on Iraq was distorted by the Bush-Cheney team, is being excoriated by the right.

For the most radical-right neoconservative Jacobins amongst the Bush-Cheney team, the possibility that Iraq might fall apart wasn't even alarming: they just didn't care, and in their obsessive zeal to overthrow Saddam Hussein they were more than willing to take the risk. David Wurmser, who migrated from the Israeli-connected Washington Institute on Near East Policy to the American Enterprise Institute to the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans to John Bolton's arms control shop at the State Department to Dick Cheney's shadow National Security Council in the Office of the Vice President from 2001 to 2006, wrote during the 1990s that Iraq after Saddam was likely to descend into violent tribal, ethnic and sectarian war.

....Such black neoconservative fantasies--which view the Middle East as a chessboard on which they can move the pieces at will--have now come home to roost. For the many hundreds of thousands who might die in an Iraqi civil war, the consequences are all too real.

There's lots more, I recommend Dreyfus' entire article.

< Paratrooper Porn | Weekend Book and Movie Reviews >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 11:25:24 AM EST
    Ah yes, the old "Better the devil we know.." theory. Now if the Arab League had been serious in 2002, why didn't they boycott Iraq, suspending all contact, all trade, etc. That they didn't proves they weren't serious, but were actually seeking to retain the status quo. Why? Because if things changed, it would likely have an effect on them. Well, it has and it will. Did our government expect this? I think so. There was a ton of discussion about the various groups and how Saddam had kept them quite by killings, torture and fear. So, as with all change, it must be managed. Will it be? I think so. As Jimmy Durante said, "You aint seen nothing yet!"

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 11:36:26 AM EST
    These guys wanted chaos, knew it would happen and believed that they would have their democracy...eventually. The ultra-neocon agenda took on a Lenninist aproach to 'Nation Building' as Fukuyama points out:
    The war's supporters seemed to think that democracy was a kind of default condition to which societies reverted once the heavy lifting of coercive regime change occurred, rather than a long-term process of institution-building and reform.
    From Dreyfuss:
    Yet Wurmser explicitly urged the United States and Israel to "expedite" such a collapse. "The issue here is whether the West and Israel can construct a strategy for limiting and expediting the chaotic collapse that will ensue in order to move on to the task of creating a better circumstance."
    The Iraqis know the score:
    Proclaimed Hakim: "For sure, the statements made by the ambassador were not made in a responsible way and he did not behave like an ambassador. These statements were the reason for more pressure and gave green lights to terrorist groups. And, therefore, he shares in part of the responsibility."
    Hakim gets it right. Fukuyama writes about the group of Neocons who believe that the natural process of democracy can be accelerated by armed intervention leading to chaos. Theoretically democracy should follow. The US "Ambassador" to Iraq Khalilzad, a 'cousin' of the prince of darkness, is among them.
    Another stream came from Albert Wohlstetter, a Rand Corporation strategist who was the teacher of Richard Perle, Zalmay Khalilzad (the current American ambassador to Iraq) and Paul Wolfowitz (the former deputy secretary of defense), among other people.
    Nation building my a**. Stalin would be proud.

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#3)
    by roy on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 11:48:52 AM EST
    It's a scary situation, but there's some progress in settling things:
    Sunni and Shiite clerics reached an agreement Saturday in Iraq that could quell sectiarian violence...
    ...
    Several leading Sunni and Shiite clerics met Saturday and agreed to prohibit killings of members of each other's sects and to ban attacks on mosques and shrines.
    It's a good sign, but as I like to point out when Iraqi "leaders" complain about the US, it's hard to say who leads what over there. The actual violence may be coming from sects within sects, over which these clerics have little influence.

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 12:05:18 PM EST
    Roy- At first I was suspect of your fox link, as only they (and the WH) could paint the current situation in Iraq as showing "signs of progress'. After reading your link it is clear that you get the award for 'cherrypicker extraordinaire'. The fox article paints a devastating picture of the horrors unraveling in Iraq and is unrelenting. Your select quote distorts the gist of the article big time. Shame on you.

