The Kiss of Death

194 comments on “The Kiss of Death”

1. 1Posted by Peter David at August 17, 2006 09:10 AM
   Nonsense. The primary reasons BEFORE the invasion were that Bush wanted Saddam (you remember: The guy who threatened his dad), wanted to finish the job his father started, wanted to make sure that his inability to capture bin Laden dead or alive–you remember, the guy who Bush later didn’t think about much–didn’t cost him a second term (just as his father’s numbers went south after record highs from Operation Desert Storm), and the oil. The agenda to capture Saddam was a priority of Bush’s Neocon advisors look before Bush took office.

   But none of those would have flown with the public, and so the alleged WMDs were an excuse. A rationale. Not a reason. Cherry-picked and skewed from intelligence briefings, and used to ruthlessly exploit the shattered psyche of a fragile American populace and a compliant congress in the wake of 9/11.

   History will judge Bush as the most opportunistic and manipulative president ever not elected.

   PAD

   ****
   This is nothing but your opinion and interpretation. You are entitled to it, but it is hardly objective, hardly factual, and hardly anything but a statement of your personal opinion.

   My own is different, based oin seeing, reading, and living the same event. I mean, its ridiculous. At the height of his approval ratings and months after 9/11, in the middle of the “unending war” you think he said “Hmm, I Can’t find Bin Laden a couple of months after 9/11, let me start to publicly make the case for war and Saddam being bad early in 2002 for an election 2 1.2 years away because I won’t find Bin Laden by then, and my popularity at record levels now, will be at a much lower level 2 1.2 years from now. I know this because after my dad’s 3 day war his popularity levels sagged at a time when foreign policy was not considered important at all by the american public post cold war. and oil. Because we must throw in oil for the reason for everything. Even though we are not getting any more of it since we can’t refine it and it is will hurt my approval that gas prices go up. I like to store it in the grand canyon and swim in it.”

   So, since you obviously would think that Bush did not properly plan for the war, and thought it would be easy and we would be greeted as liberators, thought that if he fought a war no one asked for and started to build for it in 2002, even though he was at sky high levels of popularity and it had only been a short time since 9/11 when no one was surprised we hadn’t found Bin Laden, he anticipated he would not find Bin Laden, the public would turn against him, and using his dad as an example, he would whip up fake support for a war in Iraq in 2002 to start in 2003 that he mistakenly thought would be quick and easy and over with long before the election. Because of couse the lesson from his father is not quick and easy wars on the other part of the world not directly involving your interest that is over way before the election props up your popularity at election time

   and of course he was not elected. Except he was. In 2004 without a doubt. In 2000, well, we were in the margin of error, that is true. In the end, the electors, who actually cast the votes, made their choice.

   But let us say that is true. “The most opoortunistic and manipulative president not elected”.

   What a meaningless phrase. Every president has been elected-either Vice President or President. Except Gerald Ford, and for sake of argument, GWB.

   So “the most ever” turns into a 2 man contest. A contest with one of the most nonthreatening presidents in history. (unless you believe he had a secret deal with Nixon).

   That’s why these “most ever” mean nothing but sound good. “He’s the worst president we’ve had this century.” True. and meaningless. same here.

2. In all fairness, I don’t think spiderrob8 is being knee-jerk. He is merely trying to point out that there were several rationales given for the Iraq war, and that those rationales were offered consistently from the beginning. It’s just that the WMDs got the most air-time. I think his argument is not without merit.

   spiderrob8 made it clear that he’s not saying the rationales were valid, merely that they didn’t appear out of thin air after we failed to turn up the missing WMDs.

   I, for one, believe that the rationales for war were baseless regardless of the fact that they were offered from the beginning. As I said, the Bush administration cherry-picked bits and pieces of intelligence that supported his pre-conceived notion that we needed to invade Iraq, and swept under the rug intelligence that indicated that Iraq did not pose a threat.

   Nevertheless, I think there is value in accuracy. If the rationales were offered from the beginning, it is worth acknolwedging that in the course of this discussion. spiderrob8, thank you for contributing these facts to the debate
   *****

   Thanks Bill. That is all I was saying. Far from having one rationale, I think they, mistakenly, threw everything but the kitchen sink into the debate.

   Now I feel bad for my harsh response to PAD. Even if, he ignores me anyway so he won’t see it.

3. That a doubling of the lead he had right after the primary. I’m not saying that Lamont is dead in the water by any means but he’d best start doing something. I think that too much of his campaign was based on sending a “message” to Lieberman and now that the voters feel like he got it they are willing to let Joe return to office.

   *****8

   Lieberman is being sainted by the GOP. Also, people probably feel bad for him. He ain’t a bad Joe they may think.

   So, since the GOP guy is dead in the water, a lot of GOP voters will go to him, a lot of independents, and some democrats.

   People forget that only democrats voted in the primary, and only the most hardcore (and thus most angry) ones.

   Tremendous amounts of money will be pouring in from the right to keep Lieberman there. Of course, the same will come to Lamont.

   But I get the feeling less people like Lamont then wanted to show their anger to Lieberman.

   Anger only lasts so long though and can turn off the majority.

   We’ll see.

4. For 2004? I suspect that when the history of American elections is written a century from now, the word “Diebold” is going to rate prominent mention for early 21st-century elections.
   ***
   Not likely. No one seems to really care or investigate into the 1960 election, LBJ’s senate campaign, or anything else. Back then, there was more stealing going on then now. It was easy.

   If anything, they are mentioned with almost a gleam in the eye, a joke, those rascals. Heck, JFK joked about it “My dad told me he would not buy one more vote than he had too.” I am not saying that is definitive proof, but the debate is hardly mentioned.

   Kinda like, once someone is executed, “no one” really tries to prove that he was innocent. It is just assumed he was guilty, and people move on.

5. What’s truly interesting about the Quinnipac poll is that Lieberman is killing among republicans, attracing 75% compared to Schlesinger (you know, the guy the GOP nominated) is getting a mere 10%.

   Rejected by his own party and then carried back into office by the party? That could very well happen.

   I have to wonder why so many republicans are going for Lieberman. You’d think the majority of them would want to see their own party’s candidate win. Is the GOP candidate that much of a light weight?

