Will Iraq elections be held?

My guess -- and various other people have agreed with me -- is that there will be a civil war instead of an election.

.
January 30th, the scheduled date of the election, is less than twenty days away, and the only thing that could stop it would be a total collapse of the coalition mission. Sure, there will probably be some isolated instances of disruption, but, for the most part, there is relative order throughout the country. Most Iraqis, I am certain, are anxious to look ahead and work on a future "free" Iraq.

Don't forget, while it might seem like total chaos and disruption by hearing the reports of violence as you are, those are isolated cases indeed. For each instance of "trouble", per se, there are anywhere from 9 to 99 instances of peace and stability. Don't forget the lesson we should have all learned by now, and that is the bad news from Iraq is only 1 to 10 percent of the total news. I would guess that anywhere from 90 to 99 percent of Iraq is functioning just as planned, but you just don't hear about it.

My cousin (an MP) just got back from his tour in Iraq (with ALL his men!!!) where they were training the new Iraqi police force. The new police has already been infiltrated by insurgents. The training facility was under daily mortar fire, and the non-insurgent Iraqi trainees were frequently detained and tortured by insurgents on their way to the training facility. One of the trainees entire family was kidnapped and murdered. The insurgents are way too plentiful and dedicated to allow something like an election take place. Even if the election DOES take place, it's not going to matter to the insurgents... do you honestly think that having a president is going to make them wake up the day after the election and go, "Ok, we can stop bombing our neighbors now."

You make it sound like democracy is a panacea for a country in such critical condition as Iraq. But can it really ensure freedom to Iraq? Don't get me wrong. I don't deny the benefits that democracy brings, but there is still so much to do before we can reach that point in Iraq. The president often indicates that it would not be easy for this election to take place. He even compares it to our own struggle for democracy, but even our case was much different. We first won the war and then got our first elected president. We didn?t cast ballots with redcoats crawling all over the place. True, elections are about choice. But even if they do choose to vote, how can they exercise that choice without the major risk of getting shot at?

The media are a lazy bunch. I think they sell the sensational bad news because it's easier. MOST news they report is bad. Yes, of course they have recognition pieces, but they seem to go out of their way to show the bad stuff - and pump it more than necessary, I'd wager.

But there isn't a timetable that I have seen - not one with us pulling out troops. I wouldn't mind seeing the official release if you know where it is.

Thanks. I have read them all. They all seem to point towards the same thing. As quoted from Bush:

"There are five steps in our plan to help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom."

However, there is no timetable for withdrawing the troops. In fact, while explaining the plan, the president states that we'll have to be there all along. He gives no end in sight.

So, what good is it?

in the manner the US and its coalition partners envisage them. If Bush hasn't learnt by now, I daresay he never will, but Iraq is a country where "free, democratic, western-style elections" (either based on the US system or the UK Westminster system) simply will never work.

Doesn't anybody remember that, not so very long ago, Saddam Hussein was the darling of the US administration? So was Osama bin Laden.

That's how Iraq got hold of all those WMDs which, as of yesterday (13th) the US has now formally declared "don't exist" but which are nevertheless still hidden securely along the borders of the countries around Iraq, namely Syria, in spite of what the Iraqis would have us believe.

If these present elections go ahead in the way the US wants them to, it'll all end up exactly the same as before, give it twelve or fifteen years or so.

I'd be so bold as to predict that should the elections go ahead in the manner the US and the coalition want them to on the 30th, there will be a bloodbath -- as if there wasn't enough innocent blood being spilt already! -- something along the lines of the East Timor elections a few years ago.

Iraq is NOT a "western" country (whatever that really means!). It's a middle eastern country with a 99% Islamic population. There are two major factions, the Sunnis and the Shi'ites, plus other minor groups, namely the Kurds in the north.

What the Iraqis want is NOT a western-style democracy simply because that kind of set-up doesn't meld with an Islamic lifestyle, even a more progressive one than they've been accustomed to.