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 12:37:23 PM EST
    Message to America from the Iraqi Resistance The following is a transcript of a taped 9 minute speech given by a leader of the Iraqi resistance movement. The authors hoped to use the tape as a way to open an honest dialogue with the American people by bypassing the filter of the Bush government and its media cohorts. Your representives in your media have portrayed an image that an insurgency is in effect, and it is led by elements of foreign fighters entering from Syria and neigboring countries; yet we assure you, this is only a continuation of what Bush once claimed - "missioned acomplished". ... This resistance movement was prepared for, and is only the second Chapter of this war, and we are mostly if not all Iraqis, proud Iraqis, who have kept their oaths to defend people of country.And because this war may last longer than what the invaders anticipated, we have all promised to make their stay long, costly, and painful. The conduct of your troops has also taken its toll on our people. It has created resentment and disgust. They dismiss these war crimes as isolated cases, yet the figures are always on the rise. Once more are scandals of abu-garieb, calca, and the use of chemical weapons on Fallujah. Only God knows what is to come. Life under dictatorship is far more safer than behind the bars of your democracy.

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#6)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 01:17:30 PM EST
    When hasnt Fox described the situation as progressing along nicely? Of course, not to would be "giviong aid and comfort to the terrorists" right? During the red state characterized "war of northern agression", Johnny Reb gave as his reason for fighting "cuz youre down here." and many an American still takes pride in understanding what he meant, yet we somehow dream of flowers, parades and knuckling under from the Iraqis.

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#7)
    by john horse on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 02:20:21 PM EST
    According to the newly issued Pentagon report entitled "Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq" "Terrorist attacks have failed to create and spread sectarian conflict," so there is nothing to worry about, right?

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#8)
    by TomStewart on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 03:21:25 PM EST
    Hey Jim, It Al Jolson who said "You ain't seen (heard) nothing yet!" Durante said 'Dat's my boy who said that!" and "Everybody want's ta get into the act!"

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#9)
    by roy on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 04:28:51 PM EST
    Squeaky & Jondee, It's not a Fox article, it's an AP article that Fox put up. You can read it off another web site if you like. It supports my point that there's interest within the sects in working together to stop killing each other. But, yeah, the agreement is only one piece of news out of a lot, most of which is bad. I think Fox added the optimistic "could quell" paragraph I first quoted, and they've since removed it.

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 05:26:35 PM EST
    Fox seems to think civil war in Iraq would be a good thing: The Bright Side of Civil War in Iraq.

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 07:23:29 PM EST
    TomStewart - My memory and a couple of sites say Durante... But I am not a master of triva.. edger - Your comment reminds me of all the Tokyo Rose scenes in the WWII war movies.. You know..."You boys can't win. We are winning. You boys can't win."

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 06:43:39 AM EST
    There is nothing to win...except for treasury looting contracts.

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#13)
    by aw on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 10:33:54 AM EST
    "You aint seen nothing yet!"
    You're right, I've never seen a world war, myself.

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 11:07:35 AM EST
    Sistani is now forming his own militia. Bad sign.Juan Cole I forgot, what is the US doing in Iraq? The recent Pentagon report claims that 0 Iraqi troops can fight without US assistance. Hmmm.... I suspect that it is another Through the Looking Glass bit of info to shore up Humpty Dumpty's wall 'cause is sure looks like he's gonna fall . The Iraqis need the US armed forces to fight its occupiers???? Better get a long term military base built fast so we can help the poor fools. The real question is always: Who are the real fools?