   ****

   The guy is dead. Just dead, totally compromised
   White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said this morning that President Bush will not endorse Connecticut U.S. Senate candidate Alan Schlesinger (R) over Sen. Joe Lieberman even though he’s the Republican nominee

   Expect calls for Connecticut Republican United States Senate nominee Alan Schlesinger to abandon his race to begin in the next several days. Questions are being raised about the former state representative’s gambling habits that have Republicans sounding rattled.
   A persistent government critic and former state police casino licensing commander Bradley Beecher sent emails early this week raising questions about Schlesinger. The ones that have Republicans talking are that their Senate candidate is, in casino parlance, a card counter and has used a “Wampum Card” (the Foxwood casino loyalty card that gets gamblers points for spending money) under the assumed name of “Alan Gold”. Schlesinger said today that he does have a card under that name but has not used it “in this decade.” The candidate, sounding agitated in a phone conversation, says he does recall being told by a casino official that he should not be playing blackjack at their facility.

   The most serious trouble for Schlesinger, however, comes from Republican state chairman George Gallo, who told me this afternoon that the gambling questions raise “a lot of questions which Mr. Schlesinger is going to have to answer in the next couple of days.” Gallo, who is close to Republican Governor M. Jodi Rell, said, “Our mistake is that we only vetted candidates using their real names.”
   The Hartford Courant sent a bunker bomb in to Connecticut Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Alan Schlesinger’s flagging campaign today with revelations that the former legislator was successfully sued for thousands of dollars in casino debts he ran up in Atlantic City venues. Schlesinger’s campaign was rocked last week by the news that, among other things, he had gambled in a Connecticut Indian casino under an assumed name, Alan Gold. His luck will have run out now.

   Word of his gambling debts will renew calls for Schlesinger to abandon his tattered candidacy.

6. spiderrob8: “This is nothing but your opinion and interpretation. You are entitled to it, but it is hardly objective, hardly factual, and hardly anything but a statement of your personal opinion.

   “My own is different, based oin seeing, reading, and living the same event.”

   spiderrob8, I know you’ve already expressed regret about the harshness of this response, but certain things you’ve written nevertheless are crying out to be addressed. While you are correct that Peter is expressing opinions, the fact is, you are doing the same.

   spiderrob8: “I mean, its ridiculous. At the height of his approval ratings and months after 9/11, in the middle of the “unending war” you think he said “Hmm, I Can’t find Bin Laden a couple of months after 9/11, let me start to publicly make the case for war and Saddam being bad early in 2002 for an election 2 1.2 years away because I won’t find Bin Laden by then, and my popularity at record levels now, will be at a much lower level 2 1.2 years from now.” I know this because after my dad’s 3 day war his popularity levels sagged at a time when foreign policy was not considered important at all by the american public post cold war.”

   I would agree that this is the weakest part of Peter’s argument.

   spiderrob8: “and oil. Because we must throw in oil for the reason for everything. Even though we are not getting any more of it since we can’t refine it and it is will hurt my approval that gas prices go up. I like to store it in the grand canyon and swim in it.”

   This is by far the weakest part of you counter-argument. Just because the Bush administration was unable to turn Iraq into a U.S.-friendly nation willing to sell us oil at favorable rates, or better yet, willing to allow us to help them refine and produce it, doesn’t mean that wasn’t their intention. Remember, the Bush administration believed that Iraqi oil would help pay for the reconstruction of their country.

   If a bank robber botches the job and comes away with only a few pennies, that doesn’t mean he didn’t intend to make off with a fistful of cash.

   spiderrob8: “So, since you obviously would think that Bush did not properly plan for the war, and thought it would be easy and we would be greeted as liberators, thought that if he fought a war no one asked for and started to build for it in 2002, even though he was at sky high levels of popularity and it had only been a short time since 9/11 when no one was surprised we hadn’t found Bin Laden, he anticipated he would not find Bin Laden, the public would turn against him, and using his dad as an example, he would whip up fake support for a war in Iraq in 2002 to start in 2003 that he mistakenly thought would be quick and easy and over with long before the election. Because of couse the lesson from his father is not quick and easy wars on the other part of the world not directly involving your interest that is over way before the election props up your popularity at election time”

   This argument presupposes that everyone learns the lessons of the past. If that were true, then why did George W. Bush ignore the experience of military experts when invading Iraq? Those experts predicted the consequences of the invasion, and offered sound options for coping with those consequences. Yet Bush ignored their advice.

   Most of us don’t learn the lessons the past has to teach us. That’s why history so often repeats itself.

   spiderrob8: “and of course he was not elected. Except he was. In 2004 without a doubt. In 2000, well, we were in the margin of error, that is true. In the end, the electors, who actually cast the votes, made their choice.

   “But let us say that is true. “The most opoortunistic and manipulative president not elected”.

   “What a meaningless phrase. Every president has been elected-either Vice President or President. Except Gerald Ford, and for sake of argument, GWB.

   “So “the most ever” turns into a 2 man contest. A contest with one of the most nonthreatening presidents in history. (unless you believe he had a secret deal with Nixon).

   “That’s why these “most ever” mean nothing but sound good. “He’s the worst president we’ve had this century.” True. and meaningless. same here.”

   I’ve already stated my disagreement with Peter on this point, so I won’t belabor a dead horse.

   I’ve noticed, however, that you’ve not addressed the strongest part of Peter’s argument: that Dubya’s choice to invade Iraq was motivated by a family grudge.

   This may be conjecture, but it is one of the most logical explanations for the known facts.

   After all, prior to the invasion, there was at best weak evidence to support the assertion that Iraq had WMDs. Iraq may have been in violation of UN resolutions, but Israel has been in violation of UN resolutions and has nuclear technology and we have not invaded that nation (with good reason). There is evidence that Saddam was not allied with Al Qaeda, and that in fact he and bin Laden were adversaries.

   Moreover, from Richard Clarke to Bob Woodward, there are reports that George W. Bush was irrationally looking for evidence of an Iraqi link to Sept. 11, 2001, even though all signs pointed to Al Qaeda. George W. Bush did a good job of attacking Richard Clarke in particular, and leading even me to doubt the man’s veracity. Unfortunately, his claims have been corroborated enough to give them credibility.

