[forkies]

from Bush defends stance on WMDs :

Bush said the United States was "right to go into Iraq. America is safer today because we did," he told a cheering crowd of supporters in Pennsylvania.

"We removed a declared enemy of America, who had the capability of producing weapons of mass destruction, and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them."

...

"We had a choice to make: Either take the word of a madman, or take action to defend America. Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time."

so does this mean the "libertation" of the Iraqi people and its portral as a humanitarian effort was a sham? he's only stating that the USA is safer now and that this fact (if indeed true) provides justification enough for the war.

[Logic]

"We removed a declared enemy of America, who had the capability of producing weapons of mass destruction, and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them."

The ever changing reasons for going to war seems to be watered down every time they are repeated.

I'm wondering if 800 Americans would have lost their lives if Iraq wouldn't had been invaded. I'm wondering if several thousand Americans would have been seriously injured if Iraq hadn't been invaded.

I'm wondering what the hell the American public is thinking........

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by forkies:
so does this mean the "libertation" of the Iraqi people and its portral as a humanitarian effort was a sham? he's only stating that the USA is safer now and that this fact (if indeed true) provides justification enough for the war.

Do you know the logical difference between "and" and "or"?

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by forkies:
so does this mean the "libertation" of the Iraqi people and its portral as a humanitarian effort was a sham?

no, it's a cheap excuse.

[Wiskedjak]

war is peace

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Logic:
The ever changing reasons for going to war seems to be watered down every time they are repeated.

Man, you still can't seem to comprehend that there were numerous reasons for going to war. Read the 2003 State of the Union Address. All the reasons were presented there.

I'm wondering if 800 Americans would have lost their lives if Iraq wouldn't had been invaded. I'm wondering if several thousand Americans would have been seriously injured if Iraq hadn't been invaded.

I'm wondering what the hell the American public is thinking.

And I'm wondering why in the hell you care. Isn't there something positive you could be doing for your nation and community instead of spending so much time bitching and complaining about everything the US does?

[gerbnl]

Originally posted by forkies:
... only stating that the USA is safer now and that this fact (if indeed true) ...

I think the USA is, indeed, 'safer' today.

Alas it won't be thanks to some silly war thousands of miles away, but because they suckered the american people into giving up a huge chunk of their freedoms.

[zigzag]

I saw clips of the rally in PA. I realize that campaign rallies are political events and don't necessarily show pols in their best light (e.g. Howard Dean), but I was struck by Bush's pleading tone, i.e. "Please believe me when I tell you that we had no choice but to invade." He had the air of a kid who had been caught sneaking out of the house, trying to convince his parents that he had a really good reason. In and of itself, this isn't so strange for a pol, except that he was at a Republican rally. When you have to explain yourself to your own, things can't be going well. And they aren't, since over half the populace now thinks he f**ked up, and a bipartisan intelligence committee just released a report confirming that Saddam was not a direct threat (which, of course, Condi Rice and Colin Powell had both said before the war).

People don't seem to be buying the humanitarian rationale. This is probably why the administration didn't rely on it leading up to the invasion and doesn't appear to be relying on it very much now (as someone who supported the humanitarian rationale, I find that regrettable). It's still trying to sell the idea that it had to act immediately. But people don't seem to be buying that line anymore either. Of course, the mood could improve over the course of the next 4 months, although it could also change for the worse.

[forkies]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Do you know the logical difference between "and" and "or"?

care to elaborate a bit more? i must be missing your point, or maybe you're missing mine...

Originally posted by zigzag:
People don't seem to be buying the humanitarian rationale. This is probably why the administration didn't rely on it leading up to the invasion and doesn't appear to be relying on it very much now (as someone who supported the humanitarian rationale, I find that regrettable).

many people around my hometown had these signs in their yards, and i can't help but wonder what they are feeling now. some of them still have the signs in place.

liberate = forcefully remove current goverment, create a puppet govermnet made up of hand-picked constituents, put the new rule into effect, and watch as it gives you the okay to bomb said newly-"freed" country

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by forkies:
care to elaborate a bit more? i must be missing your point, or maybe you're missing mine...

Do you understand that complimentary statements don't negate one another? If I say "the sky is blue" and then I say "it is daytime." The second statement "it is daytime" doesn't mean I no longer think the sky is blue.

Does that make it clearer? Saying that America is safer without Saddam in Iraq doesn't contradict the humanitarian jusification. It compliments it.

