It's nice to see that, as the Bush administration predicted, the election has quieted all the violence in Iraq - NOT.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...M_Exclude=Juno
It's nice to see that, as the Bush administration predicted, the election has quieted all the violence in Iraq - NOT.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...M_Exclude=Juno
...Just ask me...
as I am sure all of us who read the papers also did. I am wondering what the point of your post is. While I am in no way a Bush supporter, I don't recall anytime in the recent past that he or his administration promised the Iraqi elections would end the violence there. To the contrary, they told us it was going to continue for a long time.
All I can conclude is that you might be tossing a little chum into the water.If I am mistaken, kindly restate the purpose of the post so I can remove this one.
"Always laugh when you can. It is a cheap medicine"
Lord Byron
Take a photo tour of Cape Cod and the Islands!
www.capecodphotoalbum.com
I've pretty much thrown in the towel re Iraq. It was heartbreaking to see all those folks voting when as much as I would like to believe this was the beginning of a happy ending, I know better. The big issue now is Iran. I believe the administration is preparing to bomb suspected nuclear facilities there sometime this year.Originally Posted by hcjilson
CHM:
We shall not need to bomb them, we have only to let Israel know that we won't raise too much cane if they do.
Chip
Why do it this way? To escape culpabillity, of course.
I dunno. Seems to me Israel has other fish to fry. We'll see.Originally Posted by chip anderson
Well, it's a safe bet that we won't attack Iran in August 2005. Before August, or later ...Originally Posted by chm2023
Former Bush White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, explaining to the New York Times why the Bush administration waited until September of 2002 to go public with the idea of military action against Iraq."From a marketing point of view, you don't roll out a new product in August."
"Not until September ..."
The New York Review of Books
Last edited by rinselberg; 03-30-2007 at 01:58 AM.
Not chumming - just venting, I guess. I am frustrated that the administration misjudged the Iraq situation so horribly, then has changed their tune without so much as a "we made a mistake", "we were wrong", or even a "we misunderestimated the Iraq situation". (I can't ridicule W enough for his use of imaginary words). They blew it from WMD, through "the Iraqi people will embrace our military as liberators" sentiment, and continuing with the "everything will be fine once they've had an election" line of BS. There whole demeanor shows an arrogance that makes me sick. I am tired of all the killing.Originally Posted by hcjilson
I guess I have a long memory. I'm not willing to give them a break just because they have finally come to the conclusion that many had before the invasion.
...Just ask me...
Another card in Centcom's deck of 55 Most Wanted Iraqis has fallen.
Saddam's half brother and 29 other former officials of the Iraqi Baathist regime were captured in Syria and turned over to Iraq.
Iraqi officials said Sunday that Syria captured and handed over Saddam Hussein’s half brother, a most-wanted leader in the Sunni-based insurgency, ending months of Syrian denials that it was harboring fugitives from the ousted Saddam regime. Iraq authorities said Damascus acted in a gesture of goodwill ...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6913272/
Last edited by rinselberg; 02-28-2005 at 08:13 AM.
Here is what Kennedy had to say from the floor of the U.S. Senate last week:Originally Posted by Spexvet
"The American people were told Saddam Hussein was building nuclear weapons. He was not. We were told he had stockpiles of other weapons of mass destruction. He did not. We were told he was involved in 9/11. He was not. We were told Iraq was attracting terrorists from Al Qaeda. It was not. We were told our soldiers would be viewed as liberators. They are not. We were told Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction. It cannot. We were told the war would make America safer. It has not."This sounds just like your post and it comes from the most extreme element of the democratic party.
Here is a speech from the president prior to the beginning of the war to oust Saddam. I think he made his case for going to war.
Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months, and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.So what do you think? Did the president make the case? It may well be that you believe that this is just more of the lies being told by George Bush just to get us into a war against Saddam Hussein, all so he can enrich his big corporate friends. Well, you would be wrong. I can prove to you that these are not the lies of George W. Bush, because these are not the words of George W. Bush. These are the words of Bill Clinton delivered in a speech on the steps of the Pentagon on February 17, 1998.
In 1995 Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities--and weapons stocks. Previously it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.
Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production. . . .
Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door, and our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. . . .
Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large. . . .
One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. . . .
It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons. . . .
Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. . . . In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now--a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.
http://boortz.com/nuze/200310/10202003.html
I guess your memory isn't long enough to go back that far, only as far as it supports your twisted view of history. Was Clinton also wrong about WMD's?
You can't stand the killing to liberate Iraq, but you think the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraq's while Saddam was in power was acceptable? No double standard in that view is there?
The current administration has not misjudged anything. Liberals and democrats that put politics and party in front of our troops and country have badly misjudged everything about this war, and they will be wrong again regarding it's final outcome.
