Despite the assertions of some here that I'm a knee-jerk supporter of all things liberal, people without blinders on are aware that I've expressed frustration and anger with Democratic party leaders any number of times.
But I have to say, I was tremendously amused to learn that the Democrats are intending to present the war funding bill to Bush--a bill he is certain to veto because, God forbid, it sets a timetable for our troops coming home (because in Bushworld extending their tours and leaving them in indefinite danger is "supporting" the troops whereas bringing them home isn't)--on the fourth anniversary of Bush standing in front of that damned "Mission Accomplished" sign. Think of it as Operation MAMA--Mission Accomplished, My Ass.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at April 27, 2007 09:51 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingActually the almost 5 BILLION in pork barrel spending and the $2 minimum wage increase that have been tacked on are reason enough to veto it. Other than that if you read the language in it that is easily accessible on the internet, you will see that the "withdrawal" only refers to an actual invasion force. Peacekeeping, training and policing forces will stay "indefinitely". The only real thing that might make a difference is that there is a provision to limit lengths of tours in Iraq, which doesn't mean they couldn't just rotate troops in and out of Afghanistan and Iraq as they please.
The Virginia Tech massacre has nothing on what Bush can do...
From what you say Adam, I say...sounds pretty good to me. ONLY $5 billion in pork? That sounds fairly light, considering what we spend a month to stay in Iraq. And just because it's called pork doesn't mean that those projects are all bad...maybe just not the best way to spend money, but the hope is that it'll at least help someone locally.
And if the troop withdrawal is more of a staged, forced ramp-down from a full-on invasion/occupation force, why is that such a bad thing? Sure, I know some say it gives our enemies there good vibes...but doesn't it also tell our Iraq puppet...errr, government friends...a kick in the pants to get their act together and start keeping the peace there.
I heard on the radio a comment that the bill contained an "artificial" withdrawal date.
I find that extremely appropriate, considering that we were given artificial reasons for going there in the first place.
It gets points for snark but it also reinforces the impression that anything this congress does is purely due to politics--potentially a danngerous position to take where war is involved. Senator Reid has been particularly inept in hiding the political aspect of this.
Right now, if I were betting, I'd put money on a huge Democratic Party takeover of both houses and a better than even shot at winning the presidency come 2008. But...if they overplay their hand...
Snark gets you points from people who appreciate a good political game but it might not play well with the average person who, in the long run, makes or breaks the election. If Bush is smart--no jokes please--he's veto it somewhere that will be an equally obvious political theater. Maybe here in NC where a bunch of soldiers got killed. Go to Fort Bragg and veto it in front of a bunch of cheering soldiers. Craven? Sure, but it will be a bit harder for the Democrats to say anything about it.
As an aside...did ANYONE else watch the Democratic debate? Who is this Gravel guy? He's a riot.
I didn't watch the debate (I watched Smallville), but I caught Gravel on the MSNBC post-game show. I wish Kansas had primaries so I could vote for him. (We have caucuses, which means unless you manage to get a bunch of people of like mind together to pay for a caucus meeting of your own, you don't actually get to vote for who you want to most of the time.)
It gets points for snark but it also reinforces the impression that anything this congress does is purely due to politics--potentially a danngerous position to take where war is involved. Senator Reid has been particularly inept in hiding the political aspect of this.
I agree. I think thats the very reason they will not flat out defund the war, politics. If they truely believe this war is illegal then defund it.
I didn't watch the debates. I did, however, hear someone on the radio liken Gravel to the "crazy uncle" every family has. I also heard DeLay on that same radio show saying that Reid and Pelosi are coming close to committing treason. Does he think saying whatever batshit crazy thing comes to mind helps him sell books? Is this how he's financing his criminal defense?
Bush has done just about everything he could to make me never vote for a republican ever again, but I'm still hard pressed to look at any of the dem candidates and say "yes! that's who I want in the White House". Hell, I'd be satisfied with, "Well, he/she wouldn't suck", at this point.
So, what will be the result of this funding bill? Bush will veto it and the dems, lacking enough votes to override and the will to just defund the war and bring the troops home today, will send Bush a bill w/o any timetables. After a little bit of political theater, Bush still notches a win. The result will be simply a continuation of the status quo, leaving it for the next president to clean up Bush's mess (par for Bush's entire life).
Adam, the reasons you list may be on there, but Bush has been very specific in saying that he will veto it because of the withdrawal of troops.
And raising the minimum wage by $2 is enough to veto it? Christ, are you insane? God forbid people be able to actually earn a wage that they can live on, huh?
If they truely believe this war is illegal then defund it.
I wish it were that simple, but there are pratical reasons against simply pulling out beyond the political problem that the neocons will scream treason if the democrats defunded the war right away.
Bush has put us in a no-win situation. If we stay, there will be continued violence with no military solution. If we leave, there will be continued violence. So, the democrats have chosen the "safe" course of trying to push for a deadline so that Bush will then prod the Iraqis to come up with a political solution in time for us to leave.
The problem is, coming to a political solution involves getting the various sides together to talk and negotiate, which isn't exactly Bush's strong suit. Then again, neither is leading a military campaign.
Come to think of it, what is Bush's strong suit?
The point about the pork and the minimum wage increase wasn't that they are not needed/incorrect, but simply that they shouldn't be piggy-backed onto a war funding bill. The minimum wage has nothing to do with Iraq and should be it's own issue.
And if a discussion about minimum wage was to be had, you would have to think about the impact it would have on businesses, and how many of your businesses would shut down rather than incur the extra cost of labor. To put it a way a lot of us would probably understand better, how many of those kids at the local comic store do you think make much more than minimum wage? Do you think if their boss if flat out forced to give them ALL a $2 an hour raise, do you think he could even afford to stay open? How about grocery stores? How about gas stations? A lot of those places may stay open, but do you think for one second that those unscrupulous owners would hesitate to "pass the cost on to the consumer"?
"Come to think of it, what is Bush's strong suit?"
All of his suits are strong are very expensive. It reminds him he is above the rest of us....
If they truely believe this war is illegal then defund it.
I wish it were that simple, but there are pratical reasons against simply pulling out beyond the political problem that the neocons will scream treason if the democrats defunded the war right away.
Exactly, Which is why they will never do it. They will scream and yell and tell the country we have lost the war but will stop just short of actually doing the defund because it could hurt them politically. The compassion is touching.
Im not a neocon (I know, I know) but, Im screaming Treason now after Reids comments.
Thats what the troops need to hear, a congress thats given up on them. Weather or not you agree on the war to begin with. Those troops are over there NOW, a timetable now would only insure that we will have to go back later.
When the Iraqi people can defend themselves is when we should leave.
Congress hasn't given up on the troops, it's given up on the mission. Don't make the mistake of confusing the two. The troops aren't the mission. You can hurt the troops by supporting a failed mission, and support the troops by ending it.
And let's not put a low ball price tag on the life of those troops. Anyone of our people who dies over there, is too many. The Iraqi people will be warring amongst themselves, as they always have, for decades to come. Unless we want to be permanent residents there, then enough is enough. As I have said before, if the President himself was leading the troops over there, or had a close relative on the front, he would have ended this a long time ago. So long as his people are safe (like Saudi Arabia) then he is content putting other's lives on the line. Bush may as well have the gun that kills each of our soldiers over there...
Congress hasn't given up on the troops, it's given up on the mission. Don't make the mistake of confusing the two. The troops aren't the mission. You can hurt the troops by supporting a failed mission, and support the troops by ending it.
Im sorry, but thats one and the same.
What amazes me is that the same people (like DeLay), who are screaming treason today did the exact same things the democrats are doing now. DeLay called the conflict in Bosnia pointless and voted to cut funding for it. Troops were in jeopardy then just as they are now, but now it's treasonous to say the exact same things? Why? Because a republican wanted this war, that's why. Sorry, but there's no other reason for the double standard.
The fact is, the republicans want the democrats to try and immediately cut off funding for the fubar in Iraq. They wany it because they believe they can use it in the 2008 elections to hold onto the White House and regain Congress. They want it so bad they're practically double-dog daring the democrats to do it. That, my friend, is pure politics.
Im sorry, but thats one and the same.
I don't buy that for a second. The troops didn't ask for this mission, but they're doing the best they can despite being given inadequate equipment and planning. There is no military solution to the current mess in Iraq. To admit to that isn't hurting the troops, it's acknowledging that a hammer is not the perfect tool for every problem.
On the lighter side, I'm reminded of the episode of SCRUBS where J.D. is reading "Iraq For Dummies" and tells someone, "I don't get it: I just reached the part where Bush declared 'Mission accomplished' and I still have 400 pages to go."
I don't think it's "snarky" to point out that Bush naively declared an end to major combat four years ago. The Bush administration has done everything possible to create a rosy picture of how this would go -- from "we'll be greeted as liberators" to Cheney predicting that the insurgency wouldn't last more than six months -- and as things get worse and worse (how long *will* U.S. soldiers get killed there? how many hundreds or thousands of Iraquis have to be killed before we admit it's a civil war?) Bush just keeps saying, in other words, stay the course. Democrats do want to win the White House and their is a political element to their timing -- but that doesn't make them wrong here.
"Im sorry, but thats one and the same."
No, it's not.
It wasn't the same thing when Republican Congressmen and conservative pundits savaged Clinton over the military's mission in Bosnia and Clinton, the Commander in Chief, himself over it and then tried to attach strings left and right to that mission and it's not the same thing now with Iraq.
The mission is not the troops. It doesn't matter how many times the Bush crowd repeat that lie, it doesn't make it true.
Under that logic, no order from a president to the troops could be questioned as being legitimate or not.
Bush: "I would like to announce my new Iraq Policy Initiative. The mission of the troops is now to steal candy from Iraqi children and babies and kick their pets in the stomach. This should be a crushing blow to insurgency sympathizers"
Generic Democrat (GD): "Our troops shouldn't be doing that. Stealing candy from children and babies isn't going to help us in Iraq. And what kind of stupidity is kicking peoples' pets in the gut?!?"
Pat: "How dare you attack the troops."
GD: "I'm not attacking the troops, I'm attacking Bush's dumb ass mission."
Pat: "If you attack the mission, then you attack the troops. They're one in the same. Don't you even bother to listen to Cheney when he speaks these universal, indisputable truths? If you supported the troops, then you would support Bush telling them to steal candy and kick puppies in the gut."
GD: "Uhhh... I'm going to leave now... Please don't hurt me."
On a less snarky why to say that:
If you can think of so much as one "mission" that a president could order that you feel should be questioned or fought against, then you prove that you're arguing your stand on the grounds of partisanship and not honesty. If you say that you cannot think of so much as one "mission" that a CiC could issue that you would argue with or see the need to defend the troops from...
Well, that just scare me a bit.
Ya, I'm confused...why would raising the minimum wage be bad? We live in a society where having a Million dollars means you have to still work hard and watch your budget.
As for Pork... who's pork is it? Did all the other bills back in the REPUBLICAN days with the billion dollar bridge in ALASKA get passed with ease cause it was a republican pork?
What amazes me is that the same people (like DeLay), who are screaming treason today did the exact same things the democrats are doing now. DeLay called the conflict in Bosnia pointless and voted to cut funding for it. Troops were in jeopardy then just as they are now, but now it's treasonous to say the exact same things? Why? Because a republican wanted this war, that's why. Sorry, but there's no other reason for the double standard.
Did Delay go on national T.V. and declare the troops were in jeopardy? If he did then yes the same standard should apply.
By the way dont we still have troops in Bosnia?
I dont remember Bill getting approval from congress before going there. The double standards go both ways.
It is true that talking about withdrawl and deadlines or criticizing the conduct of the war is emboldening the enemy and discouraging the American troops in Iraq. There's no doubt about it.
But this is democracy. Stifling open debate about the war is not only undemocratic, but also bad for the troops, because it prevents correcting bad policies and strategies. Bad policies and strategies also embolden the enemy and discourage the soldiers.
I believe that part of this serendipidous timing is an attempt to judo the Repub argument that the bill is just a political stunt. Hard to make that argument straight-faced when the President took part in the mother of all political stunts four years earlier.
And of course, I understand a bunch of Repubs are whinging loudly and at length on it, complaining that the Dems should get the bill on Bush's desk today (so he can veto it on a Friday, letting the bill fall into the newscycle memory-hole that is the weekend) instead of on the anniversary of a event whose memory has become politically inconvenient.
If the Repubs had simply factored in the costs of W's War into the budget to begin with (instead of low-balling it to play down the true cost of the war and counting on a Republican majority Congress to rubber stamp supplemental spending bills as has been S.O.P. till now), we wouldn't be having this debate. I can't bring myself to feel all that sorry for them.
Adam: Actually the almost 5 BILLION in pork barrel spending and the $2 minimum wage increase that have been tacked on are reason enough to veto it.
I'm kinda suprised the politically astute Republicans didn't put these as the forefront of their objections. As these things go, $5B in pork may be a relatively small percentage for a bill of this size, but that wouldn't matter to being able to cry some variation of "wasteful Democrats".
I suppose the "they don't support the troops" manta is just so fixed in the Bushies forebrains that at this point they can't, y'know, change course.
Adam: Actually the almost 5 BILLION in pork barrel spending and the $2 minimum wage increase that have been tacked on are reason enough to veto it.
I'm kinda suprised the politically astute Republicans didn't put these as the forefront of their objections. As these things go, $5B in pork may be a relatively small percentage for a bill of this size, but that wouldn't matter to being able to cry some variation of "wasteful Democrats".
I suppose the "they don't support the troops" manta is just so fixed in the Bushies forebrains that at this point they can't, y'know, change course.
Did Delay go on national T.V. and declare the troops were in jeopardy?
Yes, he has.
I dont remember Bill getting approval from congress before going there.
Then you weren't paying attention:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9511/bosnia_speech/speech.html
Transcript of President Clinton's speech on Bosnia
November 27, 1995.
"If the NATO plan meets with my approval, I will immediately send it to Congress and request its support."
Yes, we still have troops in Bosnia. The difference is, that mission wasn't a complete fubar from the beginning. It actually accomplished its goal of ending the bloodshed with a minimum of risk to our troops.
Can't say that about Iraq.
Adam: Actually the almost 5 BILLION in pork barrel spending and the $2 minimum wage increase that have been tacked on are reason enough to veto it.
I'm kinda suprised the politically astute Republicans didn't put these as the forefront of their objections.
The reason why they didn't is because, after six years of total GOP domination and soaring deficits, the republicans have lost any credibility they once had as the party of fiscal responsibility and restraint.
Not that the democrats are any better in that respect.
The Democrats are doing great. All this bill does is keep pressure on Bush and continually emphasize that he is isolated and unilateral in how he approaches Iraq.
Of course it will be vetoed. Then Democrats will turn to the electorate and say "we did everything we could short of literally failing to fund the war entirely, which we will not do at this point".
And if Iraq degrades further, then every Republican who voted against this bill gets to take responsibility for not turning around.
Handing it to Bush on the Mission Accomplished anniversary is priceless. Is it too much to hope Bush will dance after he vetoes?
If you can think of so much as one "mission" that a president could order that you feel should be questioned or fought against, then you prove that you're arguing your stand on the grounds of partisanship and not honesty. If you say that you cannot think of so much as one "mission" that a CiC could issue that you would argue with or see the need to defend the troops from...
I dont think of this as a one mission deal. I think this is the beginning of a whole mess trouble. (Iran, Syria etc.) and feel if we leave Iraq in this manner at this time it will make whats coming much worse.
I dont remember Bill getting approval from congress before going there.
Then you weren't paying attention:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9511/bosnia_speech/speech.html
Transcript of President Clinton's speech on Bosnia
November 27, 1995.
"If the NATO plan meets with my approval, I will immediately send it to Congress and request its support."
I stand corrected.
I dont think of this as a one mission deal.
The problem is, I don't see this particular mission as doing anything to make us safer from terrorism or to help create stability in the region. In fact, all evidence indicates that it's having the opposite effect on both counts. I don't know anyone who disputes the idea that we are going to be facing problems coming out of the ME for years to come.
I just don't see the Iraq invasion as being particularly helpful in dealing with them.
Bush's refusal to deal with any language on timetables for withdrawal only proves the following:
1) Bush is a moral coward.
2) Bush and his staff have no idea what the hell they are doing, nor how our troops have been relegated to playing glorified referees in someone else's civil war.
3) Even if Bush wanted to pull our troops out, he wouldn't have the first clue how to do it, since by his own "understanding," a troop withdrawal would invite groups like Al Qaeda to swoop in and use Iraq as a base for terrorist actions.
Translation: at minimum, our service people are stuck in Iraq until at least 2009 when the next president takes office, and the retarded cowboy goes toddling back to Crawford, TX, to cut brush for the rest of his life.
The reason why they didn't is because, after six years of total GOP domination and soaring deficits, the republicans have lost any credibility they once had as the party of fiscal responsibility and restraint.
As someone who has been known to be a knee-jerk conservative, I must admit I can't argue with this statement about spending by Republicans. It, more than the war, is why I believe we lost control of Congress. The conservative base lost faith in the Republican leadership.
I have two thoughts about the war:
1.) There is no question in my mind that Bush genuinely entered into this war because he saw it as a necessary way to take the war on terror over there rather than just wait for an attack here. To say Iraq did not attack us on 9/11 is to totally miss the point. It was a preemptive strike to take the battle over there, not just a reactive punitive strike because of 9/11. I don't expect most of you to agree with me, I am just stating what I am convinced is the case.
2.) The endless false claims that Bush "lied" and went into the war for false reasons kept legitimate criticism for HOW the war was fought from being adequately dealt with. Hindsight is always 20/20, and I don't think the war has been an abject failure. But the fundamental mistake Bush made was definitely NOT when he had a press conference saying "Mission Accomplished." I think there are a couple of key decisions made in the first year after the invasion that hindered things and allowed the rise of sectarian violence.
Why am I so convinced this (Bush was sincere) is the case? I look at the hearings about Pat Tillman. It is very hard in a democracy to pull off the type of conspiracy Bush (or Cheney) are accused of doing. People quickly talk. It didn't take long for the lie that Tillman was killed by the enemy was known to be not true.
The whining of Tennet that he was misunderstood and that his "slam dunk" comment was taken out of context is a classic proof of my premise. The reality is he DID think there were WMDs. There are a lot of "connecting the dots" type of logic that manufactures the "real" reason for the invasion, but there is no one who has come even close to confirming the wild ideas many have suggested.
I vividly remember the conspiracies that many (including even Rush) were willing to consider about Clinton. I rejected virtually all of them for the same reason I mentioned above. They were built on a circumstantial connecting of the dots while assuming at every possible turn that the person was evil incarnate. I have a very low view of Pres. Clinton's character, but I never saw him as evil.
In regards to the bill, setting a date for a pullout is beyond foolish. It not only empowers the enemy, it also, quite frankly, potentially gives the Republicans the perfect campaign platform next year. Let's just say (Heaven forbid) there is a successful attack on our soil before the next election. I would say the odds tip very quickly in Rudy's favor over Hillary as the next President.
Just my thoughts.
Iowa Jim
I'm not sure that the fact that a lie was easily uncovered proves that it wasn't a lie in the first place.
It not only empowers the enemy,
I don't really buy into that carnard. It could also be useful for Gates and Patreus to go Maliki's government and say, "look, we're going to have to pull out eventually, so get your shit together!"
it also, quite frankly, potentially gives the Republicans the perfect campaign platform next year. Let's just say (Heaven forbid) there is a successful attack on our soil before the next election.
I'd say you'd have a point here if Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
Let's look at another scenario: Bush refuses to pull out, because, let's face it, that's what he's going to do no matter what the democrats say or do, and there's another successful terrorist attack (knock on wood) on US soil. That would pretty much put the nail in the coffin of the idea that invading Iraq somehow made us safer.
Dave Von Domelin wrote: "Congress hasn't given up on the troops, it's given up on the mission. Don't make the mistake of confusing the two. The troops aren't the mission. You can hurt the troops by supporting a failed mission, and support the troops by ending it."
Baloney. You hurt the troops most by telling them they've "lost" when most of the troops who are actually still involved with the situation know damn well nothing has been decided at this point.
From a military standpoint, a war is lost when all one's defensive positions are overrun, the troops have lost the capacity to fight (no equipment, no food and no ammo), and most of one's forces are dead or in disarray.
That's not the case in Iraq.
Frankly, I think congressional representatives like Harry Reid are useless when it comes to really solving the problems in Iraq. His purely political solution, "Let's stop the fighting, withdraw, and the problem will go away," is shameful. Is that how he proposes to fight every war, be it a war on drugs, a war on poverty, or a war on whatever?
I don't think much of polls, because I never know, for example, what percentage of the 52 percent of the people who currently say they disapprove of the war in Iraq include the 60 percent of the people who can't find Iraq on a world map. That being said, I thought it was ironic that Reid, who, like his ilk, seem to live and die by the polls, has an approval rating even lower than Bush's.
This war cannot be won. Don't you think the troops know this? You are not going to affect morale by telling them it's time to come home, except in a good way.
You hurt the troops most by telling them they've "lost" when most of the troops who are actually still involved with the situation know damn well nothing has been decided at this point.
From a military standpoint, a war is lost when all one's defensive positions are overrun, the troops have lost the capacity to fight (no equipment, no food and no ammo), and most of one's forces are dead or in disarray.
That's not the case in Iraq.
There are more ways to lose a war than what the textbook says. A war also lost if one's troops lose a concrete set of military goals, and (as is the case now) have been relegated to playing a role as an occupying police force.
Furthermore, Bush's claim that setting a timetable will encourage Iraqi insurgent forces to wait us out, and then go nuts is circular logic for the primary reason that even if we did reach a magical moment when Iraq's political climate relaxed, and we did begin to withdraw troops, doing so would take well over a year to complete.
This said, what happens if, in the midst of that withdrawal, insurgent violence in Iraq spikes again?
Do we recall all those troops previously sent home, and go back to Square One?
If so, our soldiers will never leave Iraq because the country will never be fully at peace.
Our military forces will be stuck in a permanent role as Iraq's babysitter.
CHV wrote: "Our military forces will be stuck in a permanent role as Iraq's babysitter."
You mean, as we are in South Korea?
Depending on what criteria you use, we lost between 33,000 and 56,000 troops in the Korean War, and we have been there since the cease-fire, in force, for the past 54 years.
And South Korea doesn't even have oil...
Our troops in SK aren't being killed these days, are they?
The region is in a military stalemate.
The socio-political climates in Korea and Iraq are also like apples and oranges.
The insurgent violence in Iraq is driven by religious and social grudges dating back centuries. North Korea is led by a political dinosaur whose little empire would have collapsed long ago had China not been a continual source of economic support.
The two situations could not be more different.
>The troops didn't ask for this mission, but they're doing the best they can despite being given inadequate equipment ...
And remind yourself, this was the finest army in the world. The one which would stand up to the Soviets in Europe or elsewhere. Yet getting their heads handed them by a bunch of guerilla terrorists. Feh.
> To say Iraq did not attack us on 9/11 is to totally miss the point. It was a preemptive strike to take the battle over there
Many people make that argument and it makes no sense at all. This is like saying that [in WW II], Britain was getting hit by occasional raids from Germany so, wanting to make a pre-emptive strike to avoid things getting worse, they mount an all-out attack ... on France. Hunh?
CHV wrote: "Our troops in SK aren't being killed these days, are they?"
I was stationed there for a year. We were on alert the whole time. The North can, on a whim, attack tomorrow, and the number of U.S. casualties inflicted in the first week would make four years in Iraq look like a minor skirmish.
To say Iraq did not attack us on 9/11 is to totally miss the point. It was a preemptive strike to take the battle over there
But why there, unless you're part of that 60% who can't find Iraq on a map, you have to realize that the ME is a huge region. Al Qaeda was not planning and launching attacks on the US from Iraq, so why did we need to take the battle to their backyard? Unless you believe that it doesn't matter which brown nonchristians you kill, you should focus your attention on the specific ones that were attacking you.
Call me crazy, but as Starwolf noted, if someone from Germany is launching attacks at you, you don't attack France hoping to lure the Germans across the maginot line.
Posted by Den at April 27, 2007 04:02 PM
I don't really buy into that carnard. It could also be useful for Gates and Patreus to go Maliki's government and say, "look, we're going to have to pull out eventually, so get your shit together!"
I hope that conversation has already taken place.
Posted by Den at April 27, 2007 05:59 PM
Call me crazy, but as Starwolf noted, if someone from Germany is launching attacks at you, you don't attack France hoping to lure the Germans across the maginot line.
How about when someone from Japan attacks, would you then attack Germany?
There's something I don't get about the R's and their tooth and nail fight against set dates. That thing is the reason that they most often give.
Just about any R: "You can't set a date! why, that would embolden our enemy! All they would have to do is look at their calender, circle that date and lay low until we move out and they move in!"
Ok, that actually sounds pretty good to me. Lets set a date for July 4, 2008. Under the Bush, Cheney, Rush, Hannity, etc. world view, that would mean we get over a year of relitivally few terror attacks in Iraq, random violence and other stupid garbage cuts back a lot and we give ourselves some breathing room to work. I mean, think about how much more we could get done in a year of relitive peace in Iraq.
If they really believe what they're saying, then they should love the idea of setting a date in stone for a little over a year from now. To not do that would mean that they want more troops to die by making sure that we have the full amount of attacks everyday that the "terrorist" can muster rather then a scaled back, lay and wait terrorist front. If they actually believed the pile that they're trying to sell, they should welcome a set date to give us the time to get Iraq to "stand up" so that we could then "stand down" and get more of our troops home.
Or could it just be that even they don't believe what they're selling the public and they're just trying anything they can to hold out long enough to dump Iraq, and all blame for its failure, on to the next guy (or Party) in the White House?
"There is no question in my mind that Bush genuinely entered into this war because he saw it as a necessary way to take the war on terror over there rather than just wait for an attack here. To say Iraq did not attack us on 9/11 is to totally miss the point. It was a preemptive strike to take the battle over there, not just a reactive punitive strike because of 9/11. I don't expect most of you to agree with me, I am just stating what I am convinced is the case."
You may be right that this was Bush motivation to invade Iraq, namely the neo-con theory that in order to deal with the threat of terrorism youhave to take over a random middle eastern state and turn it into a democracy. However, this reasoning was dead wrong and did not serve the US interest in any way. If Bush followed this bad approach, he should be held accountable for it even if he was full of good intentions.
"I was stationed there for a year. We were on alert the whole time. The North can, on a whim, attack tomorrow, and the number of U.S. casualties inflicted in the first week would make four years in Iraq look like a minor skirmish."
Fareed Zacharia of Newsweek actually compared Iraq to Korea in the sense that the US should recognize in Iraq what it realized in Korea, namely that full victory cannot be acheived. He also suggested the need to set a timetable, because the Iraqi government was being uncooperative.
In any case, South Korea has a tense but long lasting and stable ceasefire. Iraq had continued bloodshed, and the US does not seem to have much of a strategy to change this situation. The US can continue to stay the course, hoping that things would improve. But it certainly more in the interest of the troops in Iraq, as well as Americas strategic interests, if it reexamines the way it is handling itself in that war. Demanding of the government to reexamine its approach is certainly the right and duty of the American citizens.
"And remind yourself, this was the finest army in the world. The one which would stand up to the Soviets in Europe or elsewhere. Yet getting their heads handed them by a bunch of guerilla terrorists. Feh."
1) The Americans did not actually fight the soviets.
2) The inability of the US to defeat the guerillas in Iraq does not reflect on the quality of the army, since guerilla warfare presents a different kind of problem than conventional warfare. It may reflect a lack of ability:
a. to adapt to geuril awarfare.
b. lack of motivation
c. lack of ability to recognize the limits of miiltary power and to use deplomacy effectively.
d. A lack of ability to know which fights to pick
Although I can't claim I follow Iraq closely, so I could be wrong.
Bush got us involved in Iraq for either oil or to get revenge for the plot on his father's life.
Not WMD.
Not for Democracy.
Not to fight terrorism. (There wasn't any terrorism in Iraq until after we invaded.)
Studies have been done that prove that raising the minimum wage actually crates more jobs. So, if one company goes out of business, another will takes its place.
It all depends on what your definition of "PORK" is.
Money top help rebuild New Orleans.
Money to improve Homeland Security.
Money to get better equipment for the troops in Iraq.
Money to get better health care for the returning troops AND for the 10-20,000 troops who have been permanently maimed.
I don't think that is pork.
Obviously, most Republicans do.
When do we leave, according to Bush? When it's quiet? When there's a "political solution"?
Seriously. What does success mean? And when, REALISTICALLY, can it be expected under EVEN THE BEST of circumstances?
I remember recently a general defending the use of wall-building in neighborhoods quoting how effective they were.
In Northern Ireland.
Where people killed each other for DECADES in spectacular public bombings based on prolonged hatred, and religious differences. Sound familiar?
Bush is a fool. He has no victory plan. If we are gonna be there for 10 years plus say so. The public signed up for a sequel to Gulf War I, not the British role in Northern Ireland. And if reality dictates that THAT is exactly what we're stuck with then ADMIT IT and let's move on.
Yeah, Republicans would get pounded in the '08 elections. TOUGH. To paraphrase Colin Powell and Bush I, We broke Iraq, we bought it, and we'd damn well better spend more time figuring out the right thing to do there over the next decade.
Stop pretending that 20,000 additional troops in Baghdad for eighteen months are some miracle cure for decades for sectarian turmoil. It's insulting.
We're not pulling out in a rush. Won't happen. We won't leave another Afghanistan wide open for terrorist bases. But until Bush comes clean with the TRUE reality, he simply makes "just pull out since there's no plan and we've lost anyway" look like a viable position compared to his four years of "we're making progress now".
The Democrats are doing a great job showing he's clueless.
Now who's going do a great job ACTUALLY LEADING?
I'm not sure that the fact that a lie was easily uncovered proves that it wasn't a lie in the first place.
If you are referring to my post, I am saying a belief that Bush lied as part of a conspiracy to get us into war with Iraq because ______________ (fill in the blank with any of the theories thrown out there) would be difficult to keep a secret.