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#15)
    by john horse on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 11:38:29 AM EST
    I am so glad to see that there are still some people who believe that the Bush administration is capable of anticipating events in Iraq. They stubbornly cling to this faith in Iraqi progress despite all evidence to the contrary. For example, here is the latest gem from the recent Pentagon report on Iraq, "Terrorist attacks have failed to create and spread sectarian conflict". Nothing illustrates better the fantasy world that the supporters of the Iraqi occupation live in than this statement from the Pentagon only a week before the bombing of the shrine in Samarra. However, for you who still believe that the Bush administration anticipated these events don't you think the response would have been something other than for our military to be initially powerless when the crisis broke out on Wednesday? To be fair, the military did get one thing right. According to this report, the number of Iraqi batallions that are capable of fighting the insurgents has dropped from one to none. So given that American soldiers are continuing to be killed or injured in Iraq, I would hope that those who support our occupation can come up with some evidence that things are getting better because the facts strongly suggest otherwise.

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 12:11:58 PM EST
    Gee, Sectarian violence and civil war. Wow. Who could've seen that comin'? Well, who that hasn't completed the third grade, that is.

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 12:26:15 PM EST
    edger - Your comment reminds me of all the Tokyo Rose scenes in the WWII war movies.. You know..."You boys can't win. We are winning. You boys can't win And this reminds me of Goebbels'"Things are going great in Stalingrad. Our glorious fuhrer - the greatest military genius of all time - has the Bolsheviks right where he wants them." garbage. James Buchanan is singin' "I'm off the hook. I'm not the worst. I'm not the worst."

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#18)
    by Sailor on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 01:51:53 PM EST
    March 16 2003
    Vice President Cheney , on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months."
    But then:
    An Army War College report to the Army's No. 2 general a month before the invasion and since made public predicted, "The longer U.S. presence is maintained, the more likely violent resistance will develop."
    2/24/2006:
    The U.S. report claimed important successes against the insurgency and said the term "insurgency" is not necessarily appropriate anymore because the synergy that once existed among various rebel elements "is breaking apart." The report asserted that the insurgents have alienated most ordinary Iraqis. "Terrorist attacks have failed to create and spread sectarian conflict," it said.


    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#19)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 02:00:00 PM EST
    The worst of these delusional chickensh*thawks still think that Iran and Syria should be included in thier big regime change jackoff fantasy. I say we save alot of trouble and maybe turn the U. of Chicago into a parking lot.

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#20)
    by john horse on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 04:36:37 PM EST
    Have you heard the latest from Willian F. "Tokyo Rose" Buckley: "One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. . . . [Bush] will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies. Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat. . . ." The occupation of Iraq is not sustainable. Everyday, the number of supporters of this war becomes fewer while the number of Americans killed or injured grows larger.

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 04:48:19 PM EST
    John Horse - I was wait for someone to sieze on Buckley's comments. You should remember that Buckley is an old line conservative. He supported almost any short term program if it twarted the Soviets, and aided America. The Left hated that. Now when we have a President who wants a longer view, and is more selective of who our friends are, you don't like him. Just curious. Are you an isolationist? Anti-Wilson Democrat? Or are you really against Bush because everyone assumed that the Sainted Algore would be elected and continue the failed policies of the Clinton administration?

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 05:01:39 PM EST
    Oh, a longer view, eh? That means he wants to open the vein and prolong the bleeding. I'll pass. Which failed policies? The balanced budget, Record surplus ones? The Two World Trade Center Towers in Lower Manhattan ones? Yeah, those were real hard times. Talk about your Grapes of Wrath. How on Earth did we get by without the madness of king george?

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 05:30:43 PM EST
    charliedontsurf1 - I never minded Clinton. I was making money, gas hovered aroud $1 a gallon. Life was good. Then one day reality crept into the room on cat's feet. So softly we didn't note what was happening until 3000 or so was dead, and we realized that we had been living in a fool's paradise. The Left could offer no defense, no counter to Bush's plans except isolationism. Since this was not the late 1920's, the country didn't buy their claims, and since they had no plans except to give up and retreat, we are were we are.