   Another pet hypothesis of mine is that Dubya and his neocons thought Saddam would be the easiest mideast dictator to knock off, and thus Iraq would be the ideal place to plant the seeds of Western-style democracy in a Middle Eastern Islamic state. Knowing that the U.S. citizenry would likely not support a war based on such a rationale, they cooked up something else entirely.

   Any way you slice it, there is an assload of evidence that George W. Bush ignored evidence that Iraq was not a threat. While we may never truly know why his judgment was so clouded, it seems to me that the case for Dubya’s judgment being clouded by something in regards to Iraq is, in the words of George Tenet, a “slam dunk.”

7. I suspect that when the history of American elections is written a century from now, the word “Diebold” is going to rate prominent mention for early 21st-century elections.

   Not likely.

   Spiderrob, for someone who spends a lot of time pointing out that other people are only posting opinions, you’re doing a hëll of a lot of posing-opinions-as-facts yourself.

   You don’t know whether it’s likely or not. Neither do I. I said that I suspected history would make that judgment. You are more than welcome to suggest otherwise, but your dismissive tone is not productive.

   Personally, I am mystified by the fact that there is ANYONE in this country who thinks that paper-free uncheckable voting machines are a good idea. (I’m not implying you think that, by the way; you’ve not given enough evidence for me to assume things one way or the other.)

   Anger only lasts so long though and can turn off the majority.

   Agreed; a pity that appealing to fear seems to have a far lengthier shelf life.

   TWL

8. Personally, I am mystified by the fact that there is ANYONE in this country who thinks that paper-free uncheckable voting machines are a good idea. (I’m not implying you think that, by the way; you’ve not given enough evidence for me to assume things one way or the other.)

   I agree; it must be possible to come up with paper ballots so simple that even poorly educated or illiterate voters would be able to figure out how not to vote for Pat Buchanan.

   I’d add a few other steps to avoid any chance of electoral fraud; any attempt to stuff ballot boxes or destroy ballots should be treated as low level treason. Any politician guilty of deliberate voter fraud should, in addition, be denied the right to hold public office. Yep, there would be a few folks who would go to jail for years and years for simple voter fraud. But after a few well publicized cases there wouldn’t be many folks willing to take the chance.

   (In a similar vein, I’ve never liked it when evidence is thrown out because of something stupid that the cops did. We’re supposed to looking for truth and it’s still the truth even when it wasn’t found by the book. But if we allow it then the cops would just ignore the rules, right? Not if they go to jail. And if a cop ever actually frames someone, fakes evidence, that sort of thing, they should get the same sentence as the crime they faked.)

9. Tim Lynch: “Personally, I am mystified by the fact that there is ANYONE in this country who thinks that paper-free uncheckable voting machines are a good idea.”

   My mother used to work as a polling inspector in New York State, and my girlfriend’s father still does. I know a little bit about the technology involved, and paper-free does not necessarily mean uncheckable.

   In fact, in all of the voting districts in my vicinity, voting is cast by using a machine with levers. Each time you flip a lever, it turns a dial counter somewhere else in the machine. When it comes time to count the ballots, the back of the machine is unlocked (and that unlocking has to be done according to a very strict procedure in order to ensure the dial counters aren’t tampered with), a template is placed on the back of the machine indicating the candidate/proposition each counter corresponds with, and two people verify the final count.

   The only paper ballots cast are by those who want to cast a write-in vote for a candidate who is not listed on the ballot in the machine. (Every year, by the way, votes are cast for “Bugs Bunny,” “Mickey Mouse,” and other similar characters. Back when “All in the Family” was in its heyday, “Archie Bunker” was a popular write-in candidate as well.) Other than that, it’s all paperless.

   Paper punch ballots are a huge problem because they’re on paper. They’re not counted by hand but run through a machine in order to be counted. If you run a stack of them through the machine seven times, you’ll most certainly get seven different tallies.

   I’m guessing by “paperless” you’re referring to computer-voting, though. I thought it would be worthwhile to point out that those weren’t synonymous.

   Computers certainly add more room for error based on their complexity and the security vulnerabilities inherent in sending data over physical lines and storing it in a server that can be hacked. But the current system is no great shakes, Tim, and is already fraught with errors and fraud. Computers could help. Some of the nascent systems I read about are buggy, admittedly, but sometimes failure paves the way for future success.

10. Bill Mulligan: “(In a similar vein, I’ve never liked it when evidence is thrown out because of something stupid that the cops did. We’re supposed to looking for truth and it’s still the truth even when it wasn’t found by the book. But if we allow it then the cops would just ignore the rules, right? Not if they go to jail. And if a cop ever actually frames someone, fakes evidence, that sort of thing, they should get the same sentence as the crime they faked.)”

    In France, if you falsely accuse someone of a crime, you are sentenced as though you committed that crime. But in France, you are considered guilty until proven innocent, and the rules of evidence are much different.

    The problem with sending a cop to jail for violating a suspect’s rights by failing to follow proper procedure is that such procedures are frequently driven by laws that are quite complicated. After all, laws are written by legislators, argued over by lawyers and interpreted by judges and juries. How could they NOT be complicated?

    Anyway, it’s very easy for a cop to be acting in good faith but nevertheless violate a defendant’s civil rights. I’d hate to see a cop go to jail over something like that.

    The current system is not perfect but I like it better than the swift justice meted out by totalitarian regimes.

11. spiderrob8

    “I mean, its ridiculous. At the height of his approval ratings and months after 9/11, in the middle of the “unending war” you think he said “Hmm, I Can’t find Bin Laden a couple of months after 9/11, let me start to publicly make the case for war and Saddam being bad early in 2002 for an election 2 1.2 years away because I won’t find Bin Laden by then, and my popularity at record levels now, will be at a much lower level 2 1.2 years from now.”

    Bill Myers

    “Another pet hypothesis of mine is that Dubya and his neocons thought Saddam would be the easiest mideast dictator to knock off, and thus Iraq would be the ideal place to plant the seeds of Western-style democracy in a Middle Eastern Islamic state. Knowing that the U.S. citizenry would likely not support a war based on such a rationale, they cooked up something else entirely.”

    There’s one thing out there that undercuts spiderrob8’s Bush support and adds a bit to Bill’s hypothesis. Its name is The Project for a New American Century. Yeah, I beat that one to death whenever I’m given the chance. Most of the Bush admin is made up of members of that think tank (see the names at the bottom of this http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm page) and their own writings put a lie to the concept that they weren’t planning Iraq before 9/11.