Let's look at another scenario: Bush refuses to pull out...and there's another successful terrorist attack (knock on wood) on US soil. That would pretty much put the nail in the coffin of the idea that invading Iraq somehow made us safer.
Actually, the fact that there has not been a major attack since 9/11 would be the reply. Not saying you or others would accept it, but for there not to have been another attack for is quite possibly because we took the war to Afghanistan and Iraq. It is not an issue of who attacked us on 9/11. It is an issue of it being a war on terror (admittedly, radical Islamic terrorists). There is absolutely no doubt that Saddam was involved in terror activities. The claim was not that he was behind 9/11, but that we were taking the fight to all of the terrorists. You may disagree with whether that was a smart thing to do, but to simply say Saddam was not behind 9/11 completely misunderstands and misrepresents the so called neo-con validation for the invasion in the first place.
But why there, ... Al Qaeda was not planning and launching attacks on the US from Iraq, so why did we need to take the battle to their backyard?
Others have answered this far better than I can here. My personal suspicion is because Saddam's refusal to allow inspections to prove there were not WMD's was making us look weak in the Muslim world. This is more than just a "pride" issue. It is a realization of the mindset of our enemy. So on one level, it is true this was because we didn't finish the job after the first Gulf War. But it was not just to go back out of spite or because the neo-cons didn't get their way. It is because they truly believe that we must not give in to any terrorist.
The validation of this is what happened in Libya. Once we showed resolve in handling Iraq, Kadafi (sp?) was quick to at least make a show of conceding things.
Let me step back a moment and say this. I do see the other side of the argument that suggests attacking Iraq made things worse, not better. This was not as clear of an issue as was say WW2 and attacking Hitler.
The even stronger argument (that ties in with my suggestion about not showing weakness) is that it would have been better to have done nothing then to start this and not finish it well. And that is the biggest reason I see pulling out as a mistake. We are not losing the war. I don't deny it is bloody, but when compared to virtually any other war, the body count is so low it is incredible. Every life is precious, and I don't take the sacrifice lightly. But to pull out now would be to basically tell terrorists that we are weak. I am 100% sure that pulling out would lead to more attacks, perhaps first again at our bases or ships or embassies, but soon here on our homeland. And yes, I do believe it is still possible to win. We have made serious mistakes that make it far more difficult and costly (both in dollars and lives), but to say we have lost is preposterous.
I will be gone a while so will read any responses in a week or two. Have fun.
Iowa Jim
Iowa Jim
Iowa Jim---isn't it time for you conservatives to "get over it" concerning Bill Clinton?
Practice what you preach, elsewise we suspect you might be acting as a hypocrite.
"So, if one company goes out of business, another will takes its place."
Great! So when my video production company goes under, I can get either a lower paying job with a competitor or I can work in fast food. But hey, at least I'll be getting two bucks more an hour!
Iowa Jim said:"Actually, the fact that there has not been a major attack since 9/11 would be the reply."
-----
And there were no attacks in the 8 years before 9/11.
Iowa Jim said:"...Saddam's refusal to allow inspections to prove there were not WMD's..."
-----
This is not true. Scott Ritter was one of the inspectors. He said they found nothing.
----------
See, this is so typical of the neo-conmen. They keep repeating the same lies, year after year, until everybody thinks it is the truth.
Iowa Jim---isn't it time for you conservatives to "get over it" concerning Bill Clinton?
I don't understnd. What did he say about Clinton that was so bad/ All I see is:
I vividly remember the conspiracies that many (including even Rush) were willing to consider about Clinton. I rejected virtually all of them for the same reason I mentioned above. They were built on a circumstantial connecting of the dots while assuming at every possible turn that the person was evil incarnate. I have a very low view of Pres. Clinton's character, but I never saw him as evil.
So he's saying that conservatives were wrong to launch these conspiracy theories about Clinton becaus ehe was not as bad a guy as they wanted to believe. And this upsets you?
Yeah, Sean. Take your complaint to the autoworkers losing their good-paying jods. Take it to the flight attendents for the major airlines who have either lost their jobs or taken major pay cuts.
That's simply what is happening under this Presidency. It won't just be you.
Many flight attendents are making less than $30,000 a year now.
Delphi---you've heard of Delphi, haven't you? They were a part od GM, but got spun off. Instead of making $20 an hour, they now make $14 an hour. And guess what. There was an article in the Detroit newspaper the other day saying that Delphi wanted to re-negotiate the contract to cut their pay to $12 an hour.
So it won't just be you. It will be you and HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of others. Such is the way of this administration. And don't try to blame it all on NAFTA, because that is not the primary problem.
All joking from my last post aside...
Iraq is a problem because it's so different then things like WWI, WWII, Korea and other smaller conflicts because of the nature of the fight. When we went after Germany we bombed the daylights out of them. Germany was the enemy and we treated them like that. Granted, we did take steps to warn civilians when were going to bomb some towns and cities by dropping warning leaflets on the town just prior to the bomb runs, but we still bombed the crap out of them.
When we could, we steamrolled areas with land warfare. There were areas were Allied and Axis forces totaled large chunks of real-estate trying to whack each other.
Iraq is different. We're fighting in some of the same areas that we're rebuilding in. We're also stuck in a PR situation that means we can't really fight to win. Bush and Cheney turned this into bringing the Iraqis freedom when their other reasons fell apart. Well, you can't bring people that you've just carpet bombed out of existence any freedom. You can't claim to be helping the Iraqis stand up if you're flattening entire sections of cities and towns with overwhelming artillery fire.
Does anyone honestly believe that they're going to open up with everything that they've got to nail a group of insurgents who've gotten into the Green Zone? Does anybody believe that, at this point, we could do, let alone get away with, the kind of full force, high manpower, all out attack that should have been done on day one at this point?
We've also been screwed by letting things slip away from us as badly as it has. Rummy liked his little talking point about going to war with the army you've got, but we had the army to deal with this and didn't use it. There were generals who fought the White House over how many more men were needed to deal with taking out Saddam and properly dealing with the aftermath of that. They were dismissed as old "Cold War era" thinkers who didn't understand the brilliance of Rummy's modern "lighter, meaner, faster" concept. Now, through that mismanagement and stupidity, we've come to a point where they wish they could increase the size of the forces to what we should have had before, but they can only do it by grinding the forces they've been using into the ground even more.
We're also not really fighting a war over there. Bush, Cheney and their voices in the media were really big on slagging on the Clinton administration for treating the problem of terrorism as though it were a law enforcement issue. Well, that's basically what they're treating Iraq like.
Yeah, it's a war zone, but only one side is really treating like a war and it ain't ours. We've got the troops doing mostly security and police work. They're rarely truly fighting a war. And they can't. If they do, they'll be destroying most of the areas of Iraq where we have to build things back up.
Right now, it's almost like a reversed version the scene from Shanghai Noon where Jackie fights the bad guys around the Big Boss's prized possessions, but without the comedy aspects. Jackie doesn't care if he trashes the stuff, but the bad guys freak out at the mere chance of one of them breaking or allowing to be broken the Boss's stuff.
We're trying to fight guys that don't care what they break, who they kill or what the results are. We're trying not to break the wrong things, kill the wrong people or make things worse.
Everybody points out that "we" kicked all these other countries butts, but they're not looking at how we fought those fights VS what we're doing in Iraq now. There is no comparison.
There are however tons of historical comparisons where you have a powerful empire that attempts to hold onto an area in the face years of local resistance before finally calling it quits. There are lessons from history where we should have looked to see what happens when a powerful force comes up against an enemy that doesn't really work like a government would. By that I mean, you can get a Japan to stand down when their government says that the war is over where you can't get a hundred independent gorilla forces to all stand down and surrender just by forcing one call it quits.
And if nothing else, we should have learned something from the Falkland Islands and from the Soviet's nightmare in Afghanistan. Don't forget about that last one. We taught a lot of the groups that we're now fighting how to fight, cripple and hold out against a modern, powerful and technologically superior military force. And since that time they've picked up tricks from the Soviets and from German Spec-Ops to incorporate into their training.
We're not fighting our war on our terms. We're fighting our war on their terms and under a PR coordinated strategy.
We're screwed and the war is lost. The only real options we have are to go all out to win (not gonna happen) or begin to face the very real need to extricate ourselves from over there in a manner that does the least amount of long term damage to us and our allies. Neither option looks good, but that's where I think we are.
Den: Call me crazy, but as Starwolf noted, if someone from Germany is launching attacks at you, you don't attack France hoping to lure the Germans across the maginot line.
Pat Nolan: How about when someone from Japan attacks, would you then attack Germany?
Wow. That's not even comparing apples and oranges. That's like apples and elbows.
Germany had already gone to war. We were already helping those fighting against Germany.
"Actually, the fact that there has not been a major attack since 9/11 would be the reply. Not saying you or others would accept it, but for there not to have been another attack for is quite possibly because we took the war to Afghanistan and Iraq."
Attacking Afganistan may have reduced somewhat the ability of Al-Quaida to attack the US. But attacking Iraq has not. It may have caused them to focus most of their attenion on Iraq and less on trying to hit the US. But the most significant factor in preventing terrorism in the US is prevention and the lack of local support. Meanwhile Al Quaida has tryed and suceeded in attacking other places around the world aside from Iraq.
"There is absolutely no doubt that Saddam was involved in terror activities."
Not against the US.
"The claim was not that he was behind 9/11, but that we were taking the fight to all of the terrorists."
The terrorists who were fighting the US were not in Iraq, and you can't take the fight to all of them by invasion. They are spread all over the world. Invasion was the right strategy when you dealt with a country that was the main base of operations of Al-Quaida -- Afghanistan. But not for the rest of the countries.
"to simply say Saddam was not behind 9/11 completely misunderstands and misrepresents the so called neo-con validation for the invasion in the first place."
Had the neo-cons presented the real resonings for the war, namely trying to find terror by reshaping another country that was not connected to the terrorism that threatened the US, it would have been a harder sell, especially because it was a bad idea.
"The validation of this is what happened in Libya. Once we showed resolve in handling Iraq, Kadafi (sp?) was quick to at least make a show of conceding things."
True. Kadafi changed policy because he feared the US after the first apparent sucess of the war, but now the undeniable crisis in Iraq is 'emboldening' Iran and the terrorists you wre ctually trying to fight.
"Others have answered this far better than I can here. My personal suspicion is because Saddam's refusal to allow inspections to prove there were not WMD's was making us look weak in the Muslim world."
The US is now perceived as much weaker than it was prio to the war.
Micha wrote: "In any case, South Korea has a tense but long lasting and stable ceasefire."
Yeah, and that "long lasting and stable ceasefire" allowed North Korea to build the fourth-largest army in the world AND develop nuclear weapons. In short, our passive containment strategy has given the North more than five decades to become more dangerous than ever.
Alan--six years ago, I was making 32,000 a year with a single job. Today, between my job and my freelance work, I'm making 23,000. So don't tell me it won't be me.
It was me.
It still is.
Alan--I misread your post, and what I misread pissed me off. I thought you'd put "It just won't be you," rather than "It won't be just you." Sorry for any misplaced vitriol.
My personal suspicion is because Saddam's refusal to allow inspections to prove there were not WMD's was making us look weak in the Muslim world.
That's a nice theory. Except Saddam ultimately did let the inspectors back, but Bush had already decided he was having his war no matter what.
It is because they truly believe that we must not give in to any terrorist.
That still doesn't answer how invading Iraq protects us from terrorists.
Once we showed resolve in handling Iraq, Kadafi (sp?) was quick to at least make a show of conceding things.
Khadafi had been in negotiations with Britain to give up his WMDs long before we invaded Iraq.
Pat Nolan: How about when someone from Japan attacks, would you then attack Germany?
Like Iowa Jim's statements, that's more than a little bit of historical revisionism. As Sean noted, we were already actively helping Britain fight Germany. Then there's the little fact that Hitler declared war on the US shortly after Japan attacked.
So, yeah, we were at war with both countries before our first troops landed in Europe.
Not saying you or others would accept it, but for there not to have been another attack for is quite possibly because we took the war to Afghanistan and Iraq.
There has not been another attack on the US since 9/11, but there have actually been more Al Qaida attacks internationally since the Iraqi invasion than before. And lumping both Afghanistan and Iraq together is a nice bit of magic. Now, let's look at them separately: Has hitting Afghanistan disrupted their ability to launch another 9/11? Absolutely, there's no doubt about that. But that doesn't prove anything about invading Iraq. You say, "we're taking it to the terrorists", but the terrorists who were a threat to the US were not in Iraq prior to our invasion. You're still not answering the question: Why was it necessary to invade Iraq. Wasn't attacking Afghanistan taking it to them? Couldn't the flypaper theory have worked just as well there, since were already invading them anyway?
And the fact that we're not creating the magically sprouting of democracy that Bush predicted really does raise the question, what are we doing there?
As I said before, Bush has put us in a no-win situation. We stay. We leave. It's a disaster either way.
But to pull out now would be to basically tell terrorists that we are weak.
The fact that Bush has been unable to pacify the country, despite his repeated attempts at declaring victory has alreayd told them that.
Posted by Den at April 27, 2007 04:02 PM
I don't really buy into that carnard. It could also be useful for Gates and Patreus to go Maliki's government and say, "look, we're going to have to pull out eventually, so get your shit together!"
I hope that conversation has already taken place.
I would hope so, too. But then I look at the people in charge of this fubar and their track record of communicating with people who weren't from Texas, and I realize that it probably hasn't occurred to them.
All Im going to say is be careful what you wish for!!!!!!
R Maheras posted:
Yeah, and that "long lasting and stable ceasefire" allowed North Korea to build the fourth-largest army in the world AND develop nuclear weapons. In short, our passive containment strategy has given the North more than five decades to become more dangerous than ever.
And, South Korea has the SIXTH-largest army in the world. Further, even military experts aren't willing to accept that North Korea's military is necessarily better-prepared than the South's.
After all, it was widely believed that Saddam's "battle-hardened" troops (from the near-decade long fight against Iran) would prove a formidable adversary against American forces during Desert Storm. And we all saw just how well things went for Iraq then, didn't we?
Add in the fact that the Iraqi Army was incredibly overwhelmed during the "shock and awe" campaign, then it's a bit absurd to believe that North Korea's purported manpower advantage (the North Korean government can *claim* to have X number of troops but without some independent verification, that's little more than a poker bluff). One also has to factor in the North's weapons systems. Yes, the North has a lot of hardware, but a good chunk of its ships, subs and aircraft are well over a decade old (and the country's last several missile tests were spectacular failures) with most analysts holding the opinion that most of the North's ships, subs and aircraft being a full generation behind anything that the South has.
I'd also point out that based solely on the NUMBERS, Israel should have been wiped out decades ago, yet that country has managed to successfully repel several invasions of larger armies. (Both Egypt and Syria have more men on active-duty; Egypt has nearly three times the number, and Syria almost double, and Israel had to fight BOTH countries simultaneously on all occasions.)
"Yeah, and that "long lasting and stable ceasefire" allowed North Korea to build the fourth-largest army in the world AND develop nuclear weapons. In short, our passive containment strategy has given the North more than five decades to become more dangerous than ever."
Sometimes it is better to have a ceasefire even if your enemy strengthens itself than have an actual war. Yes, North Korea is a threat. But one that had not bean reallized for decades, enabling South Korea to prosper, and preventing the loss of life. The tense ceasefire based in mutual deterrant plays in South Korea's interest as much if not more than the North.
Fighting wars in order to prevent possible wars can become (at times, not always) self fullfilling prophecies.
And if a discussion about minimum wage was to be had, you would have to think about the impact it would have on businesses, and how many of your businesses would shut down rather than incur the extra cost of labor.
Adam, your comments about raising the minimum wage are the same tired lines that conservatives haul out every time, and they've never been proven true. Yes, a fwe businesses will probably close down because the owner did not properly plan his or her business out, which is a very common theme amongst small business owners. Too many people think they can just put up a sign, hire some employees, and the money rolls in. Many of them think that they can just hire employees and not have to work 10 hours a day, 6 or 7 days a week. But if you're going into business for yourself, that's what you have to do. I've been doing it for the past 2 1/2 years because I planned my business properly and knew that employees to give me a day off once in a while was a luxury that I could not afford.
And the "kids in the comic shops?" Please, is this the best you can do? Those "kids" are working under the table, usually for their weekly batch of comic books.
It's so funny... people bitch about raising the minimum wage to a livable wage, then they bitch again when the same people hurt by not being able to make a minimum wage end up on government assistance.
My personal suspicion is because Saddam's refusal to allow inspections to prove there were not WMD's was making us look weak in the Muslim world.
Refusal? Hans Blix and his UN weapons inspection team said that Hussein was finally in 100% compliance.
Let me ask you this, Jim... if the Bush administration knew exactly where the WMD's were (as they claimed repetedly), why not just give the location to Blix's team?
Oh, that's right... they didn't because there were no WMD's.
The claim was not that he was behind 9/11
Complete rubbish. The Bush administration repeatedly inferred that Hussein was behind 9/11. On Meet the Press, Vice President Crash Cart stated that we were in Iraq to strike a blow at the heart of those that attacked us on 9/11. During the presidential debate when Bush was asked about the war in Iraq, he responded with "the enemy attacked us first." Even now, when the 9/11 panel has said that there was no connection between Hussein and 9/11, even when Bush himself is grudgingly forced to admit it, Vice President Crash Cart is STILL claiming it.
> the US should recognize in Iraq what it realized in Korea, namely that full victory cannot be acheived.
Nonsense. About Korea, that is. The enemy was repulse from the country it had invaded and forced to declare a cease-fire. The only reason it loasted nearly as long as it did was due to China sending in Gods know how many thousands of men. And even that was insufficient.
Micha wrote: "Fighting wars in order to prevent possible wars can become (at times, not always) self fullfilling prophecies."
Leaders in Europe made that exact same argument as the Nazis ignored the Treaty of Versailles and built up their military in the years before World War II.
Here's a brief recap: http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-rhine.htm
Like you, they also believed they could contain the beast in their backyard. But they were wrong -- and 72 million people died because of it during World War II. That's a number that is so huge, it's hard to really fathom when compared to any recent conflict -- including the War in Iraq.
I only hope I am wrong about the danger North Korea poses to not just their region anymore, but, with nukes in their back pocket, the whole world. Because if I'M right, the resulting carnage and loss of life in some city (or cities) is even too horrible to contemplate.
JosephW wrote: "And, South Korea has the SIXTH-largest army in the world. Further, even military experts aren't willing to accept that North Korea's military is necessarily better-prepared than the South's"
As I mentioned previously, I was stationed in South Korea. While assigned there, I sat in on several classified briefings assessing the "no fooling" threat from the North. I also know what some experts have publicly said, but like anyone who's been around the block a few times, I also know that experts are routinely and absolutely, positively wrong.
I was stationed in South Korea in 1998, BEFORE the North had nukes, and even at that time, no military person in the South with any brains took the threat from the North lightly. As I also mentioned, we were constantly on a wartime footing, as every commander knew with the unpredictability of the North, an attack could happen at any time.
And therein lies the rub regarding North Korea. They WILL attack first -- just as they did in 1950 at the start of the Korean War. And as any military strategist will tell you, the attacking unit always have the upper hand initially if there is any element of surprise at all in the attack. But now that North Korea has nukes, it makes defending such a surprise attack even more problematic than before.
One final point, no military commander should ever underestimate a fighting force that is up against. Such ignorance or arrogance (pick one) is a recipe for disaster.
Posted by: R. Maheras at April 28, 2007 12:47 PM:
"Leaders in Europe made that exact same argument as the Nazis ignored the Treaty of Versailles and built up their military in the years before World War II.
Here's a brief recap: http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-rhine.htm"
It is presumptious of you to assume I do not know the history of WWII.
There was a good reason why I did present my statement as an absolute rule. You would be mistaken to assume I oppose premptive wars, or wars in general.
The reference to WWII is typical. It is unfortunate that to many people carelessly compare every conflict to WWII, instead of learning the relevant lessons and adapting them to each unique conflict, while also learning other lessons from other conflicts. For example: the Cold War, in which avoiding turning a possible war into an actual war was the best way to prevent WWIII, or WWI, which started because people believed war was inevitable.
You would also be mistaken if you assume I oppose readiness for war or underestimate enemies. To opposite is true. I'm a big fan of the old Roman adage: he who wants peace must prepae for war. It is the duty of armies to prepare for potential wars, especially in places like Korea. However, considering that the North Koreans did not attack the South in all these years, and that the border was stable, this seems to suggest they do not consider it in their interest to attack despite the ideological reasons that motivatd the first attack, and that their behavior is not erratic. It is reasonable to assume that they will not change this attitude unless something else changes. What could that be? There are several possibilities. For example, if their is a change in the US or South Korea that would make it seem to them that an attack wouldhave a greater chance for success. Or if the leadership feels pressure to act for internal reasons. Another cause, that will most certainly cause the North Korean leadership to attack the South, or other countries, is if they think that their rule of North Korea is threatened by an American attack. That would be a very good way to fullfill the threat that you preceive, but which has not been realized as of yet, and does not seem likely to be realized for other reasons I'm aware of. Now, it is your duty as a militaryman to be prepared for all these eventualities and more. But it is the duty of others that preparation for potential wars will not turn each and every one of them into actual wars, or people will be fighting constantly.
Now that Korea has Nuclear weapons it is certainly not in the interest of the US to turn a potential war into an actual. I do not know enough about the political and military situation regarding North Korea to know if their was a military option to prevent the North Koreans from gaining nuclear weapons. But whoever had to make the decision had to weigh the dangers of what might actually occur as a result of an American military strike, with the possibility that the North Koreans wil make use of their Nuclear weapons once they obtained them. That's the difference between the role of the army to be always ready, and the role of politicians to decide when to make use of that readiness.
------------------
Posted by: The StarWolf at April 28, 2007 11:54 AM:
> the US should recognize in Iraq what it realized in Korea, namely that full victory cannot be acheived.
Nonsense. About Korea, that is. The enemy was repulse from the country it had invaded and forced to declare a cease-fire. The only reason it loasted nearly as long as it did was due to China sending in Gods know how many thousands of men. And even that was insufficient."
Starwolf, I would appreciate it if, when I present a view held by someone else, namely Fareed Zachari from Newsweek, you will not attributed that view to me, and make sure that your reply addresses and refers to his opinions. I don't have a link to Mr. Zakaria's article, but I suggest you look for it if you have a problem with his opinions, since I have the ability neither to defend to oppose or to agree with his opinions, or to represent themin their fullest, since I'm working from memory.
R. Maheras wrote:
"Yeah, and that "long lasting and stable ceasefire" allowed North Korea to build the fourth-largest army in the world AND develop nuclear weapons. In short, our passive containment strategy has given the North more than five decades to become more dangerous than ever."
-----
Yet "our passive containment strategy" worked just fine until Bushco took over. Since then, not so good.
Sean wrote:
"Alan--I misread your post, and what I misread pissed me off. I thought you'd put "It just won't be you," rather than "It won't be just you." Sorry for any misplaced vitriol."
-----
No apology needed. If you read my post again from my viewpoint, there just might have been some vitriol in my post. :)
I, too, will soon be among those who are under-employed, as I am losing my present job and will be looking for a new workplace. And for the last 4 years, I have been working for about 15% less than I was before.
Pat Nolan said:
"All Im going to say is be careful what you wish for!!!!!!"
-----
Apparently echoing the sentiments of Rudy Giuliani. Yet they are the words of fear. Stay fearful so the government can control you better.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brooks27apr27,0,4715219.column
Despite the assertions of some here that I'm a knee-jerk supporter of all things liberal, people without blinders on are aware that I've expressed frustration and anger with Democratic party leaders any number of times.
Who can blame you? Oftentimes the only thing they've had going for them is the fact that they aren't Republicans and they have infinitely more money to build up their candidates than the Green Party does.
Democrats, of course, aren't always supporters of things liberal, things sensible, or things requiring a spine. Since November, there have been anti-war protests outside of the offices of Congressional Democrats because the protestors are pissed that they aren't doing absolutely everything in their power to bring the troops home (up to and including simply cutting off funding and taking as firm a stand on that as Bush is taking with his "I'm gong to veto any bill with a timetable no matter what and I'll do it as long as I'm in office" talk).
I think it'd be difficult to find somebody who hadn't been frustrated by them at one time or another. Particularly in 2004. Kerry initially saying that even if he knew today what he knew back then he would've still voted to authorize military action against Iraq...Kerry doing absolutely nothing in response to the Swift Boat ads...Kerry acting like a poseur by going on that stupid hunting trip to try and earn points with hunters...Kerry telling people his favorite player was "Manny Ortiz" (getting the names of Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz confused when asked who his favorite Red Sox player was) to try and earn points with baseball fans...and on and on and on.
Even today I think they could be doing a better job. At every opportunity, Bush and Cheney and their minions are painting the Democrats as cowards and quitters and troop-haters and the Democrats aren't hitting back hard enough! Damn it, the other night I saw Max Cleland on CNN, and he said:
"...when (Bush) signs that veto early next week, he will sign it in blood, because he's just guaranteeing the death of more Americans in Iraq."
And there was also this:
SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS (R), GEORGIA: Men and women of the 3rd ID simply don't agree with the Democrats who want to tuck tail and run. Georgians don't want to do that, the military does not want to do that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: All right. He says Democrats are almost un-American for what they are trying to do.
What do you say to Senator Chambliss?
CLELAND: Well, first of all, I've been called un-American and unpatriotic by the senator before. It wasn't true then, it's not true now.
And secondly, I don't take my advice on war from somebody, Mr. Chambliss, who tucked his tail and ran from the war of his generation. He got out of going to Vietnam with a trick knee. So I'm not going to follow anybody's advice on that, and I'm certainly not going to back off my view that it's time to protect Americans, it's time to bring our young Americans home, and it is time to set a timetable.
As long as the Dems are getting slammed repeatedly and painted as a bunch of cowards who want to leave American troops high and dry in Iraq without any supplies, we need more talk like that on the Democratic side. Unfortunately, while Reid and Pelosi could be handling this a lot worse, I don't think they are keeping up with Bush, Cheney, Perino, et al. And that's frustrating. They've gotta do something to coerce this pigfucker to do what they want and what the American people want.
(Just so nobody mistakes my comments as being of a similar nature to those of Eric Butler's in the other thread and to avoid any possibility of a libel suit, I would like to clarify that I am not accusing the President of actually having intercourse with porcine partners and have no evidence that he engages in such activity with farm animals of any sort. Despite his wife's story about him "milking" a male horse...)
Posted by Scott Bland at April 28, 2007 09:32 AM
The claim was not that he was behind 9/11
Complete rubbish. The Bush administration repeatedly inferred that Hussein was behind 9/11. On Meet the Press, Vice President Crash Cart stated that we were in Iraq to strike a blow at the heart of those that attacked us on 9/11. During the presidential debate when Bush was asked about the war in Iraq, he responded with "the enemy attacked us first." Even now, when the 9/11 panel has said that there was no connection between Hussein and 9/11, even when Bush himself is grudgingly forced to admit it, Vice President Crash Cart is STILL claiming it.
I would really like to see a transcript of that "Meet the press" interview. I would like to see ANY proof where The Bush administration claimed Saddam was behind 9/11.
See you libbys are also capable of your own tired hyperbole. This being one.
I would like to see ANY proof where The Bush administration claimed Saddam was behind 9/11.
You're trying to supplant Mike as the biggest troll here, I gather.
They never actually said the words "Saddam was behind 9/11" or "Saddam was one of the planners of 9/11" or anything like that. However, they did repeatedly say that there was connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, and that's all they needed to do. They knew how the American people would react to that statement, that Saddam Hussein was an ally of the organization behind 9/11. They knew the American people would suspect that Saddam played an active role. They knew that's all it was gonna take to get the majority of the American people behind their insane plan.
And of course today, whenever they are accused of claiming that Saddam was behind 9/11, they can look all innocent and say "Oh no, we never said that. I defy you to find any piece of videotape or any transcript that has us saying that." Technically, of course, that is the truth. They never said it. They inferred it. Do you understand the difference, Pat?
Posted by: Alan Coil at April 28, 2007 03:47 PM
Pat Nolan said:
"All Im going to say is be careful what you wish for!!!!!!"
-----
Apparently echoing the sentiments of Rudy Giuliani. Yet they are the words of fear. Stay fearful so the government can control you better.
or if we just go away everything will be fine, bury the old head in the sand, look the other way,
Have I forgotten any other clichés?
Wow a bit paranoid are we?
Man you'd think they could hijack air planes and fly them into buildings or something......
No Im not saying Al-Quaida and Saddam were in it together, Im saying NOW Iraq is perfect for these terrorists and they cant wait until we leave.
Methinks this is exactly the way Al-Quaida wants it.
Methinks this is exactly the way Al-Quaida wants it.
Have you considered that Al-Qaeda enjoys having a U.S. troop presence in Iraq because it means they can keep picking off Americans week after week without having to travel halfway around the world to get at them, while at the same time reducing the number of National Guard stationed stateside, thus making the U.S. more vulnerable?
Posted by: Rob Brown at April 28, 2007 04:09 PM
I would like to see ANY proof where The Bush administration claimed Saddam was behind 9/11.
You're trying to supplant Mike as the biggest troll here, I gather.
If it means not agreeing with you, then yes Im a troll.
They never actually said the words "Saddam was behind 9/11" or "Saddam was one of the planners of 9/11" or anything like that. However, they did repeatedly say that there was connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, and that's all they needed to do. They knew how the American people would react to that statement, that Saddam Hussein was an ally of the organization behind 9/11. They knew the American people would suspect that Saddam played an active role. They knew that's all it was gonna take to get the majority of the American people behind their insane plan.
And of course today, whenever they are accused of claiming that Saddam was behind 9/11, they can look all innocent and say "Oh no, we never said that. I defy you to find any piece of videotape or any transcript that has us saying that." Technically, of course, that is the truth. They never said it. They inferred it. Do you understand the difference, Pat?
Ok, then quit purporting that they did for crying out loud.
Man I am one big assed troll now.
Posted by: Rob Brown at April 28, 2007 04:38 PM
Methinks this is exactly the way Al-Quaida wants it.
Have you considered that Al-Qaeda enjoys having a U.S. troop presence in Iraq because it means they can keep picking off Americans week after week without having to travel halfway around the world to get at them, while at the same time reducing the number of National Guard stationed stateside, thus making the U.S. more vulnerable?
I can agree with that but, ultimately I think they are waiting for us to leave and the more unstable Iraq is, the better because then they get their own country.
"Technically, of course, that is the truth. They never said it. They inferred it. Do you understand the difference, Pat?"
Do you?
No one in the Bush administration ever publicly inferred that Saddam was behind 9/11.
They IMPLIED that he was behind 9/11. The public then inferred from the implication. That's how that works. "Imply" and "infer" are not interchangeable.
PAD
Pat Nolan,
Please use quotes. I'm not being sarky, so don't read it like that, but you can get cross-eyed reading quotes without " marks to break where they end and you start.
Thanks.
The mental fart that caused me to confuse "imply" and "infer" was surely karmic payback for my "giant ignoramus" remark earlier. I should know better than to tempt fate like that...
Rob Brown, everyone makes errors... but not everyone learns from them. Just add this to your repository of knowledge and don't make the mistake again... and you'll be head-and-shoulders above a lot of people in this world.
Posted by Peter David at April 28, 2007 04:54 PM
"Technically, of course, that is the truth. They never said it. They inferred it. Do you understand the difference, Pat?"
Do you?
No one in the Bush administration ever publicly inferred that Saddam was behind 9/11.
They IMPLIED that he was behind 9/11. The public then inferred from the implication. That's how that works. "Imply" and "infer" are not interchangeable.
PAD
Im certainly not going to argue grammer with you PAD. You most obviously have a better handle on it then me. or is that myself? see?
But I dont believe the Bush Administration "Implied" or "inferred" that Saddam was behind 9/11. I believe they "Implied" or "inferred" that he was behind some of the terrorism in the ME.
I would still like to see that transcript though.
>"Starwolf, I would appreciate it if, when I present a view held by someone else, namely Fareed Zachari from Newsweek, you will not attributed that view to me, and make sure that your reply addresses and refers to his opinions"
That would be fine if I had indeed quoted your name. Where, ANYWHERE, in my comment did I include your name? I was replying to a comment. I made no mention of who I was replying to.
Posted by: Jerry Chandler at April 28, 2007 05:17 PM
Pat Nolan,
Please use quotes. I'm not being sarky, so don't read it like that, but you can get cross-eyed reading quotes without " marks to break where they end and you start.
Thanks.
I will do that. um.. also can I ask a question?
Do you guys have a template or a certain piece
of code you use to make your posts look good?
Im certainly not going to argue grammer with you PAD. You most obviously have a better handle on it then me. or is that myself? see?
But I dont believe the Bush Administration "Implied" or "inferred" that Saddam was behind 9/11. I believe they "Implied" or "inferred" that he was behind some of the terrorism in the ME.
I would still like to see that transcript though.
Then I turn around and do the same thing. Sorry
Pat Nolan: "I would really like to see a transcript of that "Meet the press" interview. I would like to see ANY proof where The Bush administration claimed Saddam was behind 9/11.
See you libbys are also capable of your own tired hyperbole. This being one"
Well Pat, I'll give you tons of stuff where they tried to play word games to link 9/11 and Saddam or OBL and Saddam in the minds of the public.
__________________________________________________
CBS Evening News September 4, 2002. David Martin reported :
"Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks." According to CBS, a Pentagon aide's notes from that day quote Rumsfeld asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time, not only UBL." (The initials SH and UBL stand for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.) The notes then quote Rumsfeld as demanding that the administration's response "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not."
November 1, 2002:
"After first exaggerating and then downplaying allegations of a supposed partnership between al Qaeda and Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, Bush and other administration officials--including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer--are again claiming that there is a link between Hussein and al Qaeda. But, intelligence officials have not yet found any proof to back these allegations, despite efforts to do so, according to the Washington Post. Former CIA agents say that there is no evidence a "partnership" emerged from known contacts between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi officials in the 1990s. Bush has also tried to galvanize support for a war against Iraq by charging that Hussein's government offered medical treatment to a senior al-Qaeda leader. However, intercepted telephone communications "did not mention any cooperation with the Iraqi government.""
Washington Post Monday 29 September
"Cheney brought up the connection between Atta and al-Ani again two weeks ago in an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" in which he also suggested links between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks.
Cheney described Iraq as "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
Cheney's staff also waged a campaign to include the allegation in Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's speech to the United Nations in February."
When Bush announced the end of hostilities in Iraq in his May 1 photo op aboard the USS Lincoln, he said of the defeated Iraqi regime: "We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda." While a Saddam Hussein/Osama bin Laden connection was one of the administration's early justifications for going to war, it has produced no evidence to demonstrate any true links existed.
June 15, 2003 edition of NBC's Meet the Press: Former General Wesley Clark told anchor Tim Russert that Bush administration officials had engaged in a campaign to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks.
From the transcript:
CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."
RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"
CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."
Bush promises new evidence on Iraq
President adds to case against Saddam, outlines domestic plans
By Alex Johnson
Reporter
MSNBC
WASHINGTON, Jan. 28, 2003 - President Bush promised to reveal new evidence about Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s intransigence Tuesday night as he sought to strike a delicate balance in his State of the Union address between Saddam’s “utter contempt” for world opinion and the public’s unease over the stagnant economy.
......
And finally, he said, “Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida.”
Rewriting History
In his debate with John Edwards, Dick Cheney had a brand-new version of the events that led to war
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 4:32 p.m. ET Oct. 6, 2004
Cheney’s claims about an “established relationship” between Iraq and Al Qaeda were always a principal part of the administration’s case for war, cited by Powell at the United Nations and, most forcefully, by Cheney in numerous speeches and TV interviews before and after the invasion. But it is also a contention that has been seriously undermined by a series of recent U.S. government reports, including the September 11 Commission report, which concluded there was no “collaborative operational relationship” between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Another is a recent CIA analysis, disclosed for the first time this week, raising questions about whether Jordanian terrorist Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, had been harbored by Saddam’s regime before the war.
Cheney said last night that Zarqawi, who once ran a terror camp in Afghanistan with loose links to Al Qaeda, had “migrated to Baghdad” after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 and “set up shop” there, overseeing a “poisons facility” at Kurmal, in northern Iraq.
In fact, U.S. intelligence officials tell NEWSWEEK, after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Zarqawi went first to Iran—a country that many officials have long believed had far more consequential relationships with terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, than Saddam’s regime. And while the new CIA report confirms that Zarqawi unquestionably did later move to Baghdad—and received medical treatment there before the war— there is still no hard evidence on whether he was being supported or assisted by Saddam’s regime.
Cheney blasts media on al Qaeda-Iraq link
Says media not 'doing their homework' in reporting ties.
Friday, June 18, 2004 Posted: 2:25 AM EDT (0625 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."
Bush stands by al Qaeda, Saddam link.
Tuesday, June 15, 2004 Posted: 6:06 PM EDT (2206 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush repeated his administration's claim that Iraq was in league with al Qaeda under Saddam Hussein's rule, saying Tuesday that fugitive Islamic militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ties Saddam to the terrorist network.
"Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda," Bush told reporters at the White House. "He's the person who's still killing."
U.S. intelligence officials have said al Qaeda had some links to Iraq dating back to the early 1990s, but the nature and extent of those contacts is a matter of dispute.
Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech Monday in Florida, raised eyebrows by reasserting claims that Saddam "had long-established ties with al Qaeda."
Rice: Iraq Providing Shelter, Chemical Weapons Help to Al Qaeda
Thursday, September 26, 2002
Fox News:
WASHINGTON — President Bush's national security adviser has alleged a connection between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terror master Usama bin Laden that many had thought impossible to back up.
And Condoleezza Rice also insisted she could back up her assertion with proof.
Rice on Wednesday accused Saddam's regime of sheltering members of the Al Qaeda terrorist network in Baghdad and helping bin Laden's operatives in developing chemical weapons
BBC News, March 19, 2002; "US says Iraq linked to al-Qaeda:
We clearly know that there were in the past and have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of Al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time," Rice said.
And then Shrub sends somebody else out to fall on the sword for him...
No proof links Iraq, al-Qaida, Powell says
Chief weapons inspector reportedly about to quit
NBC, MSNBC and news services
Updated: 8:11 p.m. ET Jan. 8, 2004
WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell reversed a year of administration policy, acknowledging Thursday that he had seen no “smoking gun [or] concrete evidence” of ties between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.
Powell, speaking at a news conference at the State Department, stressed that he was still certain that Iraq had dangerous weapons and needed to be disarmed by force, and he sharply disagreed with a private think tank report that maintained that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States.
“I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I do believe the connections existed,” he said.
Of course, that last one is really funny since they've gone right back to linking them at every chance they get.
Posted by Jerry Chandler at April 28, 2007 06:12 PM
Pat Nolan: "I would really like to see a transcript of that "Meet the press" interview. I would like to see ANY proof where The Bush administration claimed Saddam was behind 9/11.
See you libbys are also capable of your own tired hyperbole. This being one"
Well Pat, I'll give you tons of stuff where they tried to play word games to link 9/11 and Saddam or OBL and Saddam in the minds of the public.
Thank you. Now about that minimum wage increase...
If people think that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam, it may not be form the Bush administration. It may be because they remember what the media was reporting in 1999:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/016745.php
It's a pain in the ass to get it to play but it's an ABC report from, apparently, January oF 1999, after the bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory. It explicitly and without ambiguity states taht Saddam and Bin Laden are working together and that Bin Laden has been told he is welcome in Iraq. It even closes with the threat of Bin Laden operatives throughout the world ready to commit acts of terror.
This was during the Clinton administration. Now, maybe ABC news got it 100% wrong (though they leave no room for doubt in the report). Still, I'm surprised that people act like the Bush folks made up the supposed link out of whole cloth, ignoring the fact that, at one time, it was practically conventional wisdom.
"I believe they "Implied" or "inferred" that he was behind some of the terrorism in the ME."
Why should the US care if Saddam was involved in terrorism in the ME, if it had no connection to terrorism against the US or even threatened major US interests? It only makes the invasion of Iraq less justified if the justification is that Saddam was somehow connected to totally unrelated terrorism. It looks as if the US was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq instead of having a good reason to do so.