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 05:49:42 PM EST
    The final victory is certain (Scroll down to the #3 hit)

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 06:00:11 PM EST
    Shrub had stolen the Presidency. He'd done absolutely nothing to address OBL, Al Qaida or the Taliban on the morning on 9/11/01. In fact, much like today with this UAE Port fiasco, he couldn't get his story straight as to the number of ports, when he learned about it, what he knew and when he knew it, yada, yada, yada. But as he does now, he'd wave the flag, put on the flight suit, salute smartly and the rubes would just eat it up with a spoon. They still do. Just not as many. In fact, it's down to the hardcore 35-40 percent who'd stick with him if he started sendin' flowers and candy to sheep. Nothin'. Absolutely nothin' he's done has made this Country or this World a better place for the Country and the World at large. Saddam and his sons and his regime are gone, but at what cost? More people have died and been maimed than would have been affected had he stayed in power. It's not even close. This clown and his regime have no redeeming qualities whatsoever. He's undoubtedly the most incompetent, corrupt, President in US History. It's not even close. Any remotely responsible Congress would've impeached him midway through his first term. Of course, Any responsible Congress and Supreme Court never would've let him steal the Presidency in the first place.

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 06:47:09 PM EST
    The Left could offer no defense, no counter to Bush's plans except isolationism. Since this was not the late 1920's, the country didn't buy their claims, and since they had no plans except to give up and retreat, we are were we are. Jim, this really has reached epidemic proportions. You've really got to proof your copy and use spell-check, pal. I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I don't know if you've confused the Parties, yet again, once more with feeling, it was the Republicans who were the 20th Century Isolationists, not the Democrats, see hatchetman bob dole's reference to "Democrat Wars", or whether you're trying to go Steisand on me and sing the "Way we Were".

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#27)
    by john horse on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 07:48:25 PM EST
    charlie, You've got to admire Bush. No matter how many of our sons and daughters have to be sacrificed he will steadfastly stay the course.

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#28)
    by Sailor on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 07:52:11 PM EST
    reality didn't creep in, bush got appointed by the supremes.

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 06:40:23 AM EST
    charliedontsurf1 - Laying aside your totally inaccurate statement about the 00 election, you write:
    He'd done absolutely nothing to address OBL, Al Qaida or the Taliban on the morning on 9/11/01.
    Actually, much had been done.
    (Rice)"At the special meeting on July 5(2001) were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."
    And even further back, according to Clarke, who is no friend of the administration, we have this.
    QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later? CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March (2001) to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination. QUESTION: Well can you clarify something? I've been told that he gave that direction at the end of May. Is that not correct? CLARKE: No, it was March.
    charlie, you confuse the 20's and 30's with the 60's, 70's and onward. Starting with riots and protests by the Left the movement slowly morphed into a group that was focused inward and wanted no part of the rest of the world except to offer up the Soviets and the UN as shinning examples of what America should be. When Reagan called the Soviets out in front of the whole world with his "evil empire comment," the whole Left reacted with shock and dithering. The Left was further shocked to discover that the world didn't end. You also write:
    More people have died and been maimed than would have been affected had he stayed in power
    You are making assumptions. How many would have died when he re-established his nuclear program, which the Kay Report clearly says he was trying to do. There is no doubt that he would sold, or given, a nuke to any one of the terrorist groups for delivery and detonation in America. BTW - Have read some of the transcripts of Saddams conversations. If not, do so. He clearly says that here will be an attack on America. That was either a good guess or a statement of fact based on known information. So we are now in Iraq, and to my view we are winning. It isn't pretty, I never thought it would, and always kind of groaned when anyone said it would. But if you read the various reports we do find that there is more talking than there was, and that the process is moving forward.

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 07:21:03 AM EST
    But if you read the various reports we do find that there is more talking than there was, and that the process is moving forward. Can you cite a link for either assertion?

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#31)
    by Sailor on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 09:05:34 AM EST
    stop lying jim. The final Kay report said no such thing.
    Kay: "It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing."
    Here's more about your favorite disaster monkey: Iraq is connected to al Qaeda:
    Bush: "We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."*
    But then:
    The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.
    ************************ Iraq has weapons of mass destruction:
    Cheney: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. Rumsfeld: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
    But then:
    Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.
    *********************** The war will be over quickly and we will be greeted as liberators:
    March 16, Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months."
    But then:
    US Casualties By Year
    YearUS DeathsUS Wounded
    20034862409
    20048487989
    20058465944
    2006110311
    Total229016653
    *********************** The war will pay for itself:
    Earlier this year, experts said the war and aftermath in Iraq would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, a fact the White House refused to acknowledge as valid, even going so far as to fire Lawrence Lindsey for his realistic projections. [...] Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: "There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people...and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years...We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]
    But then:
    The Pentagon is spending more than $5.8 billion a month on the war in Iraq, according to the military's top generals. That is nearly a 50 percent increase above the $4 billion-a-month benchmark the Pentagon has used to estimate the cost of the war so far. ... the war in Iraq, which has cost an estimated $250 billion since the U.S. invasion in March 2003.
    ********************** The insurgency is in its death throes:
    June 20, 2005, interview on CNN's Larry King Live: Hailing what he described as "major progress" in Iraq, Cheney said, "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."
    But then:
    But a former British ambassador to Iraq predicted Sunday that increasing sectarian bloodshed would require that troops in the U.S.-led foreign coalition stay for some time to help keep peace among rival ethnic and religious groups.
    ********************** More Iraqi Troops are ready every day:
    Already more than 35 Iraqi battalions have assumed control of their own areas of responsibility - including nearly half of Baghdad province and sectors of South-Central, Southeast, Western and North-Central Iraq.
    But then:
    U.S. Report on Iraqi Troops Is Mixed The number of Iraqi army battalions judged by their American trainers to be capable of fighting insurgents without U.S. help has fallen from one to none since September, Pentagon officials said yesterday.
    *********************** Light at the end of the tunnel:
    The U.S. report claimed important successes against the insurgency and said the term "insurgency" is not necessarily appropriate anymore because the synergy that once existed among various rebel elements "is breaking apart." The report asserted that the insurgents have alienated most ordinary Iraqis. "Terrorist attacks have failed to create and spread sectarian conflict," it said.
    But then:
    Iraq defence minister warns against civil war BAGHDAD, Feb 25 (Reuters) - Iraq's Defence Minister said on Saturday civil war would never end if it erupts and that he was ready to put tanks on the streets to impose order.
    *Bonus quote from the same speech: Bush-"Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse."

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 10:44:25 AM EST
    sailor - I have never seen a reputable source that says that Saddam did not want to restart his WMD programs. Perhaps you can provide a link? BTW - You cherry picked a paragraph in your WP link. The second paragraph says:
    The number of Iraqi army battalions judged by their American trainers to be capable of fighting insurgents without U.S. help has fallen from one to none since September, Pentagon officials said yesterday. But the number of Iraqi battalions capable of leading the battle, with U.S. troops in a support role, has grown by nearly 50 percent. And the number of battalions engaged in combat has increased by 11 percent.
    Dark Avenger - That is called "opinion" and is based on what I read, hear and see.

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 11:09:07 AM EST
    Nice dodging there PPJ, but no Rove points for you today, I fear.

    Re: Iraq: The Gates of Hell and Civil War (none / 0) (#34)
    by Sailor on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 11:59:39 AM EST
    ahh, the old morphing of goal posts from the usual suspects. from 'We know he has WMDs and where they are!' to 'he has intentions of some day acquiring weapons of mass destruction program related activities.' I never said that "Saddam did not want to restart his WMD programs.", that had nothing to do with what I was saying. So you lied about that. nothing cherry picking about it, I just showed how your fearless leader lied to you again- "Already more than 35 Iraqi battalions have assumed control of their own areas of responsibility" as opposed to NONE! So you pretty much lied about that. So you just lied twice about what I wrote, and it's all there in black and white for all to read. Why you are even allowed to comment here is beyond me, all you do is distort things and insult people. And you're certainly very quick to try to get other people kicked off. However, you do qualify for a job in the current admin, they need more people all the time to carry their kool aid for them.