    PFNAC was writing about the need to remove Saddam as far back as 1997. Actually, they wanted to knock over any leader of Iraq that wasn’t ours. They made a point of stating, amonst other things, that any leader of Iraq should be removed by force and that the U.S. should create a “democracy”.

    “U.S. policy should have as its explicit goal removing Saddam Hussein’s regime from power and establishing a peaceful and democratic Iraq in its place. We recognize that this goal will not be achieved easily. But the alternative is to leave the initiative to Saddam, who will continue to strengthen his position at home and in the region. Only the U.S. can lead the way in demonstrating that his rule is not legitimate and that time is not on the side of his regime. To accomplish Saddam’s removal, the following political and military measures should be undertaken:

    — We should take whatever steps are necessary to challenge Saddam Hussein’s claim to be Iraq’s legitimate ruler, including indicting him as a war criminal;

    — We should help establish and support (with economic, political, and military means) a provisional, representative, and free government of Iraq in areas of Iraq not under Saddam’s control;

    — We should use U.S. and allied military power to provide protection for liberated areas in northern and southern Iraq; and — We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf – and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power

    Although the Clinton Administration’s handling of the crisis with Iraq has left Saddam Hussein in a stronger position that when the crisis began, the reality is that his regime remains vulnerable to the exercise of American political and military power. There is reason to believe, moreover, that the citizens of Iraq are eager for an alternative to Saddam, and that his grip on power is not firm. This will be much more the case once it is made clear that the U.S. is determined to help remove Saddam from power, and that an acceptable alternative to his rule exists. In short, Saddam’s continued rule in Iraq is neither inevitable nor likely if we pursue the policy outlined above in a serious and sustained fashion. If we continue along the present course, however, Saddam will be stronger at home, he will become even more powerful in the region, and we will face the prospect of having to confront him at some later point when the costs to us, our armed forces, and our allies will be even higher. Mr. Speaker and Senator Lott, Congress should adopt the measures necessary to avoid this impending defeat of vital U.S. interests.”

    That’s from May 29, 1998. Some of the signers include Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and John R. Bolton.

    -Iraq-

    “We agree with Secretary of State Powell’s recent statement that Saddam Hussein “is one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth….” It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a “safe zone” in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means.”

    September 20, 2001

    Notice that one line. “But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.” You had a group of people who had been looking for the removal of Saddam since 1997 and who knew that an attack on Iraq, a joke to most Americans through most of the 90’s lead by a man who was a punch line in many movies and tv shows, and the occupation could never be sold to the population at large. 9/11 came along and gave them their tool to sell it.

    Bush and the Neocons, with 9/11, had the fear and anxiety that it generated and enough public support for Bush that they saw their chance to pull it off. Then they went into overdrive to increase the fear factor. They put OBL threw the public spin cycle and morphed him into Saddam Hussein. They pounded the public with talk of WMD’s, mushroom clouds and not waiting for smoking gun speeches day after day after day. Bush put removed statements about Saddam’s WMD program, taken out by intelligence because of their questionable veracity, back into his speeches. Cheney played up links between Saddam and OBL long after the statements he was making were debunked by the very people he was sourcing. They shot Powell’s credibility to hëll by sending him to give a U.N. briefing that was so full of it that even some of their supporter knew something was wrong with it.

    And they got what they wanted. They had to lie, twist and spin to get their way but they got it. And now we’re all stuck with it.

12. http://www.gregpalast.com/the-best-thing-in-the-world-for-big-oil

    Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to
    threaten to use the oil weapon to manipulate oil mar-
    kets… United States should conduct an immediate pol-
    icy review toward Iraq, including military, energy,
    economic, and political/diplomatic assessments.

    basically, Saddam would decide not to export one week, driving prices way up, then pump like a madman the next week, driving prices down.

    he was a major player who refused to play by our rules.

    not even his neighbors considered him a military threat since his regime had been declawed by a devastating war and a decade of sanctions.

    i think that Palast makes a good case that it really was all about the oil.

    -will

13. Tim Lynch:
    “Agreed; a pity that appealing to fear seems to have a far lengthier shelf life.”

    This sentiment amuses me somewhat, because the vast majority of time the “appeal to fear” finger has been pointed, it’s been pointed at the Republicans for all their supposed booga-booga tactics (Al Gore’s vein-popping “He preyed on our fears” speech comes to mind). However, as of late, I’m seeing the argument trotted out more frequently by the elected-left that the contry is LESS safe because of Bush’s policies. See: any speech by Reid or Dean. How is that not fear-mongering?

14. This sentiment amuses me somewhat, because the vast majority of time the “appeal to fear” finger has been pointed, it’s been pointed at the Republicans for all their supposed booga-booga tactics (Al Gore’s vein-popping “He preyed on our fears” speech comes to mind). However, as of late, I’m seeing the argument trotted out more frequently by the elected-left that the contry is LESS safe because of Bush’s policies. See: any speech by Reid or Dean. How is that not fear-mongering?

    Well, if it’s true, how IS that fear-mongering.

    Sorry, but this is not a good debate tactic. You’re making an argument based on the tactics of the supporters, with no attempt to evaluate the substance of the argument. You have to show that the country IS just as safe or safer before you go to the fear mongering charge; you just can’t wimp out or be lazy on this.

15. Anyway, it’s very easy for a cop to be acting in good faith but nevertheless violate a defendant’s civil rights. I’d hate to see a cop go to jail over something like that.

    Agreed. There’s no doubt cops have a tough job. Maybe if we streamline the rules while ensuring punishment for the real bad cops…

    Sorry, but this is not a good debate tactic. You’re making an argument based on the tactics of the supporters, with no attempt to evaluate the substance of the argument. You have to show that the country IS just as safe or safer before you go to the fear mongering charge; you just can’t wimp out or be lazy on this.

    That’s fair enough but it cuts both ways. Most of the critisism I’ve seen of Cheney’s statement about Lamont wasn’t that it was wrong on the facts it was more like “How DARE he suggest that Lamont’s policies would embolden Al Qaeda!” or something like that.

16. Anyway, it’s very easy for a cop to be acting in good faith but nevertheless violate a defendant’s civil rights. I’d hate to see a cop go to jail over something like that.

    Agreed. There’s no doubt cops have a tough job. Maybe if we streamline the rules while ensuring punishment for the real bad cops…

    Sorry, but this is not a good debate tactic. You’re making an argument based on the tactics of the supporters, with no attempt to evaluate the substance of the argument. You have to show that the country IS just as safe or safer before you go to the fear mongering charge; you just can’t wimp out or be lazy on this.

    That’s fair enough but it cuts both ways. Most of the critisism I’ve seen of Cheney’s statement about Lamont wasn’t that it was wrong on the facts it was more like “How DARE he suggest that Lamont’s policies would embolden Al Qaeda!” or something like that.

17. Agreed. There’s no doubt cops have a tough job. Maybe if we streamline the rules while ensuring punishment for the real bad cops…

    I think that’s the problem with punishing individual police officers, though. Often times, they have to make instant judgments in the field that are second guessed months, even years later in court. Cops aren’t trained to be lawyers and I don’t think it’s fair to expect them to be able to instantly predict how a judge is going to view their actions.

    I would like to see a broandening of the inevitable discovery rule. If a cop makes a good faith effort, but his actions are later ruled to be a violation, the evidence can still come in if the DA can establish that it would have been found anyway if the cop hadn’t committed the violation.

    That’s fair enough but it cuts both ways. Most of the critisism I’ve seen of Cheney’s statement about Lamont wasn’t that it was wrong on the facts it was more like “How DARE he suggest that Lamont’s policies would embolden Al Qaeda!” or something like that.

    I’d say both sides have been engaging in fear mongering, but right now, the democrats do have a stronger case that the country isn’t really any safer than it was five years ago. A lot of the things that have been repeatedly pointed out as major weaknesses in our domestic security still haven’t been corrected. The British plot shows that terrorists are still trying to attack us here, so “fighting them over there” is not the whole solution. We need better port and border security and we need it yesterday.

    What I would like to know from Cheney’s defenders, however, is exactly how does Lamont’s win embolden Al Qaida? Were they really sitting around their caves watching CNN wearing “Lamont for Senate” T-shirts and cheering the results? Does anyone really think they give a rat’s ášš which group of infidels rules America? And don’t tell me it’s because one Senate seat will make them think we’re going to suddenly “cut n’ run” from Iraq. They want us in Iraq for as long as possible. Not only are our soldiers convenient targets for them, it’s been their best recruitment boon ever.

18. “That’s fair enough but it cuts both ways. Most of the critisism I’ve seen of Cheney’s statement about Lamont wasn’t that it was wrong on the facts it was more like “How DARE he suggest that Lamont’s policies would embolden Al Qaeda!” or something like that”

    I think it’s a little more in the realm of pointing out Cheney’s poor argument. It’s a bit like saying, “is that really the best shot you got?!?”

    That’s becoming the standard line by Cheney on anything he doesn’t like. That news paper’s stories embolden Al Qaeda! That news network’s reporting emboldens Al Qaeda! That critic of Bush emboldens Al Qaeda! My toast being too brown thanks to that left leaning waitress emboldens Al Qaeda!

    It’s become the fallback bumper sticker for people with no other leg to stand on. Cheney and the Bush Admin are fast becoming a greater joke then he was before with that line.

19. Roger Tang:
    “Well, if it’s true, how IS that fear-mongering.”

    Umm…is that seriously the criteria? You say it’s true, so it must be? I’m not saying that both sides don’t play the fear card, but I must admit to being bemused when the left generally refuses to acknowledge they use the slame slimy tactics (as they put it) as the right does.

    Roger Tang (cont):
    “Sorry, but this is not a good debate tactic. You’re making an argument based on the tactics of the supporters, with no attempt to evaluate the substance of the argument. You have to show that the country IS just as safe or safer before you go to the fear mongering charge; you just can’t wimp out or be lazy on this.”

    I wasn’t debating a point, I was making an observation. But if I WAS debating, the ball would be in the court of those saying the country ISN’T safer, since they’re making the claim in the first place. To try to force the respondant of a questionable claim into proving a negative before evidence is supported of the positive is…ahem…lazy.

    Jerry:
    “That’s becoming the standard line by Cheney on anything he doesn’t like. That news paper’s stories embolden Al Qaeda! That news network’s reporting emboldens Al Qaeda! That critic of Bush emboldens Al Qaeda! My toast being too brown thanks to that left leaning waitress emboldens Al Qaeda!”

    Well if it’s true, how IS that fear-mongering?

20. I think Jerry made an excellent point. For years now, any criticism of the administration has been met with the response that it helps the terrorists. Already, the judge who ruled against the domestic wiretapping program has been savaged in the media and the blogosphere as a liberal ally of the terrorists. Now, she was Carter a appointee, but the Bush administration’s record when going before republican appointed judges (see Teri Schiavo and GITMO cases) hasn’t been all that impressive either. So, maybe it isn’t about left or right. Maybe the law really isn’t on his side most of the time.

    All this bleating about high gas prices emboldens the terrorists! Wagh!

    Cable TV’s obsession with JonBenet Ramsey emboldens the terrorists! Wagh!

    My coffee is cold! That emboldens the terrorists! Wagh! Wagh!

21. The debate in democratic countries about wars and the concern over human rights and casualties is perceived by terrorists as a weakness which emboldens them. That’s a fact

    So you can give up on open democratic discussion. But if this is not your choice than criticizing someone for engaging in it is wrong.

    It is right for the liberals to criticize the concervatives that its policies have or will have a negative rather than positive effect on the security of the US. And it is right for the conservatives to criticize the liberals that their policie had, have, or will have a negative effect. Neither side has a right to complain that its proposals are put to scrutiny.

22. Micha, I agree that the terrorists perceive us as weak because of our lack of lock-step unity, and our moral qualms. I would hope you would agree that their perception is wrong. A society that can tolerate debate and dissent, and can question the rightness of its actions, is inherently stronger than one in which such things are silenced.

    By the way, I know there are those who believe things like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prove that we are as morally bankrupt as our enemies. This is not so. Those moral lapses triggered investigations and court proceedings, one of which resulted in setting limitations on the power of our chief executive.