[Logic]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Man, you still can't seem to comprehend that there were numerous reasons for going to war. Read the 2003 State of the Union Address. All the reasons were presented there.

I've read it again and again and again. You are talking about the same SotU that contained the famous 16 words, correct? Care to tell me some of the reasons for invading Iraq, because I forgot which explanation applies for Saturdays?

And I'm wondering why in the hell you care. Isn't there something positive you could be doing for your nation and community instead of spending so much time bitching and complaining about everything the US does?

I'm doing enough positive things for my nation and my community, but thanks for asking. And if the US would only mess up their own nation I wouldn't bother. But when you continue to think that you have the right to mess up other nations, lie, cheat and steal I'm damn sure going to "bitch and complain" about it.

I guess the Bush camp and the electioneering volunteers are getting a bit desperate since it has been proven again and again that their candidate is nothing but an incompetent, lying daddy's boy that doesn't even deserve(or have the competence) to control a bicycle, to not mention a nation.

[phoenixboy70]

this discussion is absolutely ridiculous. invading iraq has made the us no safer, than knocking over a bag of rice in hongkong.

the only real threat to the us (except for maybe that poohead president in office at the moment) are terrorists. these terrorists have and had absofu<kinglutely nothing to do with saddam or iraq.

if these terrorists can be successfully held at bay, things are safer, - if they can't (for whatever reasons), i'm afraid it's betty bye time. not only for the us.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Ah, the "famous 16 words."

Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission
Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role

By Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 10, 2004; Page A09



Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.


Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.


Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.


The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

Yesterday's report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched "yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said.

The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him.

Plame's role could be significant in an ongoing investigation into whether a crime was committed when her name and employment were disclosed to reporters last summer.


Administration officials told columnist Robert D. Novak then that Wilson, a partisan critic of Bush's foreign policy, was sent to Niger at the suggestion of Plame, who worked in the nonproliferation unit at CIA. The disclosure of Plame's identity, which was classified, led to an investigation into who leaked her name.

The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional.

The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.

Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger.

And let's make sure that this bit isn't ignored:

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.

Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."

According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.

Washington Post

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Man, you still can't seem to comprehend that there were numerous reasons for going to war. Read the 2003 State of the Union Address. All the reasons were presented there.

Man, do we have to go over this again?

WMD's weren't the only reasons, they were the primary reason. They weren't just another number on the list, they were the #1 reason that justified Bush's decision.

Without the threat of WMD's this war might've never happened. Without Bush yelling 'nuclear' in the SoTU speech, without Powell's UN song & dance, without Blair's 'we could be hit within 45 minutes' statement, Without members of this Administration running around saying Iraq was an 'imminent threat' or a 'grave & gathering danger' there wouldn't have been an unanimous UN Security Council vote, or supporting votes in the US Congress or the support from the American people.

Were there other reasons? Absolutely. Did they justify the rush to action that this Administration took? No. WMD's were top of the list and the only reason we rushed to war.

To say that WMD's were just another item on a laundry list of excuses isn't just spin. It's flat-out wrong.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
If I say "the sky is blue" and then I say "it is daytime." The second statement "it is daytime" doesn't mean I no longer think the sky is blue.

By that same logic, just saying "it is daytime" does not necessarily mean that the sky is blue. The colour of the sky in daytime is often a matter of circumstance, location and perspective (much like the justifications for invading Iraq).

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Were there other reasons? Absolutely. Did they justify the rush to action that this Administration took? No. WMD's were top of the list and the only reason we rushed to war.

To say that WMD's were just another item on a laundry list of excuses isn't just spin. It's flat-out wrong.

Saddam himself was the primary reason we went to war. That's the concept that the liberal left fails to comprehend. If WMDs were the only or primary reason we went to war, there were plenty of other roque states that fit the WMDs bill.

WMDs as they relate to Saddam's deception and consistent violation of the cease-fire agreement from the first Gulf War, along with repeated violations of subsequent UN resolutions, were the main legal justification for taking him out as soon as we did.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Saddam himself was the primary reason we went to war. That's the concept that the liberal left fails to comprehend. If WMDs were the only or primary reason we went to war, there were plenty of other roque states that fit the WMDs bill.

WMDs as they relate to Saddam's deception and consistent violation of the cease-fire agreement from the first Gulf War, along with repeated violations of subsequent UN resolutions, were the main legal justification for taking him out as soon as we did.

What the Administrastion's apologists don't seem to comprehend is that serving violations on a bad guy doesn't justify starting a preemptive, unilateral invasion and occupation.

Going after Saddam, in the the frenzied way we were sold it, is only justifiable if he poses a threat to us or our allies. He clearly did not. He was contained. Or are you in support of America as the world's policemen?

Again, without WMD's as the primary reason, this war doesn't have the support of the UN, Congress or the American people. It wouldn't have happened on Bush's timetable. It might've happened, and probably would have eventually, but not with the cost to America in lives, fortune or reputation. It was the wrong decision at the wrong time.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Going after Saddam, in the the frenzied way we were sold it, is only justifiable if he poses a threat to us or our allies. He clearly did not. He was contained.

Except for his funding of Hamas and his making to payments to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Or his prior invasion of Kuwait, who along with Israel are our allies.

It was the wrong decision at the wrong time.

It was the right decision, and it's done. Saddam's history, sovereignty has been restored, and the war on terror continues.

[xenu]

It's always amusing to watch apologists justify the unjustifiable.

GWB went to war on a lie. HIs partners went to war on a lie. At least Blair had the balls to consider resigning - unfortunately he didn't have the balls to follow through.

Australia's leaders, like Bush, also have their heads up their arse, and refuse to admit they were wrong.

The war was about getting oil to the largest user of oil in the world. It has made Iraq a far more dangerous place, and may well make the world a far more dangerous place.

But Americans can sleep safely at night knowing that their government will send their children to war so their SUV's can stay on the road.

[SimeyTheLimey]

The only lying going on is people trying to rewrite history. The entire security council (and beyond that, the entire international community) believed Saddam was violating the ceasefire, and a slew or UN resolutions. And of course, he was.

What the Secuity council deadlocked on what what to do. They didn't disagree about the intelligence.

History aside, the world is better off without Saddam. Nothing could justify keeping him in power.

[xenu]

Why hasn't America invaded Israel? Or Zimbabwe? Or North Korea? Or other non-oil producing nations with dictators?

Are you suggesting the Lybia of 2 years ago wasn't as dangerous as the Iraq of 2 years ago? Are you suggesting NK isn't a threat to American security?

You can try to justify this illegal war as much as you like. You can spin and rewrite history as much as you like.

The undeniable fact is GWB took America to war on a lie. He did so to gain access to oil.
He sent young American's to die for a lie. You might want to consider that before you blindly rush to his defence.

I guess the whistleblowers can sleep well at night, knowing they told the truth.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
History aside, the world is better off without Saddam. Nothing could justify keeping him in power.

Yeah I'm sure all those dead Iraqi civilians feel better off too. Oh...wait.

I'm sure all the families of the dead Iraqis felt a hell of a lot better when they heard about the Senate committees findings this week regarding the CIA's handling of "intelligence" used to justify the war.

I'm sure all the victims of the ever increasing attacks in Iraq feel better off too, especially when the hospitals they are taken to don't have enough resources to treat them.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Except for his funding of Hamas and his making to payments to families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

As an ally, Israel certainly takes full advantage of the protection offered to it by the US.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Yeah I'm sure all those dead Iraqi civilians feel better off too.

Yup - what's the mass grave count up to now, over 400,000 Iraqi civilian bodies... and those are only the graves we've found.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by xenu:
The undeniable fact is GWB took America to war on a lie. He did so to gain access to oil. He sent young American's to die for a lie.

The US could have bought all the oil in Iraq for a small fraction of the cost of the war. You're far-out theory doesn't cut it, dude.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Yeah I'm sure all those dead Iraqi civilians feel better off too. Oh...wait.

I'm sure all the families of the dead Iraqis felt a hell of a lot better when they heard about the Senate committees findings this week regarding the CIA's handling of "intelligence" used to justify the war.

[xenu]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The US could have bought all the oil in Iraq for a small fraction of the cost of the war. You're far-out theory doesn't cut it, dude.

I'm afraid it does dude.

Bush backed himself into a corner. He could never have that oil while Saddam was in power. It would look like a backflip.

He knew he needed that oil, to keep your SUV's on the road.
The only way to get it was to invade, and remove Saddam.

He did so, and lied why. Young American's have died for that lie.

You may feel comfortable about that, but plenty of people don't.

[Spliffdaddy]

lol

um, ok.

[OldManMac]

America is a lot safer now, especially since we have fewer border patrol agents in places like the 804 miles of border around Michigan, which are easily accessible by water, and a large part of which is bordered by Canada, and since modern heat sensitive cameras, which were supposed to have been installed two years ago, to help the few agents there are, haven't been installed yet. America is a lot safer now that the Transportation Security Administration has fired some supervisors for complaining that baggage isn't being checked as frequently for explosives and contraband as often as it should be. I feel a lot safer now!



While we're throwing this magical word, democracy, all over, why don't some of you youngsters have your parents read you a bedside story about Azerbaijan, where Halliburton/Bush have been courting Heydar Aliyev, a leader who basically got the country handed to him by his dictator father, Ilham, via an "election", which the international community widely regarded as corrupt and stolen. It seems that Aliyev loves to imprison and torture those who oppose him, yet the U. S. unabashedly calls Azerbaijan a democracy, even having Aliyev visit here. And the best part of the story is that Azerbaijan is sitting on top of boatloads of oil; what a shock, huh? Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who before getting his current post, just conveniently happened to serve as a consultant for American companies doing business in Azerbaijan; what a shock, huh?

[xenu]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
lol

um, ok.

Are you laughing with them, or at them?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by KarlG:
America is a lot safer now, especially since we have fewer border patrol agents in places like the 804 miles of border around Michigan, which are easily accessible by water, and a large part of which is bordered by Canada, and since modern heat sensitive cameras, which were supposed to have been installed two years ago, to help the few agents there are, haven't been installed yet. America is a lot safer now that the Transportation Security Administration has fired some supervisors for complaining that baggage isn't being checked as frequently for explosives and contraband as often as it should be. I feel a lot safer now!

America is a lot safer now that we are hunting down the bad guys.

[spacefreak]

Interestingly, I just read this article by William Kristol.

The 9/10 Democrats
by William Kristol

LAST THURSDAY, CNN's Larry King asked John Kerry whether he would want former President Bill Clinton to campaign on his behalf. Kerry said yes. "What American would not trade the economy we had in the 1990s, the fact that we were not at war and young Americans were not deployed?"

Kerry's answer is revealing. We were, in fact, at war. The Clinton administration, with the exception of a few cruise missiles, had simply chosen not to fight back. Osama bin Laden, a sworn enemy of the United States, had launched attacks on our embassies and on a warship of the U.S. Navy. Saddam Hussein had defied U.N. weapons inspections, repeatedly threatened America, and attempted to assassinate former President Bush.

Furthermore, where does Kerry object to young Americans' being deployed? Afghanistan? But Kerry has criticized the Bush administration for an insufficient commitment of troops there. Iraq? But Kerry voted for the war and has said he would not cut and run.

So Kerry was simply indulging in demagoguery. He's not the only one. The Senate Intelligence Committee released its report on pre-Iraq intelligence failures last Friday. Jay Rockefeller, the committee's ranking Democrat, claimed that, because of the flawed intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, "Our standing in the world has never been lower. We have fostered a deep hatred of America in the Muslim world, and that will grow. As a direct consequence, our nation is more vulnerable today than ever before."

Consider the extremism of Rockefeller's statement. Our global standing has never been lower? Our nation is more vulnerable than ever before? Then consider the facts. Since the 9/11 attacks, the United States and its allies have deposed the Taliban in Afghanistan and overthrown Saddam Hussein's Baathist despotism in Iraq. The Pakistani/Libyan international nuclear weapons bazaar has been shut down. Al Qaeda operatives not already killed or captured are on the run, with no safe base of operations remaining in the world. All this has made us more vulnerable? If that's true, then it is the position of Senator Rockefeller that the American and allied soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq not only have accomplished nothing but have been counterproductive. This is a slander the Bush administration must answer--if not for its own sake, then for the honor of those who have sacrificed so much to make this country less vulnerable than it has been for years.

As for hatred of America, al Qaeda leaders were planning their attacks on New York and Washington back in those halcyon days of the Clinton era that John Kerry recalls with such nostalgia. Indeed, al Qaeda was left unmolested as it trained thousands of terrorists at camps in Afghanistan. And of course, lest we forget: On October 12, 2000, al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen, killing 17 American sailors. On August 7, 1998, al Qaeda struck two U.S. embassies in East Africa killing 257--including 12 Americans--and injuring 5,000. During the 1990s, numerous other attacks were planned (the Millennium attack on the Los Angeles airport) or executed (the Khobar Towers attacks, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing). Those were the good old days when, by Jay Rockefeller's reckoning, America was less hated and less vulnerable.