Will they be willing to admit it? Not likely since they are flustrated about being so wrong on so many issues.
Rep
"The current administration has not misjudged anything."
How delightful it must be to inhabit a universe in which reality never intrudes - one in which the WMD's were discovered and disposed of, the Iraqis welcomed us as liberators, the invasion actually decreased terrorist activity and made us safer, the Iraqis have indeed paid for their own reconstruction, the loss of life is so clearly worth it, and one in which Bill Clinton's errors justify and rectify those of George Bush (as if that were necessary, I mean, of what errors was I thinking?).
Thanks for your post. It helps those of us who struggle to maintain a grip on reality understand the magnitude of that task.
But, I wonder, does being so completely blinded by ideology affect your ability to be effective in the optical business?
Originally Posted by rep
You are entitled to your own opinion, no matter how wrong you are. To people who are not told what to think, it sounds like truth. I notice that you can't deny any of Kenedy's assetions - because it is all truth.
I guess Clinton wasn't convinced enough to attack though, eh?Originally Posted by rep
Now you can't tell the difference between Americans and Non-Americans. And you can't differentiate between death caused by American action/presence and death caused by Saddam. No double standard, just a difference in definition.Originally Posted by rep
That's right, we weren't catastrophically successful, were we?Originally Posted by rep
You are correct about that - the republicans will never admit to errors or mistakes. They think that if they deny something enough, their whole constituencey will believe....and they're right.Originally Posted by rep
...Just ask me...
I just read in Vision Monday that Paul Karpowich, who worked for Eye Designs and sold us fixtures, was killed in Mosul on December 21. I am very angry, and sad that this young newlywed is gone.
...Just ask me...
I often am tempted when confronted with someone who is really gung-ho about our misadventure in Iraq, to ask them how they would feel if one of their children were killed in action while posted there. It's a cheap shot, I agree, but it does point out how easy it is to beat one's chest and make glib comments when other people's children are the cannon fodder. Sorry for the lose of your friend, Spexie.Originally Posted by Spexvet
Originally Posted by shanbaum
- That there were no WMD's when, Saddam actually used them on his own people.
- That the Iraqis didn't welcome us as liberators, when millions braved death to vote in their first election in many generations.
- That the invastion increased terrorristic activity and made us less safe, than before 9/11 when we were repeatedly attacked here and abroad.
- That Clinton was always right about Iraq, but Bush has always been wrong.
- That a difference in opinion regarding the war and the administration, translates to one's effectiveness in the business environment.
I think your a great guy shambaum, but then again I am living in my unrealistic universe.
Rep
Thanks for letting me know that I am entitled to my own opinion. I deny all of Kennedy's assertions, as did a number of democratic members of congress because he was and is wrong, especially on the eve of the Iraqi elections.Originally Posted by Spexvet
Yes and I guess he was lying about this like everything else.Originally Posted by Spexvet
So your new criteria is that if they aren't Americans or if the killing is by Saddam it dosen't really count. Pretty cold position regarding humanity there Spexvet. I say if there has to be killing, let it be over there and not over here, like it was before 9/11 and the invasion.Originally Posted by Spexvet
You really think Iraq is catastrophically unsuccessful? Using what criteria?Originally Posted by Spexvet
Finally I am correct about something, you have made my day.Originally Posted by Spexvet
Rep
There's never been a doubt that he had them at some point, the doubt was did he have them when we invaded (or even within one or two years) and the answer is obviously no.Originally Posted by rep
So, their voting means they welcomed us as liberators? Maybe you could justify that statement.Originally Posted by rep
There have been more terrorist attacks against Americans since we invaded Iraq than during the entire 80's and 90's combined. It's a daily occurence. The invasion of Iraq has put vast portions of the country under the control of islamic fundamentalist terrorist organizations, that doesn't seem to increase the safety of Americans at home or abroad.Originally Posted by rep
Don't know about anyone else but it seems to me they were both wrong but Clinton didn't start a war that's led to hundreds of American deaths over it.Originally Posted by rep
1. Yeah, in the 1980's. It is now universally acknowledged that he had none as of the start of the Bush war in 2003 (and probably not at the time of Clinton's bombing of Iraq in 1998). Your best move at this point is to stop talking about them, just like Bush has stopped talking about them. There's a reason why Bush no longer talks about them - they figured out that the more he said about it ("weapons-related program activities"), the stupider he looked, as hard as that was. And speaking of looking, they've given up looking. Did you know that? I would've thought that everyone did, but, maybe you don't. Do you know who David Kay is? Do you know who Charles Duelfer is? Iraq Survey Group? Look them up.Originally Posted by rep
2. Uh... the election? The one that followed such "greeting" as occurred by about two years? If you think that this is what being "greeted as liberators" looks like - with five times as many soldiers lost after the "major military operations" part of the war as were lost during it - what would it be like if they really didn't like us?