    When terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, or Hamas murder civilians, on the other hand, they high-five each other and celebrate.

    There is a difference between us and them.

23. “I would hope you would agree that their perception is wrong. A society that can tolerate debate and dissent, and can question the rightness of its actions, is inherently stronger than one in which such things are silenced.”
    I agree. But the question was not whetther democratic discussion is ultimatly indicative of strength, but whether such discussion emoboldens Al-Quida, which it does. I personaly prefer to risk emnoldening terrorists and having democracy than giving up democracy so as not to embolden them. but that’s me.
    The important point I was trying to make is that criticizing people for emboldening al-quida by having democratic discussion is unfair if the speaker believes that democracy is a good thing.

    I also believe that it is good for societies to try to improve itself morally. Unfortunatly some people on the extreme right don’t want that to happen, while some on the extreme left end up supporting moral relativism or become more interested in a kind of personal moral cleansing than working for the imporovement of society.

24. Micha, I think you and I are on the same page, actually. I was just trying to amplify your point a bit, and add my own perspective: yes, open debate and dissent, and self-imposed moral strictures on the part of nations like the U.S. and Israel does indeed embolden the terrorists.

    That may provide us with a disadvantage in the short term, but I believe in the long term it makes us stronger than the terrorists.

    Like I said, I think you and I are on the same page here. Just trying to add my own perspective is all.

    Good to have you back, by the way. 🙂

25. Thanks Bill. We agree completely.

    It is nice to be back. Actually, I’ll be visiting my sister in Berkley in September (she’s the talented one).

    I hope the security won’t be too much of a problem.

26. So you can give up on open democratic discussion.

    Which may in fact be the intent of Cheney and others. It’s the same with people who charge racism for anyone who criticizes a prominent black leader or anti-semitism when anyone criticizes Israel. The object isn’t so much to win the debate as much as it is to shut it down.

27. And don’t tell me it’s because one Senate seat will make them think we’re going to suddenly “cut n’ run” from Iraq. They want us in Iraq for as long as possible. Not only are our soldiers convenient targets for them, it’s been their best recruitment boon ever.

    Lieberman is more than just a random senator–he’s a former Vice Presidential candidate (a few uears ago he was often introduced by Democrats as “The REAL Vice President”!) and he’s a Jew. I would not underestimate the ability of Muslim extremists to see his loss as a major coup. I’m not sayng there is any reality to that perception.

    As to whether our prsence in Iraq is really what they want I would suggest that if that is true they would ramp down the violence lest it lead to our leaving. There is no evidence that this is happening and I think you seriously underestimate just how valuable a propaganda coup it would be if we left. That doesn’t mean it’s the wrong thing to do but I seriously doubt that our leaving Iraq will be a source of sorrow and regret to Al Qeada.

    (Look at how Israel leaving Lebanon has been spun as a major major victory for Hezbalah)

28. “Which may in fact be the intent of Cheney and others. It’s the same with people who charge racism for anyone who criticizes a prominent black leader or anti-semitism when anyone criticizes Israel. The object isn’t so much to win the debate as much as it is to shut it down.”

    This is not the same thing. In the case we were discussing Chaney was correct, statements against the war embolden Al-Quaida. But we believe that the discussion about whetther the war is good or bad is more important than the state of mind of Al-Qaida. So we are willing to pay the price of emboldening them.

    In the other cases a statement criticizing blacks or Israel may or may not be racist, I’ve seen examples of both. Likewise, the accusation of racism may or may not be correct, and it may or may not be in good faith.

    If the US stays in Iraq Al-Quaida will use it as a justification. If you leave than they will interpret it as a success. Both will help their recruitments. it is a win win situation.

29. 1Remember, the Bush administration believed that Iraqi oil would help pay for the reconstruction of their country.
    ***

    Yeah, so? That’s not doing it for oil. that would be using their oil to pay for the reconstruction of their country because we wanted their oil???? to um pay for the reconstruction of their country.

    Makes no sense.

    Though I would like to meet the guy in this country who is willing to forego everything in our country today that depends on oil, and relatively cheap oil

30. Lieberman is more than just a random senator–he’s a former Vice Presidential candidate (a few uears ago he was often introduced by Democrats as “The REAL Vice President”!) and he’s a Jew. I would not underestimate the ability of Muslim extremists to see his loss as a major coup. I’m not sayng there is any reality to that perception.

    I doubt it. They already believe that the US government is controlled from Tehran, regardless of how many actual Jews sit in Congress. I don’t really see how one senator’s defeat makes much difference in their eyes.

    As to whether our prsence in Iraq is really what they want I would suggest that if that is true they would ramp down the violence lest it lead to our leaving.

    But if they ramped down the violence, they couldn’t kill Americans there. It’s catch 20-20 here.

    This is not the same thing. In the case we were discussing Chaney was correct, statements against the war embolden Al-Quaida. But we believe that the discussion about whetther the war is good or bad is more important than the state of mind of Al-Qaida. So we are willing to pay the price of emboldening them.

    Actually, we were talking about whether Lieberman’s defeat emboldens Al Qaida, which is not exactly the same thing.

    In the other cases a statement criticizing blacks or Israel may or may not be racist, I’ve seen examples of both. Likewise, the accusation of racism may or may not be correct, and it may or may not be in good faith.

    But when the criticism is not motivated by racism, playing the “race card” is a common tactic in US politics to silence the criticism. That is my point.

    If the US stays in Iraq Al-Quaida will use it as a justification. If you leave than they will interpret it as a success. Both will help their recruitments. it is a win win situation.

    We could round up every insurgent and fundamentalist in Iraq, shoot them and create a democratic utopia with freedom of religion for all and Al Qaida would still spin it as victory for them when we left. But that doesn’t make it true. What benefits them more is creating as much chaos in Iraq as they can so that no matter what we do to try and keep order, we end up looking like the bad guys. That’s what helps them.

31. After all, prior to the invasion, there was at best weak evidence to support the assertion that Iraq had WMDs
    ****

    I don’t agree. It seems like most people were pretty shocked when he didn’t, including many of his own people.