The Senate Intelligence Committee faults the U.S. intelligence community for providing flawed intelligence to policymakers. But the intelligence community is not up for reelection this fall. The policymakers are. So many Democrats, with a compliant media, will be tempted to fall in behind Rockefeller. We'll soon be hearing a lot about the Bush administration's "exaggeration" of intelligence.

What the Bush campaign must do is remind Americans that the Iraq war was no mistake--that the case for the war was and is compelling, and that it used to be bipartisan. Jay Rockefeller, of all people, made that case well in an October 2002 floor speech: "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." Rockefeller wasn't done. "He could make those weapons available to many terrorist groups which have contact with his government, and those groups could bring those weapons into the U.S. and unleash a devastating attack against American citizens....Some argue it would be totally irrational for Saddam Hussein to initiate an attack against the mainland United States, and they believe he would not do it. But if Saddam Hussein thought he could attack America through terrorist proxies and cover the trail back to Baghdad, he might think it not so irrational."

Indeed. So it was right to remove him. And we are safer for having done so.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
lol

um, ok.

Yeah I got a chuckle out of it myself.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
America is a lot safer now that we are hunting down the bad guys.

Like that pesky Osama guy we haven't been able to find in three years? What do you think this is, cowboys and Indians? Al-Queda is growing, what with our convincing the Muslim world that we're waging war on their religion? Oh, I forgot; King George told you that "we're gonna get those bad guys", so it must be so!

[tie]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
America is a lot safer now that we are hunting down the bad guys.

The bad guys are a lot safer now that we are stuck in Iraq.

The WMD argument was the primary reason we went to war, and it was based exaggerations and lies. However, Bush also had more traditionally liberal reasons for going to war. Wanting to help the Iraqi people, democratize and bring progress to the Middle East. While he concentrated on the WMD threat and possible links to Al Qaeda (also incorrect), this is understandable. Even the very far left would not have supported a war on Iraq without any threat to US national security.

After watching Bush's non-reaction as he read a children's book for seven minutes even after the second tower was hit on 9/11, one has to wonder if he is just completely incompetent. But the other possibility is that he is a liar, and perhaps extremely far to the left on this issue -- he deliberately invaded Iraq in order to rebuild it, knowing that there was no threat to US security.

The concern however is that Bush's lies, and America's deceitfulness, have undermined even this liberal justification for the war. Anti-Americanism has grown enormously in the Middle East; this will lead to increased terrorism and it will also prevent the liberalization and democratization of Middle Eastern countries.

Iraq might end up a success -- this isn't at all clear now, and probably won't be for at least 5-10 years. But in the meantime, America is more hated in the Middle East than ever before, and the ideals America stood for and hoped to promote -- freedom, democracy, secularism -- have been horribly tarnished.

[xenu]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yeah I got a chuckle out of it myself.

I suppose we should be glad you get as much amusement out of your posts as we do.

[gerbnl]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
America is a lot safer now that we are hunting down the bad guys.

Yeah, next time try defining 'bad guys' first or you might end up in the amazing position of 'bad guy' yourself

[Saad]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
if these terrorists can be successfully held at bay, things are safer, - if they can't (for whatever reasons), i'm afraid it's betty bye time. not only for the us.

It certainly seems that militant Islam has been put into a far better condition than it enjoyed before the war. Regardless of ho many are killed, many more will take their place. Probably most indicative of such a trend is the recruitment effort of the terrorist wing of Hamas in Gaza.

[voyageur]

We can barricade ourselves inside our American house and feel safe. But we can no longer venture outside in the wide world without being targets.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Saad:
It certainly seems that militant Islam has been put into a far better condition than it enjoyed before the war. Regardless of ho many are killed, many more will take their place. Probably most indicative of such a trend is the recruitment effort of the terrorist wing of Hamas in Gaza.

agreed. this is going to be a very long endeavor, and the invasion into iraq has done nothing but prolong the effort to minimize the potential threat. at this moment one can only hope that the cia and all the other secret service agencies are doing a better job than before at eliminating potential killers and terrorists, and that future american presidents do a better job of diplomacy. because like it or not, the key to defeating the radical islamic threat is to make friends in the relevant regions and make allies in the fight against terrorism.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Except for his funding of Hamas and his making to payments to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Or his prior invasion of Kuwait, who along with Israel are our allies.

It was the right decision, and it's done. Saddam's history, sovereignty has been restored, and the war on terror continues.

You're just throwing up straw-men. Nobody is arguing Saddam is a good guy. He wasn't. I don't mind going over this again but stay on topic.

I agree with the Security Council vote. I agree with the ongoing sanctions and military containment. I agree with the push to continue with inspections. I even agree we needed to build up the military in the region to show we mean business. I even agree that eventually, that might've meant war. I disagree with George Bush's decision to rush to war. That was his decision. His argument was we couldn't wait because Saddam had WMD's. Can't wait, have to go NOW. He was wrong. By every measure he was wrong. Saddam was not an immediate danger to the US or his neighbors. If he would've learned a lesson from George H. W. Bush and assembled a truly multi-lateral force, a la Gulf War I, with all the political, ethical, and moral support that comes from that we wouldn't be in the position we are today. By not doing so he cost more American lives than were necessary. I don't see how anyone can debate that fact.

That is the dilemma in a nutshell. Did the world need to go to war with Saddam? Maybe. Did America need to rush to war? Only if we were in danger of being attacked by WMD's. We weren't. Bush was wrong.

Back to the topic - Are we safer now? Let's see...on 9/11 the weapons the attackers used were boxcutters. Repeat: boxcutters. Anybody think we'll see boxcutters used in the next attack? Me neither. The fact of the matter is that by making this an American war, and that's how it's perceived in the Middle East and around the world, we've engendered more anger and hate towards the US then we would have if it was a more multi-lateral task force. We are seen as the enemy now. We are the ones who invaded and occupied an Arab country without provocation. So, no, we're not safer now. We're a bigger, more justifiable target(in the eyes of the enemy) now more than ever.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
We are seen as the enemy now.

We were seen as the enemy to many well before invading Iraq.

We are the ones who invaded and occupied an Arab country without provocation.

Without provocation? How does constant firing at our jets patrolling the no-fly zone - does that count as provocation? Or Saddam's attempt to assassinate our former President, George H.W. Bush - is that provocation enough, or are you in favor of foreign heads of state ordering and sponsoring plots to kill our leaders?

And to go back a post or two, you said that the war would be justifiable if Saddam posed a threat to our allies. I bring up his funding of Hamas (ie- threat to Israel - an ally) in response, and you reply that I am off-topic? Ridiculous.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
We were seen as the enemy to many well before invading Iraq.

that's hardly the issue here. invading iraq has made things A LOT worse.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
We were seen as the enemy to many well before invading Iraq.

Not to the extent we are now.

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Without provocation? How does constant firing at our jets patrolling the no-fly zone - does that count as provocation? Or Saddam's attempt to assassinate our former President, George H.W. Bush - is that provocation enough, or are you in favor of foreign heads of state ordering and sponsoring plots to kill our leaders?

And to go back a post or two, you said that the war would be justifiable if Saddam posed a threat to our allies. I bring up his funding of Hamas (ie- threat to Israel - an ally) in response, and you reply that I am off-topic? Ridiculous.

That doesn't justify a unilateral invasion and occupation. At a cost of 800+ American lives (and climbing), $200 billion, 3000+ American maimed and injured, 5000+ innocent Iraqi's killed, plus the cost to America's moral standing in the world. Is that your answer to every threat no matter how serious? Invade and occupy?

I expect the President of the the United States to take appropriate and measured responses. Not to bomb and invade every country that might be a threat. Especially not to take this country to war on false pretenses and overstated claims.

To quote the recent Senate Committee on Iraq:

WASHINGTON, July 10 — The Senate's report on prewar intelligence about Iraq, which asserts that warnings about its illicit weapons were largely unfounded and that its ties to Al Qaeda were tenuous, also undermines another justification for the war: that Saddam Hussein's military posed a threat to regional stability and American interests.

...

The committee's report implies that war opponents were essentially correct when they argued that Iraq posed little immediate threat to the United States. Before the war, those who held this view, both in Congress and at the United Nations, argued that continued containment was preferable to an invasion.

That's the problem with your position. The logic dictates we go to war against every possible threat in the world today. Unless you're an unabashed war-monger (you tell us spacefreak?), we'd be fighting in nearly every country in the ME and dozens more around the world. Is that what you're advocating?

(edit for spelling)

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Ah, the "famous 16 words." . . .

I've been trying to follow this story because if Wilson is full of it, I want to know about it. I've been waiting for a response from him before drawing any conclusions, but he hasn't been heard from. Anyway, here's a response of sorts (it also links to the Jonah Marshall piece):

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._07/004285.php

My impression is that:

- Wilson has some explaining to do about his statements concerning his wife's role in recommending him (or not). I don't think her recommending him would bear on the larger story, nor is there anything wrong with her recommending him AFAIK, but one does expect him to tell the truth about her role or to keep his mouth shut. I assume that he and/or Plame will explain and/or spin this at some point.

- Schmidt commits some of the same sins by misrepresenting what's in the Senate report. The CIA did express reservations about the Niger claim, and she appears to confuse Wilson's statements about Iran with Iraq.

- I don't think anything in Schmidt's piece would justify the disclosure of Plame's identity.

As I understand it, the Brits are coming out with a report that claims to validate the yellowcake story. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out - I'm sure both sides will spin it hard.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
To quote the recent Senate Committee on Iraq:

Your link doesn't go to the actual report, just an NY TImes article on the report. But since we're on the topic of the Senate Committee on Intelligence (which you seem to support), I found Conclusions 83 and 84 interesting, though it is a tad off the main thread topic...

Conclusion 83: The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgements related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

Conclusion 84: The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments

Another slightly off-thread - but related - finding, this time by the 9/11 Commission, is noted in this article...

The Sept. 11 Commission has found that the Bush administration's war on terror has severely impaired al Qaida's ability to organize another spectacular attack against the U.S. homeland by capturing or killing the deadly terror group's key leaders, drying up their financial resources and severely limiting their ability to "strategize, plan attacks, and dispatch operatives worldwide."

The bombshell finding, buried at the end of the Commission's Staff Statement No. 15, should have been hailed in the press as evidence that we've at least turned the corner in the war on terror - and may indeed have the enemy on the run. Instead, reporters have ignored this particular Commission finding since its release on June 16.

"Since the September 11 attacks and the defeat of the Taliban, as Qaeda's funding has decreased significantly. The arrests or deaths of several important financial facilitators have decreased the amount of money al Qaeda has raised and increased the costs and difficulty of raising and moving that money."

"Some entirely corrupt charities are now out of business, with many of their principals killed or captured, although some charities may still be providing support to al Qaeda."

"Moreover, it appears that the al Qaeda attacks within Saudi Arabia in May and November 2003 have reduced - perhaps drastically - at Qaeda's ability to raise funds from Saudi sources. Both an increase in Saudi enforcement and a more negative perception of al Qaeda by potential donors have cut its income."

And the good news for America - not to mention the Bush administration - doesn't end there. In the same section, Staff Statement 15 notes:

"Prior to 9/11, al Qaeda was a centralized organization which used Afghanistan as a war room to strategize, plan attacks, and dispatch operatives worldwide." But now, says the Commission, "Bin Ladin's* seclusion [has] forced operational commanders and cell leaders to assume greater authority; they are now making the command decisions previously made by him." [END OF EXCERPT]

In other words, whether dead or alive, the prime mover behind the Sept. 11 attacks has been taken out of commission, with operational authority handed over to allies of convenience like Abu Musab al Zarqawi.

And while Zarqawi has mounted dozens of operations throughout the Middle East in recent months, including a deadly chem-bomb plot foiled by Jordanian authorities in April, his focus these days seems to be pretty much on Iraq - not America.

And even there, Zarqawi seems to be feeling the heat lately. According to the recent communique he sent to bin Laden, published on Islamic web sites earlier this month, he complained about being "squeezed" by U.S. forces.

"The space of movement is starting to get smaller," he told the 9/11 chief (bin Laden). "The [U.S.] grip is starting to be tightened on the holy warriors' necks and, with the spread of soldiers and police, the future [for our side] is becoming frightening."

"Al Qaeda today is more a loose collection of regional networks with a greatly weakened central organization," it's hard not to conclude President Bush's war on terror is making significant progress.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by spacefreak:

Another slightly off-thread - but related - finding, this time by the 9/11 Commission, is noted in this article...

<snip>

That's the first good news I've heard about Al Qaeda. Of course that's just one front. Not trying to be argumentative or overly pessimistic. There's also the earlier report released by the State Dept. that says "Global terror attacks are on the rise" (the link is to the article about the correction the State Dept had to make regarding the report). That's a global perspective on terror attacks, not just on America.

Then again, we haven't had an attack on US soil since 9/11. That has to be seen as progress.

Truthfully, I don't think anyone will know the answer for years to come. When I think back on the dangers that faced the world as I grew up it's hard to imagine how quickly they faded into the background. Who could've predicted the Soviet Union would crumble without a war? I suspected that threat would last my whole life. I remember when Gaddafi was considered a threat to world peace. South American revolutions, Vietnam, etc., etc.. So who knows? Maybe this is global terrorism's peak and it will fade in the years to come. Maybe not.

My hunch is that it's just the beginning. The beginning until we start addressing some of the underlying reasons people are turning to extremist religious factions. Poverty and closed political systems.

We're taking the military approach but that won't solve it alone. There needs to be pressure put to open the political system and upgrade human rights. Military by itself won't work. Otherwise we'll just be playing whack-a-terrorist for years and years.

[zigzag]

Apparently, doubts about the manner in which the WOT has been conducted aren't limited to fuzzy-headed libs:

I'm wondering if you could answer for some of your politically torn readers a question. I know I speak for myself and a lot of GOP Undecideds, when I ask you this question in all sincerity: I voted for Bush, was pro-war, and now, along with many others, concede that Iraq has become a debacle and (unlike yourself) think the War on Terror (not Iraq) would have been more efficient, better funded, and as a whole more successful if we had not marched into Baghdad. I know you don't agree with this, but let me tell you, this is the sentiment of a lot of moderate, even conservative Republicans who are disgusted by Bush's arrogance. A lot of my friends like to say that Bush would be better on the War on Terror than Kerry, and I want to believe that, I really do, but no one has convinced me of that, much less the president himself. No matter how "single-minded" (obtuse, in my opinion) the president is, he's done nothing to shore up support in his REAL BASE--southerners and midwesterners like myself--who don't see how a lunatic fiscal policy, right-wing social policy, and a general F-U to the world in general improves America or its War on Terror. My point is this: I really loathe Kerry, but when it comes down to it, if you exclude Bush's support for the war, why does he deserve four more years? And to all those who think this administration dropped the ball in Iraq, how can we believe that that they will make us safer? I haven't voted for a democrat since Kennedy (at the time I lived in California and knew what kind of moral idiot Nixon was) and I don't want to--but frankly, can someone please make the case for Bush? Because no one has, and frankly, to the Republican faithful like myself who roll our eyes at Sean Hannity, Bush has a heck of a lot of convincing to do.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Apparently, doubts about the manner in which the WOT has been conducted aren't limited to fuzzy-headed libs:



http://www.andrewsullivan.com/

I have doubts about how Bush has conducted the war on terror. I have bigger doubts about his ability to communicate and lead, and about his understanding of what that means. However, I have no doubt about how Kerry would conduct the war on terror. He'd quietly call it off.

Given that, there isn't much of a choice.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I have doubts about how Bush has conducted the war on terror. I have bigger doubts about his ability to communicate and lead, and about his understanding of what that means. However, I have no doubt about how Kerry would conduct the war on terror. He'd quietly call it off.

I'd like to see your source for that belief. From what I've heard, now that the deed is done in Iraq, Kerry and Bush have basically the same position on what to do going forward. What have you heard differently?

The positive for having Kerry finish the job is that he'll be more likely to bring involvement from our allies that Bush has alienated. Not just in Iraq but on the struggle on terror. You think Kerry is going to ignore the threats to this country? Let's face it, Bush is despised throughout the world. He's been making unilateral decisions (ICBM Treaty, Kyoto, Trade policy, Iraq, etc.) without out offering any alternatives since he entered office. Diplomacy is a dirty word in his vocabulary. If you think the US should continue to address world terrorism on its own rather than work with the rest of the world I guess Bush should be your man.

Also, are you ready for more preemptive wars? It's not a stretch to see Bush pushing for military action in Syria, Iran , or North Korea. Since he won't have the electorate to answer to anymore, and flush from actually winning his first election, he may think he has a mandate to do whatever he wants on the world scene. It's obvious facts aren't what guides his decisions, it's ideology all the way.