3. Are you under the impression that Iraq was behind 9/11? The '93 WTC bombing? (Does that one prior domestic attack constitute "repeatedly"?) The USS Cole? Khobar Towers? Gee - no one who actually has any credentials to speak on the matter (including Bush sycophants) thinks that - though in the recent election, Dick Cheney's principal role was to keep spreading the lie that Iraq was behind 9/11. Oh - but I see, you're doing that yourself! Hot Dog! Spend a few moments reading something other than the RWPM websites, and you might pick up some actual information.
4. If you'll really, really concentrate, and carefully read what I wrote, you'll find that I did not write that I thought Clinton was right and Bush was wrong. Clearly, they were both quite wrong about the threat. My point was, Clinton's error does not mitigate Bush's. Of course, one might find the early Bush administration's propensity to ignore the threat from terrorism rooted in the Clinton administration's concern about it - they couldn't have been right, could they, being, you know, liberals and all.
5. This was really just my attempt at a clever play on words. I will try to avoid being clever with you in the future, as it's apparently pointless. On second thought, it amuses me, however pointless it may be.
As ugly as today's news from Iraq has been (on the whole), I am still banking on the Fire Brigade (U.S., Coalition, Iraqi interim government) to put out the Fire (the insurgency). And not just for sentimental reasons. I see cracks developing in the insurgency, separating the remnants of the Baathist regime from the al Zarkawi network and similar out and out Islamic fundamentalists. Time Magazine just broke a story about a week ago about secret talks between the U.S. and certain Baathist insurgents. I think that's a sign of weakness in the insurgency, more than any concession or weakness on the part of the Coalition. I think the statement by Coda (above) to the effect that vast parts of Iraq are "controlled" by Islamic terrorists is an oversimplification -- not quite accurate. I also think that the recent string of what appear to be significant captures of high ranking insurgents, including the "Six of Diamonds" (as I posted above) merits my stock in some credibility, as far as progress against the insurgency. I think that the insurgency is going to be taken down in a way that future history will say "was worth the cost", "far more necessary than not" and "generally well done".
I realize how sharply divided we are about this, but I hope that this post does not inflame anyone against me.
Sincerely,
rinselberg
Originally Posted by rinselberg
Not at all. Somebody has to be giddily optimistic. Better you than say, the president... oh, wait...
Isn't hindsight wonderful - Two administrations, Two governments, and the UN all thought there were WMD's in Iraq and voted for invasion. But you always knew better. Remarkable accomplishmentOriginally Posted by shanbaum
Don't tell me you are actually going to attempt to imply that the bombings are the work of just the Iraqi people? Does the fact that the acknowledged leader is from another country not give even you a hint? The scenes on election day when thousands defied oursiders trying to prevent them from voting with threats and bombings was a Fox News special right? CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN just couldn't find another story that was plausable. and reported the same thing. Grateful Iraqui'sOriginally Posted by shanbaum
Yes, I think Iraq was supporting those involved in 9/11, the 93 WTC, the Cole and Khobar Towers, but what do I know - I am just a red state voter vs your superior blue state intellect.Originally Posted by shanbaum
Bill Clinton had eight years, George Bush had eight months. Not exactly the same time frame for most people, unless your liberal of course.Originally Posted by shanbaum
It was not really that clever, more like a pointed personal attack, but I just considered the source, and besides it seems to keep you amused.Originally Posted by shanbaum
I am glad something does, it seems like you need it right now.I guess the most recent news out of the middle east regarding Beriut is depressing since it dosen't fit the "we're in a terrible mess agenda" you have been painting. Darn democracy just breaking out all over. A liberal's worse nightmare.
Rep
I never said I "always knew better." I said they were wrong. I was personally never in a position to know one way or another. However, I expect my government (regardless of which party's in charge) to tell the truth, which means, when they're wrong about something, I expect them to admit it. I also expect them to be sufficiently competent to prevent the US from being attacked; it's part of the job description, and they failed; and their response to their failure was precisely wrong.Originally Posted by rep
To equate the election and "greeting us as liberators" is simply irrational; it's a non-sequitur. Again, I never said that the problems in Iraq arise solely out of Iraqi hostility towards the US. It should be clear, however, that the most apt description of Iraq at the moment would be "civil war", which we clearly instigated. Whether it will all work out for good or ill is something only time will tell. What I am certain of is that it could have been handled better, and could be handled better today, with less loss of life, and without providing generations of wicked people with a justification of the use of violence. Or, is that something that only we are allowed, because we're so special, and of necessity right?Don't tell me you are actually going to attempt to imply that the bombings are the work of just the Iraqi people? Does the fact that the acknowledged leader is from another country not give even you a hint? The scenes on election day when thousands defied oursiders trying to prevent them from voting with threats and bombings was a Fox News special right?