    After the first Gulf War, he had more than our intelligence indicated. That, IMO, clouded everything. Also, the fact that he kept acting like a guilty man when he wasn’t guilty (I believe because he wanted people to think he had WMDs, which he believed apparently would prevent people from acting him. He never believed Bush would attack even at the last minute, figuring it would be more bombings and then a last minute resolution, I believe, and some reports have said). I mean, you have a PBS documentary, and inspectors are going in the front door, and Iraqis are going out the back and burying something (i am exaggerating a bit), it just didn;’t make sense. and then the acres and acres of “presidential” land that was off limits.

    Everything relatively impartial I have read suggested virtually everyone thought something was up, something very weird was going on, it seemed like he had them, we expected them to have him, he was acting like he had them, circumstantial evidence showed he had them, but many were uneasy why they could not find the smoking gun. Given Saddam’s actions in covering up nothing, that seemed to many to answer the question, although they continued to have some concerns.

    Clarke’s account has some things to recommend it, and some defects. There are a number of questions raised that he doesn’t answer and suspicions raised by anyone who presents themselves as “the one sane man.” BTW, I read Woodward’s book (actually both of them-they are fascinating reads) and I don’t see the book as showing GWB acting irrationally at all, but rationally asking to make sure that a known enemy who had threatened us verbally before was not involved. I think Woodward’s book is actually quite favorable to Bush and his mindset in many ways. There is a reason it was linked on the Republican website pre-election. Still, it does show problems (although the same could be said of any president really, especially in hindsight).At the very least, it shows him as a human being and not a caricature as PAD and others think. The one thing i’ve learned over the years is not have this insane hatred for those who have a different ideological viewpoint then mine, and not caricature people. I look at history and I see most people, and presidents, did the best they could at the time, though some did have hangups, and some didn’t do a particularly good job. Even our biggest successes, our “heroes” almost all committed impeachable offenses, or close to it, and committed unconstitutional, or at least unpleasant, acts. We remember soundbites about them-they did X, Y, Z but forget A. B, C . I see popular presidents, being forgotten by histury, and unpopular ones vindicated. I see the greatest most revered presidents ever having at best an average 60% approval rating in office, and at worst an average of 40 ish, suggesting little can be read from popularity ratings. The Presidency is a tough jobm and the more I read about all presidents, the more fully realized people they become, not slogans that fit on a bumper sticker.

    Ok, end of (somewhat irrelavant) rant.

32. TWL: Personally, I am mystified by the fact that there is ANYONE in this country who thinks that paper-free uncheckable voting machines are a good idea. (I’m not implying you think that, by the way; you’ve not given enough evidence for me to assume things one way or the other.)
    *****

    I was not trying to be rude, just pointing out past election controversies seem totally forgotten. Given the circumstances of 2000, it won’t be totally forgotten, but I don;t see the 2004 election as being remembered all that much for election controversies. Our histories, even in history books, tend to highlight only a few positive or negative things.. Don’t mean to be dismissive. I usually can only post quickly and do not always have the time to read or reread posts.

    I just posted on that issue because I studied Nixon Kennedy and LBJ a lot (related to my thesis and for personal interest) and just am aware of some election shennagigans that are mostly forgotten or made light of. The historian angle of “Nixon did the good thing for the country by not contesting the 1960 election-it was more imporatant to have a president decided, then to embarrass the US before the world in a perilous time when we were trying to promote democracy.” That was before 2000-people with similar mindsets seemed to suggest opposite then.

    I always was amazed, even as a kid (yes, I was a weird kid) that some of these things are glossed over so much

33. I agree; it must be possible to come up with paper ballots so simple that even poorly educated or illiterate voters would be able to figure out how not to vote for Pat Buchanan
    ****

    As for paper trails, I am not against them. As for voters, having worked in some voting halls before, I do believe personally voters have to take a little responsibility themselves. THe fact that many voters seem to treat it less seriously then March Madness or Superbowl boxes is pretty much their fault.

    My parents used to take me into the ballot room. In NY we still have an old system-levers, it works pretty well though. It is easy. 2 problems-

    (1) Sometimes it is hard to find the local bond things that you have to vote on (which are written tough as it is

    (2) In 2000, for some reason, they had the electors name big. So “THOMAS GULOTTA” would be large, and then in small letters smaller “for George W. Bush”.

    My wife does not follow politics much at all. Yet every election, she spends at least a couple of hours reading about even the local candidates, looking at the newspaper election inserts, reading their stance, reading about the job, etc. It really isn’ too much to ask in the information age.

34. “But when the criticism is not motivated by racism, playing the “race card” is a common tactic in US politics to silence the criticism. That is my point.”

    Or, perhaps accusing of racism fairly or unfairly is a criticism of the criticism, while the accusation of using the race card is a tactic used to silence the criticism. Maybe both. In any case, there is no doubt that people don’t stop criticizing and that people use bad arguments as part of their criticism.

    “We could round up every insurgent and fundamentalist in Iraq, shoot them and create a democratic utopia with freedom of religion for all”

    No you can’t.

    If the united states was able to have visible gains in Iraq than Al-Quaida would start recruiting people by claiming the need to avenge the great humiliation to Muslim honor. However, if the gains were visible, it might gradually result in diminishing popularity of Al-Quaida. If the gains were not immediately visible they might still have had a negative impact of Al-Quaida, but not in the propaganda war, which is a major aspect of the greater conflict. It also depends on how they adapted to the changes. In the world we live in preception is reality quite often.

    “What benefits them more is creating as much chaos in Iraq as they can so that no matter what we do to try and keep order, we end up looking like the bad guys. That’s what helps them.”
    Yes, but withdrawl also benefits them. That’s the beauty of the system. It is all about perception. If you stay you look like bad guys. If you leave you look like bad guys who lost. Figuring out whether it is better to look like bad guys for a longer period or to look like bad guys who lost but stopping being bogged down in Iraq, requires a more complicated set of considerations.

35. spiderrob8: “Yeah, so? That’s not doing it for oil. that would be using their oil to pay for the reconstruction of their country because we wanted their oil???? to um pay for the reconstruction of their country.

    “Makes no sense.

    Yes, it does. George W. Bush is a former Texas oilman, and his Vice President, Ðìçk Cheney, still has a financial interest in Halliburton, a company that is heavily involved in oil exploration and production. Had the postwar reconstruction gone according to the Bush administration’s predictions — i.e. that we had been hailed as liberators — Halliburton would be helping them get the oil flowing again. And they wouldn’t be doing it out of the goodness of their heart.