I've been conscious of the political volleyball matches for over twenty years. I know some have been following it longer.
Reports of stuff tacked onto bills that have nothing to do with bills astonishes me. I have never seen this before!
OK, I lie.
Sure, complain, but realize, this is no different than it has been before, and happens regardless of party affiliation. It's how the government works. Or doesn't work, if you prefer.
Bill Mulligan: "If people think that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam, it may not be form the Bush administration. It may be because they remember what the media was reporting in 1999:
I'm not really sure that too many people got that idea from the pre-2002 media. Most people had no idea who OBL was or what Al Queda was prior to 9/11. Even when people would mention the first WTC attack in the late 90's, if they even remembered that there was one, they just refered to Middle Eastern terrorists. And most people still thought of Saddam as the punchline of a joke and not some serious threat to our lives. He was the clown for comedy movies to use a lisping fool who thought of himself as a towering terror.
The idea was pounded into peoples brains by the Bush Admin throughout 2002 and into 2003. It's really hard to argue that. You'll find very little in the mainstream or popular public discourse about it prior to that point.
As for the clip itself, I kinda remember it. But I also seem to remember ABC taken some flack at the time for some of the report's facts. I'd love to back that up with links, but the only Google links I get to a story that makes this case as fact are ones for blogs posting this video. Tons of blogs have this thing up, talk about the widespread reports of the time confirming the same thing and then fail to actually use any of these other stories.
At best, I'm finding stuff that the 9/11 Commission did address. There are lots of these "widespread reports" that say that Saddam had some of his people meet with OBL or his people to discuss doing a deal. That was known and it was something Bush used a lot. However, the rest of that story is that the meetings never went anywhere. Our Intel guys, Brit Intel guys and the final 9/11 report have all addressed that.
If you can find some links to stories that give the story as a fact rather then just saying "some guys met somewhere and maybe" then post them here or even email 'em to me. I'd love to see them, but I can't find anything that comes close to the story that Bush and crew were spinning in '02.
After 9/11, when the war on terror started, I thought that eventually Saddam would be tempted to hook up with Al-Quaida, as a bid for the leadership of anti-US forces (the way the Iranian is doing now). I thought if that happened, the US would have had a good reason to strike Iraq.
Bill Mulligan, I watched the video and frankly it appears to be an example of poor reporting. The video states that Iraq and bin Laden had a long history, but when it comes to substantiating that, this is the best they could do:
"ABC News has learned that in December [1998], an Iraqi intelligence chief, named Farouk Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad."
As Jerry Chandler pointed out, Bush did attempt to use this thin piece of "evidence" (and I'm being charitable by using that word) to "prove" a link between Saddam and bin Laden. But it turns out there is no evidence those meetings ever went anywhere, and bin Laden subsequently referred to Saddam as an enemy. That's something that was known in 2002, when Bush began the drumbeat for invading Iraq.
One unsubstantiated report aired by ABC News in 1999 does not comprise the "conventional wisdom" of the time. Nor does it prove that Bush didn't exaggerate the evidence in order to push us into a war. In fact, it kinda proves the opposite. Bush took the one thin piece of evidence presented in that report and tried to spin it into a full-out alliance -- even though credible individuals including some within his administration were warning him that the evidence didn't hold up.
Has anybody read any of Peter Lances books?
or is he another "shooter in the grassy knoll" type?
The Bush Administration did EVERYTHING possible to attach Saddam with 9/11. Even if they were not explicit, they jammed them together like PB&J.
If you asked for an explicit connection, you got responses framed so that the public would make the connections (without actually hearing any proof).
For example, Condi Rice regularly attached these phrases together in interviews:
"Saddam is a threat."
"Saddam has WMDs."
"Saddam wants nuclear weapons."
"Saddam harbors terrorists."
"Saddam has ties to Al Qaida."
"Terrorists attacked us on 9/11."
"Terrorists could blow up a U.S. city with a nuke."
If the interviewer asked what connections Saddam had to Al Qaida, her reponse would be (some variation of): "We can't wait for a mushroom cloud!"
Anyone giving Condi Rice, et al, the benefit of the doubt would make the connection that Saddam would give nukes to terrorists to use in our cities.
AT NO TIME did the Bush Administration CORRECT the misperception (if misperception it was) that all these statements added up that way. If people were wrong, and by people I mean the MEDIA, the Bush Admin certainly did not offer any kind of clarification.
And keep in mind, the media who pushed this the most were outlets who have been shown to take marching orders straight from Karl Rove. So there's no question this misinformation was purely intentional.
It's absurd when one party bitches about the others' riders attached to bills. What percentage of bills are "clean" anyway? A fraction of one-percent, if that much.
I'm not saying it's right. I'd love a law that says every bill must be clean.
But if the GOP wanted clean bills, they had 12 years to establish that new tradition.
Micha wrote: “The reference to WWII is typical. It is unfortunate that to many people carelessly compare every conflict to WWII, instead of learning the relevant lessons and adapting them to each unique conflict, while also learning other lessons from other conflicts.”
“Learning the relevant lessons” is exactly what I am talking about.
If you are, in fact, knowledgeable about World War II, and you do not see the inherent danger of appeasement in the face of an aggressor, then you missed one of the key takeaways from that conflict.
And your Cold War example is flawed. There were several instances during the Cold War – most notably The Cuban Missile Crisis -- when World War III was nearly triggered. In other words, containment is still a very dangerous proposition, and historically has failed far more often than it has succeeded. It, like a hot war, is still a form of Russian roulette – and while it is an option, it still might end up killing you.
The fact is, North Korea is more dangerous today than at any other time in the past 54 years, in my opinion. You seem to think that because they have not directly attacked South Korea for five decades, they have become a toothless tiger, with no stomach for war. I disagree. They still want a united peninsula more than ever, but only under their rules and their form of government.
In my personal opinion, if we do anything militarily against North Korea, Seoul is toast, along with its 10 million inhabitants (22 million, if you take into account its entire metro area). This is how it is now, and this is how it was 10 years ago.
So, keep your fingers crossed that the North collapses from within before its leadership has a bad day and opts to attack. Because right now, that's about all we can do.
The idea was pounded into peoples brains by the Bush Admin throughout 2002 and into 2003. It's really hard to argue that. You'll find very little in the mainstream or popular public discourse about it prior to that point.
I suspect this ABC news report was not the only one of its kind but it would take more work than I'm ready to put into it to prove it one way or another. My point was simply that this was not something new and if people had the perception taht Alqaeda and Saddam had links they may well have gotten it from ABC news--"where more Americans get their news than from any other source".
Incidentally, another possible source of this idea is from those right wing rabble rousers at PBS with their interview of former CIA head (under the Bush-lackey lickspittles of the Clinton administration) R. James Woolsey where he says, among other things, "I think things will continue to come out tying Iraq -- possibly Iran -- but tying Iraq to terrorism directly against the United States in the 1990s and possibly September 11, 2001."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/woolsey.html
I do remembr one pop culture reference to Saddam and WMD though--at the beginning of Armegeddon, when the meteors are crashing into NYC, one of the Wayans brothers screams "We're being bombed by Saddam Hussein!"
I suspect this ABC news report was not the only one of its kind but it would take more work than I'm ready to put into it to prove it one way or another. My point was simply that this was not something new and if people had the perception taht Alqaeda and Saddam had links they may well have gotten it from ABC news--"where more Americans get their news than from any other source".
It may not have been, but I spent about an hour bouncing around on Google and came up with almost nothing but stories from 2002 and beyond. Most of the pre-2002 stuff was the same two or three stories being discussed on hundreds of blogs. Hundreds and hundreds of blogs. You have no idea the size of the aspirin I need right now.
Some people may have remembered that story and thought that. No question there. But the majority of people likely didn't. Like I said before, most people didn't even seem to know who the hell Osama Bin Laden was or what Al Qaeda was until after the press explained it for weeks on end after 9/11. It took OBL sticking his head up and sending out his "I did it videos for most people to even know what he looked like. Ok, slight exaggeration there.
But still, a few people did think that Saddam and OBL might make a pact back then. Lots of people look at their enemies and their allies under the the enemy of my enemy is my friend prism of thought. But that was looked into and was being disputed, quite strongly, within the intelligence community when Bush and crew took their show on the road.
Saying that the few, minor stories from 1999 - 2001 fueled the mass craze that Iraq and Al Qaeda were all buddy-buddy with each other and that OBL and Saddam were joined at the hip in there 9/11 complicity or WMD manufacturing is like saying that the light spring rains in 2003 are what really weakened the levees in N.O. and Katrina wasn't really that responsible for their bursting.
Do your homework on someone before you try and use them as a debating point. R. James Woolsey was gunning for Iraq for quite some time before that interview. As a matter of fact, he and several friends of his got together and sent a letter to Clinton to do something about Saddam back in 1998. Maybe you've heard of the guy's friends? Donald Rumsfeld? Paul Wolfowitz? John Bolton? Richard L. Armitage? William J. Bennett? Francis Fukuyama? Richard Perle? Any of them ring a bell? They all got together and formed this little glee club called Project For The New American Century and advocated using any pretext that an incident in the Middle East might offer to take Saddam out and set up shop in Iraq.
You can see Woolsey's John Hancock with those guys here:
www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
Other then that, Woolsey was also the Delegate at Large to the U.S.-Soviet Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) and Nuclear and Space Arms Talks (NST), Geneva, 1983-1986 under Ronald Reagan (and he left the CIA under Clinton's Administration in 1995.) He's been in to many conservative groups and in government service in general way too long to try and make him out to be a lib for this argument based on his three years of service under Bill Clinton. That's a bit like calling Colin Powell a raging conservative neo-con because he served under Bush.
Oh, he's also now a member of the FDD with just a bunch of screaming libs.
www.defenddemocracy.org/biographies/biographies.htm
I do remembr one pop culture reference to Saddam and WMD though--at the beginning of Armegeddon, when the meteors are crashing into NYC, one of the Wayans brothers screams "We're being bombed by Saddam Hussein!"
Backs one of my points up quite well. It was a joke in a Hollywood movie that was meant to point out how what a joke everyone viewed Saddam as at the time.