They want a country run on (mostly??) Sharia law, interpreted to meld into a progressive 21st century. Twenty-first century does NOT equal western-style democracy, before anyone jumps in and tries to tell me so.

And please, PLEASE don't start on all that rubbish about Islamic terrorists (the vast majority of the insurgents) running everything in a Taliban-style way. Wrong, people, wrong, wrong, WRONG!!!

The insurgents will butt out once they can see Iraq heading in this direction, sans US, sans coalition and sans any other nosey-parkers who just may think it's their business to give these poor, downtrodden, oppressed people any advice.

The great majority of Iraqis, perhaps well in excess of 90%, are neither downtrodden nor oppressed. Maybe it looks like that to us, but we live under a different system, so we shouldn't go criticising something we don't understand.

In any case, it's mainly due to us (the "west") at the moment that they may appear to be rather more downtrodden and oppressed than what's normal. That's because WE'RE the ones making causing them to be like that!!

Most of this 90%+ just want to get on with their lives and live in relative peace with their neighbours. They've had it up to the eyeballs with war and bloodshed; they're sick of it, as sick of it as we are if the truth be known.

True, there's the other 10% (probably less, but they whack a pretty major punch, so it seems more) who can be classed as "terrorists", or, to use the modern jargon, "Islamists".

Islamists are those Muslims (generally young men) who study in special schools called "madrassahs" where they learn (are taught) a particularly twisted version of the Qu'ran.

The Qu'ran, per se, does not advocate killing in the way the Islamists interpret it. Neither does it advocate "jihad", which, according to the French Muslim scholar, Professor Tariq Ramadan, does NOT have anything to do with "holy war".

Ramadan states that "jihad" means "struggle" (vb), in the sense of struggling within oneself to achieve "islam", or complete submission to God (Allah). Period.

Having cleared up those two little oft-quoted misconceptions, the insurgents working in Iraq will pull back once they can be assured that the US and any other "western" influences have left their country and only the Iraqi people are left to decide their own future.

I'd like to predict that, this being the case, the Iraqi people will come down heavily in favour of a 21st century (progressive) form of Islam everyone can live with. It may not quite suit us, but you can be sure it'll suit the Iraqis!

And if there's any bickering along the way while this process is being decided, well, for heaven's sake, it's the Iraqis' business, not ours! They'll get back on their feet again by themselves, without us (the "west") trying to act as their (very unwanted) crutch.

Oh, by the way, I'm not a member of the media, although I wish I was, and I'm Jewish -- with heaps of Muslim friends.

Levannah

Well Levannah, you have certainly addressed every conceivable aspect of the topic, and thrown in a few other opinions and facts for good measure.

However, would I be correct in suggesting that the essence of your posting is that: IF elections are held in Iraq and IF a Western-style democracy is established, it is, for the various reasons you have stated, doomed to collapse sooner or later (probably sooner)?

.
The answer to your question has indeed been given time and time again. However, whether or not you choose to accept it as a reasonable and valid answer is entirely up to you.

How long will the troops remain in Iraq, you ask? As long as it takes, is the answer. If you see that answer with blinders on, without delving into the rest of the answer or the reasoning behind it, you'll probably not like it, and you'll come up with objections such as the one you stated. However, it's also been said time and time again that if a precise time-table were to be laid-out, that the enemy (the insurgents) would just "lay-low" until that time comes, and only then proceed with their dirty deeds after the troops were gone.

In the long term, as long as the enemy (the insurgents) continues to kill innocent Iraqis, as long as the enemy (the insurgents) continues to destroy Iraq's infrastructure, as long as the enemy (the insurgents) continues to kill the duly elected or duly appointed Iraqi government officials, as long as the enemy (the insurgents) continues to kill those Iraqis who are supporting the cause for a free Iraq, the U.S forces will remain. What's so difficult about understanding and accepting that? Can you imagine the same question being asked of President Roosevelt in 1944 in the days following the allied invasion of Europe at Normandy? Well, how long will those troops remain in Europe, Mr. Roosevelt? As long as it takes, would be his answer. (And they are still there today, by the way.)