And what, pray tell, informs your characterization of the insurgents as "outsiders"? What do you know about it? I'm sure some are outsiders, as is the new kingmaker Ayatollah Ali Sistani (he's Iranian). Yeah, outside agitators, that's the problem. Just like the South in the 60's. It's amazing how these arguments get recycled.
Very little, apparently; if you read about these events, you will find that you are simply mistaken - unless, of course, you're engaging in Bushspeak; of course Iraq "supported" anyone and anything that was hostile to the US, in the sense of being "on their side". But in none of these cases was there a substantial complicity by or line of responsibility to, Iraq. But look, don't argue with me about this - read the National Review or Weekly Standard (know what those are?).Yes, I think Iraq was supporting those involved in 9/11, the 93 WTC, the Cole and Khobar Towers, but what do I know...
It didn't happen on Clinton's watch, and of course, his warnings about Iraq were dismissed by Republicans in Congress at the time. (And please, it's "you're"). Do you think each administration begins with a tabula rasa? The Bushies were arrogant and dismissive of all things Clintonian (you would know this if you were to read Richard Clarke's book), focused like laser beams on missile defense and tax cuts - in short, they were looking precisely the wrong way.Bill Clinton had eight years, George Bush had eight months. Not exactly the same time frame for most people, unless your liberal of course.
Yes, well, as dismissive as you are of Democrats and liberals, I suppose I am of you. I am certainly not dismissive of all Republicans, nor of all conservatives. I have had many spirited and illuminating discussions with both, but then, these have been informed and intelligent people.It was not really that clever, more like a pointed personal attack, but I just considered the source, and besides it seems to keep you amused.
Call me when you've taken a taxi from downtown Baghdad to the airport.Darn democracy just breaking out all over. A liberal's worse nightmare.
(And please, it's "worst").
Rep:Originally Posted by rep
You certainly can continue to believe that Saddam and his cronies had something to do with 9/11, USS Cole, etc. but you'd be about the only one left who does.
Regardless of the semantics regarding my "vast areas" statement, perhaps I overstated the facts, perhaps not. I will, however, supply the following as quoted from a piece by Jim Miklazewski on MSNBC.COM (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7047304/)
That certainly sounds as though, from a safety of the American homeland and our interests abroad, like things are worse now than they were before the invasion.Warning from Goss
CIA Director Porter Goss warned the Senate intelligence committee this month that the insurgency posed an emerging international terrorism threat and said Zarqawi was trying to establish a safe haven in Iraq from which to operate against Western nations and “apostate” Muslim governments.
The invasion of Iraq was sold to the people of this country on exactly one basis - the threat from his possession of WMD.Originally Posted by Jo
In the absence of that rationale, the argument that he "supported terrorists" would simply not have sufficed as a rationale for invasion and occupation for the vast majority of Americans. For one thing, it would have had to have gotten past the far more substantial, direct support of terrorists provided by Iran, Syria, Sudan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia (whence, it shall be recalled, 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came). For another, there was no love lost between secular Saddam and the Islamists; attacking him to get to them was absurd on its face.
Although I have to admit, an argument could have been made (though it certainly was not) for the de facto strategy into which we've stumbled - turn somewhere else (namely Iraq) into terrorist central, and it would tend to focus their energies there.
Tough on the Iraqis, though.
And tends to focus our energies there, as well, while the real problems (like, y'know, our actual security) fester from neglect and incompetence.
On a related issue in the news - has anyone else noticed how the liberal media has been so mysteriously silent on one of the administration's signature diplomatic failures (so far, I hasten to add)? No sooner does Bush land at Andrews, than Putin signs a nuclear deal with Iran - and hardly a peep from the press.
It's cold comfort, given the stakes, but I do get a bit of a chuckle thinking about Bush going mano a mano with Putin. Bush likes to present himself as a tough guy ("Bring it on", "..dead or alive", that cringe invoking flight suit get-up) as opposed to the coddled Daddy's boy he is. Picture him trying that tough guy act on someone like Putin. Now picture Putin signing that deal with Iran after he met with Bush.Originally Posted by shanbaum
Puts me in mind of those two elegant words of Dick Cheney in the halls of Congress. "Hey George, xxxx xxx."
Alrighty then. Diplomacy: it's hard.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks