I think it’s pointless to hold hearings focused on whether the Bush White House could have averted 9/11. The answer is: Of course not. Not because of breakdowns in communication between Intelligence gathering outfits. Not because they didn’t listen to Richard Clarke. Not because, if it was a high priority for Clinton, it automatically became a low priority for Bush.
They couldn’t have averted it because of what Rice said some time ago: “No one could imagine terrorists flying planes into buildings.” That’s not true. No one *in the Bush administration* could imagine it. Writers of fiction have imagined it. Information gatherers imagined it. The administration simply could not because they consistently display lack of imagination. Every job requires a proper tool. In this case, the tool–imagination–simply wasn’t in their toolbox. If a carpenter needs a Philips head screwdriver and all he’s got is flatheads, oh well. You’re screwed.
Nothing in their subsequent behavior has indicated imagination. Congressional hearings into the war in Iraq would simply uncover the same lapse: They didn’t imagine that we would get the reception we did. Bush declared “Mission Accomplished” a year ago because he couldn’t imagine that, a year later, they’d still be shooting at us and that there’d be talk of more, not less, troops going in. I don’t blame him entirely. I couldn’t imagine that a year later they’d be talking about sending in more troops. Then again, I wasn’t asking voters to trust the lives of their young men to me.
Then again, the one time we did see a display of imagination–the fantasy that Saddam had WMDs–that didn’t turn out so hot.
What may make or break John Kerry’s campaign is offering an alternative view to Iraq. If he says, “I hate that we’re in there, but we have no choice but to stay and even escalate force,” then Bush wins. If on the other hand he says, “We wanted to give Iraq self-determination. If that self-determination involves killing each other in civil war, oh well, that’s their choice, but we’re out of there,” I dunno. That might work. Me, I don’t want to see people die in Iraq in civil war, but the fact is that people *are* going to die there in civil war because they’re not a united country, they’re composed of various factions who want to kill each other. The question is, how many of those who are going to die are going to be Americans?
I can’t imagine.
PAD
• 
Jerome, after you finish insulting people, providing us with what-if scenerios that would have happened had something have gone differently, and telling us what is going to happen in the future…… can I borrow your crystal ball?
Fred,
1.)Who did I insult? And if it was another poster – which is not my intention – don’t you think they’re big enough to say so themselves?
2.) What crystal ball? What are you talking about?
If you want to argue a specific point I made, please do so. If not, please allow the other posters and myself to continue challenging – and sometime enlightening – each other with our points of view.
Jerome:
>>1.)Who did I insult? And if it was another poster – which is not my intention – don’t you think they’re big enough to say so themselves?
I don’t know. I don’t know them. I do know that your posts are abrasive. Rereading this thread makes that pretty clear. I have noticed that the number of replies, including mine since your initial stick-poking, that you are receiving has grown less with every one of your illogical rants.
>>If you want to argue a specific point I made, please do so. If not, please allow the other posters and myself to continue challenging – and sometime enlightening – each other with our points of view.
I’m not stopping you from interacting with others.
Challenging and enlightenment come only when listening is occurring. It ain’t happenin’ on both ends here.
Al Franken was being interviewed last night and made a statement about the difference between the love that democrats have for their country and the love shown by republicans for their country. Republicans love their country like a little boy loves his moomy. Challengeor insult her and he throws a tantrum, missing the point. Democrats love it like someone in a mature, adult relationship. I’m not registered with either party, but it certainly is amusing and appears to have a bit of truth to it.
“Since I have referred to the war as being (IMO) unjustified, you seem to leap to the conclusion that I must therefore want our troops out.”
No, that’s not it at all. We’re on the same page with the troops staying there. What I object to is your contention that everything was fine in Iraq until we showed up.
“There. Right there, that’s the basic disconnect.
“It’s not “this” country. It’s “their” country.”
A distinction without a difference. The fact that I used “this” instead of “their” is not some sinister implication on my part that the Iraqi people don’t own their own country.
“We unilaterally decided to go in and depose this evil piece of filth–who is ever so much worse than every other EPOF in the world, apparently–and now we won’t leave. We won’t leave THEIR country. We attacked in such a way that bringing in manpower more constructively suited toward nation building (something Bush swore in 2000 we shouldn’t be in the business of) is problematic at best–which displays a horrifying lack of foresight–and now we are seen as occupiers and conquerors, motivated not out of concern for the Iraqi people, but for the Iraqi oil.”
If we cut and run now, every liberal out there would climb on his high horse and (rightly) point out what a horror show it would be to leave Iraq in the state it is now. Do you really just want us to pull out right now? Leave it the way it is?
That’s not a very wise thing to do.
“It’s like we’re a SWAT team that captured a guy holding a family hostage…and then moved into the family’s house, started eating out of their fridge, redecorating the living room, looking over their tax returns, deciding they need to live on a tighter budget, and then bringing in a team of accountants to implement their new lifestyle. And the family’s frantically going, ‘Get the dámņëd SWAT team out of there or someone’s gonna get hurt.'”
You left out a litte bit in your analogy. Prior to the SWAT Team showing up, a terrorist lived in the house. He was systematically killing members of the family, raping the women, torturing the men, and abusing the children. The SWAT Team came in and got rid of the guy. Now they’re trying to teach the family how to have a normal life and live in freedom. A couple of the family members object, but overall, the SWAT Team has helped the family out a lot and are accepted by most in the family. However, the family is getting restless and wants them out as soon as possible. Understandably so.
That’s a much closer analogy to what’s happening in Iraq.
In the past 60 years or so, the U.S. military has had the role as occupying force in dozens of instances following military conflicts.
So, what’s the next country on Bush’s list of “humanitarian missions”?
Somalia? Any other African nation that has seen more violence and bloodshed than Iraq in the last 25 years?
Or did the list begin and end with Iraq?
I’m guessing it’s the latter.
As for putting Saddam in power, the US gov’t is the one that supported the bášŧárd when supporting the other side (Iran) might have removed him from power.
This whole war was about WMD. And until we find them, which, regardless of what you think, hasn’t happened, then this war is one giant crock of sh*t pouring out of Bush’s mouth.
Hmm.
Did anybody get called a traitor to their country under Clinton’s watch for wanting him impeached? for not wanting our military in places like Somalia?
Do you really just want us to pull out right now? Leave it the way it is?
No, but the HUGE problems remains that, instead of trying to justify this dámņ stupid war to begin with, conservatives sit there and point their fingers going “Well, we’re there, deal with it”.
That’s not a wise thing to do either, but it’s exactly how things have gone for the last year.
“No, but the HUGE problems remains that, instead of trying to justify this dámņ stupid war to begin with, conservatives sit there and point their fingers going ‘Well, we’re there, deal with it’.
“That’s not a wise thing to do either, but it’s exactly how things have gone for the last year.”
What would you be looking for in terms of justification? What could be said that would cause you to say, “Okay, I buy it. We’re justified for fighting in Iraq.”
What would you be looking for in terms of justification? What could be said that would cause you to say, “Okay, I buy it. We’re justified for fighting in Iraq.”
How about the supposed reason we went there in the first place: WMD.
How about finding those?
And finding proof that there was imminent danger of Saddam actually using them against us or his neighbors?
Because, after all, those were the first excuses for this war. Not reasons, excuses.
And those didn’t stay the big exucses for long.
Hëll, the Bush Administration has changed their story so many times on Iraq I can’t keep them straight. Bush was probably confused after the 2nd change in excuses.
Let me ask this:
We have N Korea physically threatening us, and, at worst, Saddam gives us the finger.
What sort of justification do some of you want for us to invade N Korea? A country which has given us far more provocation for such an action than Iraq.
Why aren’t we invading N Korea tomorrow?
Is it because we’re scared or what? Or is the War on Terror so focused upon Iraq that we don’t have time for N Korea (or bin Laden for that matter) regardless of what they may be planning?
People are so ášš-backwards over their trying to justify going to Iraq that it boggles the mind.
We have plenty of evidence for WMDs in Iraq. We have intelligence that he had them. He’s used them in the past. (How’s that for evidence that he was an imminent threat to his neighbors?) He refused to allow UN inspectors in to confirm that he didn’t have them.
We didn’t find the weapons themselves, but to say that there’s no evidence or even that he didn’t have them is fantasy. The most likely scenario is that he hid them someplace where we haven’t found them yet. We know that he had them and he couldn’t or wouldn’t produce evidence that he destroyed them.
This whole screaming about lack of justification rests on one idea – Saddam wasn’t as bad a guy as conservatives (and everyone else prior to Bush) say he was. Well, that’s pretty goofy. Saddam was a terrorist and and a despot. His people are better off that he’s gone, his neighbors are better off that he’s gone, and I think our country is safer without him in power.
As for North Korea, are you really advocating an attack on that country? Well, I don’t agree with that, but if you want to argue in favor of it, I’ll listen.
I see liberals being so disingenuous on this. They yell about how there’s no justification for Iraq knowing full well that they won’t accept any justification for it. In their minds, there’s no possible justification. If Saddam had plans on the board for attacking us and was initiating those plans, they would still complain because they hate Bush more than Hussein. And then they turn around and criticise Bush for not attacking North Korea knowing full well that he’s not going to do it and they wouldn’t support it anyway.
As for North Korea, are you really advocating an attack on that country? Well, I don’t agree with that, but if you want to argue in favor of it, I’ll listen.
Why aren’t you in favor of it?
They’re ignoring us, threatening us, publically claiming they have WMD. Their leaders are despots and terrorists.
Based on your justifications for attacking Iraq, I see no reason to NOT go after N Korea.
But, wait, they might resist!
Heaven forbid.
No wonder our gov’t didn’t see that coming in Iraq.
Heaven friggin forbid somebody resist us. So much for a soft target, eh?
So much for the war on terrorism, for certain.
Yeah, I definitely like wars where there’s a better chance of more of our troops getting killed. Right.
You’ve got two enemies. One has nuclear weapons and one is developing nuclear weapons. The former is a tougher opponent. You have a decided strength advantage over the latter. With the former, you have to worry about nukes. With the latter, you can head off any nuke programs and remove a dictator in a relatively short amount of time. Straw that breaks the camels back – you have intelligence linking the latter to a group of terrorists that recently murdered 3000 of your citizens.
Gee, I know tactically who should be attacked and who should be approached in other ways. Unless you want to see more of our troops killed. But then, I’m not advocating war with North Korea. You are. Care to justify it?
(BTW – How can they ignore us and threaten us at the same time??????)
Jerome and PAD,
Look at the logic of that line of thought of yours. The terrorists feared Reagan but thought Carter was a wuss. So they did a deal that put a guy they “feared” into power and made certain that the guy they “didn’t fear” and would let them do whatever they wanted was voted out. Whereas they could have helped put Carter back in the White House with an October release of the hostages and gone on to do, by your accounts of events J, anything they wanted.
I’ve always felt that that Oliver Stoned version of the 1980 election events was a bit goofy. No real logic involved.
Interesting that no one has taken up the poster who was speaking about his basketballs scattered in California.
I’m of the opinion that if the terrorists want to follow the US, fine (by the way, I thought the opinion in Iraq of the US was diminishing, and THAT was leading to the “insurgent attacks”. Which is it? Are Iraqis tired of the US and fighting back, or are terrorists flocking there from all over and running this “insurgency”?).
The US pulls out of Iraq in June, as scheduled. Next stop. Syria.
We find some Iraqi WMDs, not to mention Syria’s. We fight a “growing insurgency” there, pull out, and stop in Saudi Arabia next.
By the time it’s all done, we will have tracked the terrorists down, or led them into the mother of all ambushes, and the entire Mid-east becomes the 51st star on our flag.
Care to justify it?
Who says they’re ignoring us? It’s our gov’t that prefers to ignore them.
And why the hëll should we try diplomacy with N Korea when the Bush Admin. wouldn’t bother with Iraq?
The Bush Admin wouldn’t know diplomacy if it smacked them upside the head.
But, it doesn’t matter what I say. By the same reasons that the Bush Administration has attacked Iraq, they’ve already justified an attack on N. Korea.
The same goes for a preemtive first strike.
I con’t need to justify it. Or advocate it. It’s already been done.
And since when does the Bush Admin give a dámņ about the lives of troops either?
I should add…
Here’s a hypothetical for you.
If the ends justify the means, would it matter how many troops we lose? THat seems to be the thining of the Bush Admin.
So, we lose a few hundred troops to a country that poses no thread.
But we can’t lose troops to a country that can and has threatened to send actual, existing nukes at us?
I mean, if it keeps millions of our people from getting killed, isn’t it worth going after N Korea? Can we really afford to ignore this threat?
Apparently we can. Let’s hope it doesn’t cost us, eh?
“Who says they’re ignoring us? It’s our gov’t that prefers to ignore them.”
You said they’re ignoring us. Go back and read what you wrote.
Aw forget it. Here’s what you wrote –
“They’re ignoring us, threatening us, publically claiming they have WMD. Their leaders are despots and terrorists.”
You clearly have them ignoring us and threatening us simultaneously. A pretty good trick.
“And why the hëll should we try diplomacy with N Korea when the Bush Admin. wouldn’t bother with Iraq?”
Um….because they’re two different nations and two different set of circumstances? I’m just guessing here……
You sound like a real warhawk. Still waiting to hear you justify your desire to attack North Korea. I’ve never advocated that. Nor has the Bush administration.
“The Bush Admin wouldn’t know diplomacy if it smacked them upside the head.”
O——kay.
“But, it doesn’t matter what I say. By the same reasons that the Bush Administration has attacked Iraq, they’ve already justified an attack on N. Korea.”
Better and better. So, you want to attack North Korea and you’re looking at the Bush Administration as justification?
I thought you didn’t even like the Bush Administration.
“The same goes for a preemtive first strike.
“I con’t need to justify it. Or advocate it. It’s already been done.”
If you say so. But I haven’t heard anything remotely resembling a justification.
“And since when does the Bush Admin give a dámņ about the lives of troops either?”
I would say since day one. Do I win a prize now?
“I should add…
“Here’s a hypothetical for you.
“If the ends justify the means, would it matter how many troops we lose?”
Since the end clearly does not justify the means, your entire hypothetical is based on a false assumption. However, if you continue to be gung-ho to get into an armed conflict with North Korea, I suggest you contact John Kerry and press him to adopt your point of view. I don’t think he’s going to, though.
You clearly have them ignoring us and threatening us simultaneously. A pretty good trick
Fine, I’ll admit to my poorly worded sentence as my mistake for the month. I won’t bother with my greatest faults though. 🙂
They are ignoring our demands to disarm, yet turning around and threatening to attack us. Either way…
I’m just guessing here……
You’d have to be to make sense of what the Bush Administration is doing. Hëll, I think they’re just guessing as they go.
I thought you didn’t even like the Bush Administration.
Nope. But the same bull they are throwing at us as the reasoning for going to war with Iraq is just being ignored when it comes to N. Korea.
And neither the people or media doesn’t give a dámņ either.
I’m just going to sit here and press the issue. If the excuses are good enough for Iraq, they’re more than good enough for N. Korea.
But, of course, Bush is so full of it you can’t tell which end it comes out of more.
Jerome,
I went to research the articles you suggested. The NY Post charges to read full articles. I can’t believe any newspaper would charge for old news! Anyway, I searched for UN stories and got 10 pages of things that did not look like what you were talking about. If you have a link you can send me with the info, I will gladly read it and get back to you, but I rarely buy things of the internet. I’m very paranoid about ID theft. I didn’t even look to see how much they would charge. 🙂 But I’d like to thank you for the kind words you said about me. I know my opinions are pretty set on a number of things, but I still like to think I have an open enough mind to change with facts I trust.
PAD wrote: “Maybe not a free ride, but given the far less severe level of scrutiny for lapses with far greater consequence than Clinton’s, I’d say at the very least he’s been charged off-peak rates.”
Well, that may just boil down to perception then. Let’s take a look at columnist Paul Krugman of the New York Times. Six months ago, I didn’t know him from Adam. I had absolutely no opinion of his work at all. But another comic book writer whose opinion I listen to and respect stuck a couple of links to Krugman’s NYT columns up on his Web site. So I read them. Both columns hammered Bush (including one that I knew had at least one wrong element in it). Curious, I went to Krugman’s Web site and started reading his NYT column archives, which go back to about the last year of the Clinton administration. Every single column I’ve read regarding Bush (and they are legion) has been negative and scathing in its criticism — even when Bush was just a CANDIDATE. Now what the heck is that all about? The NYT not only strongly influences most newspapers across the country, it strongly influences all the major television news shows as well. So here you have this constant NYT drumbeat about Bush of “scum, scum, scum, scum,” a couple of times a week for YEARS in one of the most influential media outlets in the world, and you say the media is giving Bush a free pass? Personally, after going numb reading so many of Krugman’s negative columns, I doubt I can ever read ANYTHING he writes in the future and believe there is even a tiny chance it might have some objectivity to it. It’s absolutely, positively insane!
Russ Maheras
You are talking about one columnist. What about all the journalists out there who harped on Clinton without any evidence? They even picked up stories from the Drudge report, when he isn’t a journalist, but has proven to be a rumor monger. Very little of what he wrote has panned out, but all the major newspapers jumped on the bandwagon. The stories were also picked up by the networks. But I guess that was OK because Clinton was a Democrat. The mild (in comparison) criticism of Bush is just awful though, because he doesn’t deserve it? All public officials should be put under public scrutiny. Not just those you don’t like.
“Nope. But the same bull they are throwing at us as the reasoning for going to war with Iraq is just being ignored when it comes to N. Korea.
And neither the people or media doesn’t give a dámņ either.”
Putting back on my serious hat for a moment (My last response was pretty heavily laced with sarcasm. You showed great self-restraint in not responding in kind. Very admirable.), the two situations are obviously very different in many respects. The very presence of nuclear weapons, our military history in Korea, and the politics of the region differentiate the two situations. With all due respect, only the most grossly simplistic analysis (or a blantantly political motive) would insist on treating them the same. The Bush Administration is showing great wisdom in not treating the two situations alike.
So much for their not knowing diplomacy if it hit them in the head. Quite the contrary, they called this one correctly, despite the catcalls of war mongers on the left. And let’s be honest here – no one wants to go to war with North Korea. This is all just playing politics.
“Nope. But the same bull they are throwing at us as the reasoning for going to war with Iraq is just being ignored when it comes to N. Korea.
And neither the people or media doesn’t give a dámņ either.”
i think thats because koreans make lousy tv of the week villains.
arabs however…
The Bush Administration is showing great wisdom in not treating the two situations alike.
See, the problem is that for all the great “wisdom” shown with N Korea (which I agree with you on, actually), they’ve shown complete idiocy with the rest of the world, particularly Iraq.
despite the catcalls of war mongers on the left.
Come again?
Correct me if I’m mistaken, but Bush is a Republican. The Bush Administration is full of Republicans.
The Bush Administration is the one that pushed for the war in Iraq.
How exactly does this make liberals “war mongerers”?
“See, the problem is that for all the great “wisdom” shown with N Korea (which I agree with you on, actually), they’ve shown complete idiocy with the rest of the world, particularly Iraq.”
Your opinion. Mine is that the Bush Administration is generally doing the right thing from a foreign policy standpoint. In Iraq, they are absolutely, completely, unreservedly correct in throwing out Hussein and fighting the battle there and at home to successfully secure freedom for the Iraqis. The domestic battle is unfortunate but necessary I guess in these times when people put such a high price on partisan politics.
“The Bush Administration is the one that pushed for the war in Iraq.”
I would say that Saddam pushed for it. He certainly had lots of opportunities to avoid it. His misfortune was coming up against a president who wasn’t content to throw a couple of ineffectual patroit missles to make himself look good.
“How exactly does this make liberals ‘war mongerers’?”
No one on the Right that I know of is screaming for war with North Korea. I hear all of that coming from the Left. You’ve mentioned it in almost every post. If that’s not what you want, stop talking about it and start talking about what you do want.
Karen wote: “You are talking about one columnist. What about all the journalists out there who harped on Clinton without any evidence? They even picked up stories from the Drudge report, when he isn’t a journalist, but has proven to be a rumor monger. Very little of what he wrote has panned out, but all the major newspapers jumped on the bandwagon. The stories were also picked up by the networks. But I guess that was OK because Clinton was a Democrat. The mild (in comparison) criticism of Bush is just awful though, because he doesn’t deserve it? All public officials should be put under public scrutiny. Not just those you don’t like.”
Like film stars, not all newspaper columnists are created equal. A columnist for the New York Times has far more national and international influence than scores of columnists from lesser, local newspapers. As I said, the NYT drives the news like no other U.S. newspaper, and over time, may also drive the thought processes and agendas of many of the columnists from those smaller newspapers. To say Krugman is “just one columnist,” is like saying, as actors go, Harrison Ford has no more influence inside and outside the film industry than Pauly Shore.
In my opinion, the unfairness to Clinton was no different than it currently is for Bush, and I said so in one of my previous posts. Much of the unfair criticism for both men is/has been partisan driven, and, as I said before, the partisan stuff is a huge waste of time and money, distracting the government from its real job, which is supposed to be running the country, ensuring domestic security, etc. I will say that at times, it seemed as if Clinton was his own worst enemy — something that surprised the hëll out of me more than once, especially considering his impressive educational pedigree.
Russ Maheras
No one on the Right that I know of is screaming for war with North Korea.
Uhuh. And yet, everybody on the right was screaming for war in Iraq, regardless of the consequences.
Yeah, that makes liberals the war mongers. Right, yep, perfect logic there.
In case you’ve missed it, the point I’m trying to make is that every rationalization used in Iraq can easily be used in N. Korea.
But no, you don’t see republicans screaming for war in N. Korea.
And since I don’t think the current administration knows what the hëll diplomacy is, it can only mean that Iraq is a soft target that was picked up from the start.
We were going to bomb Iraq regardless of what Saddam did.
I mean, for crying out loud, it’s been a year, and there are NO WMD. Heaven forbid, he might have actually gotten rid of them!
“In case you’ve missed it, the point I’m trying to make is that every rationalization used in Iraq can easily be used in N. Korea.”
And in case you’ve missed it, I’ve already pointed out that the two situations are totally dissimilar and I’ve already described why the situations are dissimilar. Either you can’t understand or you won’t understand. But really, it’s a pretty obvious point.
“But no, you don’t see republicans screaming for war in N. Korea.”
Of course not. That would be foolish. Which is why I’m betting you see a lot of Democrats complaining that we’re not at war with North Korea.
“And since I don’t think the current administration knows what the hëll diplomacy is, it can only mean that Iraq is a soft target that was picked up from the start.”
Sheesh. Would you make up your mind. You already said that you agreed with the administration’s diplomatic approach to North Korea. Now you say they don’t know what diplomacy is. As for Iraq being a soft target, there’s a word for that – strategy. Don’t fight a war unless you’re confident you can win. There’s nothing wrong and a lot right with that.
“We were going to bomb Iraq regardless of what Saddam did.”
Yeah, like support terrorism, defy the UN, oppress and murder his own people, try to kill a former president, etc. etc. etc. You act like the guy was just minding his own business and doing nothing wrong.
The question is not why we bombed him. It’s why we didn’t bomb him sooner.
“I mean, for crying out loud, it’s been a year, and there are NO WMD. Heaven forbid, he might have actually gotten rid of them!”
He didn’t destroy them. He would have proved it if he did.
Big difference between North Korea and Iraq, We KNOW N. Korea has nukes.
Saudi Arabia funds more terrorists than Iraq ever did yet we’re leaving them alone….
Bladestar,
Good point on Saudi Arabia. One thing that DOES make me upset about Bush is how chummy his family seems with the Saudi royal family.
Wouldn’t object if we took them out too.
About N Korea, maybe we should fight 1 war @ a time. We commited to Iraq, we can’t do much about N Korea yet. As great as our military is, 2 wars is 2 much (pun intended)
Joe
Joe V.
One war at a time? Think hard. Bush blew that one. We’re fighting at least two.
About N Korea, maybe we should fight 1 war @ a time. We commited to Iraq, we can’t do much about N Korea yet. As great as our military is, 2 wars is 2 much (pun intended)
Apparently you’ve forgot about a rather large chunk of land known as Afghanistan then.