In the short term, it's been said that the U.S, troops are needed, and that they will remain in order to ensure the completion of free elections. The enemy (the insurgents) is trying to prevent that from happening. They don't want a free and democratic Iraq, while the majority of Iraqis do. It's been said that if, after such elections take place, the duly elected government of Iraq were to ask the US to remove all troops from its soil, that the US would comply with that request. But a lot depends on how things progress after the elections. If some semblance of order is restored to the various hot-spots, and the new and duly elected government begins to take over various security rolls, and the insurgent attempts to undermine the new Iraqi government subsides, then you'll certainly see a gradual withdraw of US troops. If the enemy (the insurgents), continues the attempts to destroy and undermine the success of the new and duly elected government, the U.S. troops will probably remain until they can be contained.

What's so hard about understanding that? There were people against taking these actions in Iraq from the very beginning, one of whom was you. And many of those people have been looking for reasons to support their opposition, and discredit the efforts every step of the way. I believe the most reasonable "opposition" position is not coming from the United Nations, nor from the opposition party (or opposition people) in the U.S., but from the Vatican. They were against the action from the beginning, at least the way it was taken, but now the Vatican seems to be the lone "opposition" voice of reason.

The following was cut and pasted from a recent news story:

The U.S. ambassador to the Vatican said Tuesday that officials in the Holy See want the United States to remain in Iraq and pacify the country despite Pope John Paul II's opposition to the war.

John Paul strongly opposed what the United States called a "preventive war" in Iraq, urging instead that U.N. weapons inspections be allowed to continue.

"We had an honest disagreement between two great leaders and what happened, happened," Ambassador Jim Nicholson said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Since then, most Vatican officials have been "forward looking," he said.

"I will say that virtually everyone I talk to at the Vatican do not want the United States to pull out of Iraq. They want us to stay in there, solidify and pacify Iraq and help it become a free, stable and democratic country," Nicholson said.

- End of copied news story.

And like I asked, what's so unreasonable about that?

And I don't mean that what you stated, from your perspective, is half-assed. I mean that simply stating that we're "there as long as it takes" doesn't address the entire question. When do we leave, what does it take to leave, specifically? I am sorry, but I don't buy the fact that the insurgents will just "lay low" until we leave. That's what they want, us to leave, and we just say "No." How about, "This is our plan to leave"?

Let me backtrack a bit.

I was against the invasion from the start. I, too, wanted the inspectors to do their job. Looks like that would have saved billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

We invaded. My thoughts are that since it was done, it must be done right. Too few troops were sent to do the job. Yes, the resounding success of such a fast overthrow was great, but we didn't have the peace-keeping forces there to backfill the areas that were "liberated" as that happened. Thus, no security was maintained.

Now, many of the arguments used by those Iraqis opposed to us have to do with the fact that we're there with no end in sight. I say, and it's getting late in the game for it by now, that we explain just what it would take to get us to leave under good circumstances.

For instance: put out a withdrawal timetable that sets realistic, non-arbitrary goals. Something like, "If Iraq has no more than X instances of 'insurgent activities' by the month of Y, then we will remove Z numbers of troops." This scale can shift, and can be graduated.

What's so hard about seeing this point of view? I know it's not as simple as saying we'll just do whatever it takes - but this isn't a simple world.

If this administration doesn't tell the world that it has plans to eventually leave, who believes they ever will? I expect that many of the insurgents are recruited with claims of national pride - who wants a "liberating occupation"?

Yes, we're giving them Democracy. But that word is hollow if there is not supporting evidence of self-governing. The US has stepped on its own feet a few times with their handling of this whole process - it could have been done better. And I'm not talking about hindsight, I'm talking about an honest belief that the US has done better before, and that there were good suggestions that this administration ignored. Had those suggestions been followed, or even debated, I think we'd have a better prospect now.

So you see, I'm not "with you or against you". By definition, I'm with my country, but I believe it can do better. I believe it should do better.

I don't believe in half-assed solutions. It's not an easy thing, sending kids to possibly die, or to be maimed, or to spend the collective money of kids not yet born. But if you're going to do that, I believe you should explain the entire process, and have it thought out, backwards and inside out, before you deal those cards.

So, what's so unreasonable about that?

It will make a juicy item for my website.

[If you are interested in visiting my websites, they are listed in my peer profile].

Honestly, who cares if they do, or if they don't. I am so tired of America worrying about these countries abroad, when our own backyard is messy! There's a saying that goes like this, "whenever someone uncovers someone elses flaw, it's only because their attempting to cover their own". That is what America the Great is doing.

.
You presume to know what the insurgents would do under different circumstances. What "inside information" do you have?

You presume to suggest that too few U.S troops were sent. General Tommy Franks disagrees with you. Why is your military analysis correct, while you suggest his is incorrect?

Your examples of a "timetable" presume that you understand the logistics, the political, and the reality of doing that. Don't you think that the military "experts" have the president's ear? Don't you think that those things -- and more -- have been considered? Again I have to ask, what makes your opinion more effective and more worthy of consideration than the military leaders who are running the show?

You asked, "If this administration doesn't tell the world that it has plans to eventually leave, who believes they ever will?" To which I will point out that they HAVE done that very thing. Moreover, as I mentioned (but you didn't comment on), it has been said that if the new and duly elected government of Iraq asked that the U.S. troops to be withdrawn, then they would indeed be withdrawn immediately. Apparently, you don't believe it.

Sure, you certainly have a right to your opinion, but it doesn't make it right. And your "arm-chair" quarterbacking should be taken for just that. We all know what "should be done" for the Bears or the Broncos to win the Super Bowl. But we "know" without really having the expertise to "really know".

which probably means it is entirely incorrect, as you are totally unable to back up your fanciful speculations with any hard data.

Sooner or later you will have to face the reality that your "Messiah" has feet of clay (better make that mud).

I suggest you start a debriefing program on yourself, lest the shock of the final revelation of Bush's incompetence and lies causes you to have a stroke or heart attack.

Since Garion has quietened down, you are now the sole member of TR who has faith and trust in Bush.

As you are so fond of quoting speculative ratios, perhaps you would care to make a guesstimate as to what proportion of TR members, or of American citizens, share your viewpoint.

.
Since you continue to post messages with such condescending tones, clearly illustrated by the disingenuous suggestion that I consider GWB a "Messiah", it just shows that you don't get it. You stretch things so far out of proportion that it leaves reality light-years in its wake. You either try to be cute, or try to be insulting, or whatever it is you're doing, and I can just hear the cute little giggle that usually accompanies such kind of talk. So it's very difficult to carry on a rational conversation with you. But that's your choice, not mine. And it's your problem, not mine. And if I could tie this into another thread, I'm resisting being dragged into the turkey coop with you.

As far as how many people at TechRepublic agree with me, I would say this. Out of the bunch of non-Americans, I would guess zero. Out of the bunch of Americans, I would guess 51 percent.

Okay guys, can you just listen up a moment, please? I'd like to correct one or two misconceptions if I may?

1) Insurgents (mainly Sunnis) = Iraqis, not enemy.

2) US (and the coalition) = enemy of Iraqis.

3) "Free" in the sense of election does not necessarily equate with "democratic".

4) Sunnis = one fifth of Iraqi population. The interim President is one. They are (mostly) the influential and/or wealthy. They threaten to boycott the election on January 30th.

5) Shi'ia = four-fifths of Iraqi population. They'd like the election to go ahead (most of them).

6) Kurds = underdog minority group in Northern Iraq. They have their own agenda insofar as oil is concerned (Iraq's biggest asset).

Now, given the above, I'll leave it up to you to draw your own conclusions. The answer's staring you in the face.

Levannah

Thank-you, Julian. I'm so glad someone else (besides me) understands where I'm coming from. It's good to know I'm not entirely alone out here in TR country!

I've just read Aldanatech's two links in the posts above, and frankly, I can't agree more with them. But what drives me to the hair-tearing-out point is that no-one seems to be picking up on what these articles are really saying!

Or rather, the direction they are inevitably pointing in, i.e. that the war in Iraq is wrong and always was, there was never a real basis for the invasion, and the sooner the US (and the coalition) get out and leave the Iraqis to do their own thing, however barbaric that may appear to us, the better.

I'm glad President Bush has at last had the courage to stand up and admit his mistakes; well, some of them, anyway. I can understand how he, and the American people, must have felt after 9/11; it was a senseless and unnecessary evil perpetrated on innocent people and any decent person's initial reaction would be retaliation, or vengeance.

But that's caused by anger, and anger is always one of the first emotions felt in the presence of grief, the "why me?" response. What President Bush should have done was to wait until that initial angry response had passed and then plan his actions.

By all means remain a little bit angry -- you'd get nowhere without it -- but lashing out at Iraq and Saddam Hussein just because Bush assumed too many things about them was not the answer.

Of course, everyone knows now, and no doubt knew then, that Saddam had become a pretty nasty character since his initial friendship with Washington back in the 80s. It was great to see the last of him and his regime, just as it was with Hitler back in WWII, but has any solid evidence really been turned up yet to support Bush's supposition that Saddam had anything to do with either the organisation of 9/11 or that he supported Osama bin Laden?

To the best of my knowledge, the answer is no. Everything is just hearsay and speculation, much as it was with the WMDs; "wishful thinking" as we like to say.

Anyway, reading through some of the other posts in this discussion, I felt impelled to write another post and spell it all out in rather plainer language this time so that everyone could understand.

I do understand and take your warning to heart, Julian, and hope I'm not "flamed" for my audacity, although I can't say I really have a "beef" against any individual in TR -- yet! I join in the discussions because I'm interested in the topic/s, and simply put forward my views on whatever matter is under the microscope.

I daresay I can understand how polarised the American contingent here at TR must have been during and prior to the election last year -- that would have been something to participate in! Bad luck I wasn't a member then!

Perhaps it's easier for me, an outsider (i.e. non-American) to see things as they really are. When you're on the "inside" it's often hard to see the reality of a situation you're involved with. So it is with President Bush and the Iraq war.

Don't get me wrong, folks. I'm as anti-terrorism as the rest of you undoubtedly are, but we (the "west") are going about getting rid of it in entirely the wrong way. What we've got to do is butt out of all matters (and countries) Islamic and especially to get the hell out of Iraq.

Okay, what happens after that we may not like very much, or see it as barbaric or whatever, but it's NONE OF OUR BUSINESS. We've got to leave it to the Muslims to figure out their own problems with the 21st century, which is really what it all boils down to in the end.

Believe me, if they either need or want our help, you can be sure they'll ask for it. But foisting our values on them unasked simply isn't the way to go.

Okay, I've said enough for now, so I'd better get out while the going's still good. You can all continue to fight it out between yourselves, but I bet I'll be proved right in the longrun.

Levannah

Max, I presume only as much as you do. You know this. We have different opinoins, I'm just expressing mine in contradiction to yours.

At least as many "experts" on this topic have contradicted the policy in use as have supported it. Since they oppose the status quo, they have been sent out, or left on their own. It's hard to work for this administration unless you agree with what it's trying to do, it appears.

Do I not think that all aspects have been considered? No, not all the way up the chain. I strongly suspect that those arguments never got much higher than those who would dare to think them.

To be honest, I didn't recall seeing that you posted about the troops leaving if the newly elected government asks them to. Perhaps I didn't see that as pertinent, as it doens't really deal with the issue. But no, I don't believe this administration is supporting those who are running for office in Iraq who would boot out the troops, so...

As for the Bears, they're a fun team for which to root, but I have been slinging the Terrible Towel my whole life, and I have a good feeling this year - I'm just a little worried about those Colts.

.
If you look back among my various messages, you'll not really find any suggestion on my part that I'm literally strategizing the particulars of our current fight against terrorism. My support for the war is more general in nature, while I see so much opposition against it voiced by people who presume to know better than the ones actually in the arena. I can reduce my support for the war in Iraq down to one very succinct sentence. The United States is engaged in a global war against terrorism, and the actions in Iraq are only but one phase in that war. End of story. The opponents of the war in Iraq, don't believe, at least from my estimation, that Iraq is even related to global war against terrorism. But in fact, at least from my perspective, not only is it one component, but it's a vital component.

I think this is huge -- the "war on terrorism", I mean. I think it's bigger than the government can reveal without compromising national security even more than it's already been, and without turning global political stability on its ear. I think that there are so many things this president isn't saying, not to be maliciously secretive, but because it would likely ignite even more global tension and/or animosity towards the USA. For example, the United Nations got caught with its hand in the preverbal cookie jar. For example, Western European powers, France and Germany specifically, have their sights set on knocking the USA down a few notches, and they have a desire to make the new European Union the next world superpower. And anything they can do to harm or discredit the USA is good for them in the long run.

Anyway, there's probably more going on behind-the-scenes than out in the open for all to see. And I give President Bush an enormous amount of credit for being the first president in over forty years to finally take the terrorism bull by the horns and go on the offensive against this threat, instead of simply maintaining the standard defensive posture that's been the status quo for decades. And the fact that he was willing to put his political life on the line makes it even more admirable. This president didn't waffle and capitulate to political pressure. This president didn't back-down to global opposition. And I still don't buy into the notion that there were no weapons of mass destruction. It's entirely possible, for example, that there were indeed such weapons, maybe they've been found, maybe they haven't, and that there were people in the United Nations who were turning a blind eye because of the bribes they were receiving in the oil-for-food scandal, and that the French were actually complicit in providing such weapons.

I saw the Barbara Walters interview with President Bush last night, and she asked him about those weapons. He didn't say there were weapons, he didn't say there weren't. I was watching that, thinking to myself, there's something he's not saying -- perhaps there's something he CAN'T say. You should read what Lt. General Michael DeLong has to say about that issue. In his book, Inside CentCom: The Unvarnished Truth About the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, he makes some startling suggestions about those "missing" weapons. And then I get into a debate with someone like you, and I have to wonder. who has more credibility and actual knowledge about this, dpetrak (or anyone else, for that matter) or Lt. General DeLong? I think that falls into the DUH! category. If you don't want to read Lt. General DeLong's book, at least do a Web search and find some of the various interviews he's given over the past few months. (And isn't it interesting that he's not been invited to do interviews with CBS's 60 Minutes, or NBC's Today Show, or any of the other presumably "non-biased" media sources.) Here's a link to one such interview:

http://www.command-post.org/oped/2_archives/015496.html

Some excerpts:

".....about 85 percent plus of the people in Iraq, according to the people I talk to, like Americans. What they don't like is being occupied. What they would like is free and open elections."

".....None of the countries around Iraq wants that country to be democratic. Why is that? If Iraq was a successful democratic country, the rest of the countries around them are not. That could cause internal failing in their countries and they don't want that. There's a lot going against Iraq trying to be a democratic country."

"I can state, unequivocally, there was WMD in Iraq before and during the war. You have multiple-source intelligence. Also, from other Arab leaders ? as Tommy Franks says in his book ? King Abdullah said Saddam has WMD. President Mubarek of Egypt said you have to be very careful going in, because Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. Other leaders who have chosen not to be named said the same thing. We had technical intelligence that saw the same thing. Two days before March 19, 2003, we saw quite a number of vehicles going into Syria. We could not go after them because we said we'd give Saddam 48 hours. A lot of (Iraqi) leaders went into Syria, and a lot of WMD went into Syria. We've gotten indications some went into Lebanon, and probably some went into Iran."

(End of excerpts.)

Why is it that so many people suspect those in the U.S. government of acting for personal or political gain, but these same people won't consider the possibility that the United Nations and/or the French and/or others are not capable of similar selfish and self-serving motives? Why is it that so many people "trust" the United Nations and/or the French more than they trust their own U.S. government? I just don't get it. And it's obvious to me that these people don't understand their history very well either.

Another book you might want to read is, America's Secret War by George Friedman. (Only a little research will reveal who he is.) Among other things, Mr. Friedman suggests that in the days following 9-11, one of the actions taken was to cut-off all funding to various terrorist organizations, and much of that funding flowed through Saudi Arabia. When the Bush administration asked for Saudi cooperation in cutting off such funding, the Saudis refused. Interestingly enough, the Saudis had a "change of heart" when faced with the dilemma of having several armored U.S. divisions and a couple hundred thousands U.S. soldiers parked on their northern border.

There's a lot more going on here than we will ever know. But I do know that not a day has gone by since 9-11 that either U. S. forces and/or U.S. intelligence agents haven't thwarted another terrorist attack and/or apprehended or killed another potential terrorist threat. And if people think they know everything that's going on, they're more naive than I thought. And in the end, knowing how much I don't know, I have to ask myself, who do I trust? President Bush or the United Nations? General DeLong or the French? To me, the answer is a no-brainer.

First, the thank you: I greatly appreciate the tone that came across in that last post.

Second, I'll take time next week to read through more of the books you suggested.

Finally, one complaint - you're using a tactic [best word for it] in this discussion where you compare my beliefs and thoughts against some of those in power, some experts. You know there are as many experts who state the same things I do, so I don't think it's quite suited to move the discusison to a "dpetrak v. experts". I don't know if you consciously are doing that, but you are. I don't expect you to trust dpetrak when it's just me put up against some experts.

I'll look for some references to post of other experts who disagree with this administration, but you've probably already read or heard them... I'll get to that later in the week...

Oh, and there are other reasons why the president might not say anything one way or the other - he's a politician. They are trained how to not answer questions. I don't think any particular party has a lock on that claim, either.

Of course, there will always be items of national security which are best left unsaid, and we can't know for sure that the greater good isn't being served. However, I know that humans are in power, they are in control, and htey have a tendency to be a little corrupt. I'm not saying any particular entity is lying, but that I wouldn't trust even my own government with 100% of everything. Heck, after last night, I'm not even particularly happy with the way my local police station works...

But I cannot stress enough, thank you for the decency of the discussion.

.
....as possible, since neither one of us is likely to change his opinion based on what the other might say. It's not like a weekend of football watching, where the games played on one day might change a person's pick for the Super Bowl. Going into this weekend, for example, I would have picked the Steelers and the Eagles to make it to the big game -- a real Pennsylvania event. But now, I think I like the Falcons and the Patriots to make it. (Man, Falcons beating Eagles?)

And you're right about your reply on "experts". I guess you believe yours and I believe mine, for whatever reasons. But are we, perhaps, both working from a desired conclusion, working backwards to find the justification? I'd like to think I'm not, as I think I've laid out my reasoning pretty well, but.....

However (you just knew there had to be a "however", didn't you?), define an "expert". In this case, I don't consider a journalist, or a reporter, or a political pundit, or most politicians "experts" -- not even close. My two "experts" are an Army four-star General and a Marine three-star General, both of whom were in the optimal position to really know. If you could call my Generals, and perhaps raise me an Admiral or two, then your "experts" might have a little more credibility in my eyes. (A little Poker lingo, there.)

Nonetheless, do you think you and I could get together in thirty years, give or take a half-dozen, and look back, one of us saying, "See, I told you so"? Or would we still disagree?

Later.....

But we have slight differences - seems the slighter they are, the harder they're fought sometimes, no?

As I said, there wer esome generals in there disagreeing with the administration early on, they no longer work there. Same with the CIA bigwigs. But, then, they wer eCIA bigwigs, who trusts them anyway, right?

Got you poker lingo, I play with a group of guys who will be disappointed with me this Friday night for working instead of playing. Seems we fired a director in Chicago when I took a day off last Friday. I'll be changing passwords and auditing the weeks' security all night...

But in 30 years, if you're still alive and I'm still alive, I'm sure we'll find something to disagree about - just for old times' sake.