    Unfortunately for Halliburton and the Bush administration, active fighting continues to this day in Iraq, which makes it impractical for us to “assist” them in ramping up oil production again.

    “Though I would like to meet the guy in this country who is willing to forego everything in our country today that depends on oil, and relatively cheap oil”

    That wouldn’t be very difficult. There are many advocates for alternative energy sources, and many scientists working on the problem.

    Oil is a finite resource that is difficult and expensive to find. When demand is high, as it is now, prices go up. In addition, the instability in the Middle East, where a number of major oil-producing countries reside, helps add to rising oil prices. Major disasters like Hurricane Katrina, which damaged oil production capacity in the Gulf region, further added to the problem (as did profiteering by greedy oil executives).

    When there is a disruption in the production capacity in one part of the world, it’s not like other oil production facilities can just ramp up production on a dime. Oil is very, very bad foundation for our economy. I don’t know how old you are, but I’m old enough to remember the artificially created “oil shortage” of the 1970s. Very, very bad juju.

    We need to break our dependence on oil. The cost of doing nothing will ultimately be higher than the cost of making a painful switch to other forms of energy.

36. Bush and the Neocons, with 9/11, had the fear and anxiety that it generated and enough public support for Bush that they saw their chance to pull it off.
    ****
    I read everything you said, but come to opposite conclusions. The fact that they wanted him gone (as did many liberals) does not mean they manipulated things to get him gone. My grandfather believes FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen becuase he wanted us in WWII, and knew the public wouldn’t accept it. He bases that a lot on FDR’s actions in opposition to Hitler and others, before Pearl Harbor.

    They really really really wanted toi get rid of Saddam because they felt he was a threat to the region and for democracy and other reasons. So did Clinton in 1998. He stated regime change was our goal. So did Kerry.

    It is just as plausible to argue that after 9/11 they, and many many others, didn’t think we could afford to wait anymore.

    But the fact that these guys wanted him gone before 9.11 does not mean anything sinister happened. and the quotes you have support the idea that democracy in Iraq is not a new goal. Nor the fact they didn’t think he was a major threat-in the long term, if not the short term.

    “If we continue along the present course, however, Saddam will be stronger at home, he will become even more powerful in the region, and we will face the prospect of having to confront him at some later point when the costs to us, our armed forces, and our allies will be even higher.”

    I can identify with the idea 9/11 changed the mindset and made this seem more urgent. IMO, I feel Bush and I had similar ideas about foreign policy and the use of the miliary and regime change pre-9.11 based on everything I read and heard and I think we had the exact same conversion post 9/11.

    It becomes difficult to address all this because this site is basically like 99 to 1, and it is hard to keep up with the competing arguments and deluge from everyone.

37. But if they ramped down the violence, they couldn’t kill Americans there. It’s catch 20-20 here.

    Ah, but they really aren’t doing all that great ajob of killing Americans–it’s the Iraqis that are bearing the far greatest brunt of the harm. I’m saying that if Al Qeada really wants us to stay they would be limiting the violence that is throwing the country into a civil war–the one thing that would absolutely ensure that we get the hëll out of Dodge.

    Since their actions are more consistant (in my mind) with those of people who want to get us to leave, that’s the hypothesis I’m going with. But let me ask, what do YOU think they would be doing if they wanted us to leave–that is, what would they be doing that is different from what they are doing now?

38. It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.

    *****

    This line I also interpret differently.

    This is my interpretation:

    Iraq may have helped assist 9.11, but even if they didn’t, if we want to get rid of terrorism and its sponsors, we have to get rid of Saddam, we can’t afford not to in this post 9/11 world where we now realize we are far more vulnerable in this shrunken world than before.

    This is the same argument I’ve had with lots of people who seem to equate any bringing up of 9/11 as saying Saddam did 9/11, rather than “I have a different mindset after 9/11 and do not want to wait on threats we can deal with like before, where I would have waited, even if this is not related to 9/11 directly, I want to stop future 9.11.”

    It is a broader idea than just “The 1993 World Trade Center bombing occurred, these are the ten guys involved, arrest and prosecute and we’re done.” You might be able to do that for Oklahoma City. Maybe. But for me and many others, we felt 9/11 changed everything, the way to approach everything, and that the danger is too great in too many cases to wait anymore until we’ve been hit first. Preciously, that is often what you did. You got hit, you hit back harder, and it is over hopefully. The mindset for many changed to stop that first hit from happening at all.

39. If the US stays in Iraq Al-Quaida will use it as a justification. If you leave than they will interpret it as a success. Both will help their recruitments. it is a win win situation.

    ***
    and if you use the word crusade, they’ll be angry because of events from 700 hundred years ago.

    Everything for the terrorists and those that support them is a reason to hate kill and think they are better than everyone. Pre-Iraq, OBL’s approval rating seemed to be sky high in the muslim world. That’s the reality. Whether it is president carter or reagan or bush or clinton or W. Heck, 9/11 was planned starting in the clinton years. This is not to bash clinton. It doesn’t matter what we do, they hate us. Say everything we do IS bad. Even if we stopped doing everything we do, from a group that still has scars from the Crusades for heaven’s sake, do you think it is likely to be forgotten any time soon?

    I have no doubt if we fail in Iraq and leave right now, they will be very very happy. The US will be called a paper tiger “Just like with the hostage Crisis, just like in Lebanon in 1983, just like in Mogadishu (sp) the infidels crumble and fall. They are weak.”

    To some extent they are right. Let’s say the Iraq war was the most justified in history. Everyone single American agreed The American Public does not have the stomach or the attention span, especially in an age of instant information, to support an active war that lasts more than a couple of years AT BEST, and that involves any real number of casualties.

    The terrorists know it. The Sunni insurgency know it. The Chinese know it. The North Koreans know it. The Iranians know it. Everyone knows it. We can use bombs. We can use small number of people that people forget about. But we can’t fight a real war anymore, that goes up and down, has casualties, setbacks, mistakes, etc. I am not talking about Iraq.

    I am talking about broader than Iraq. We don’t have the will to win and would probably lose WWII today. There would likely be a negotiated settlement with the Germans and Japanese.

40. No you can’t.

    Umm. You do understand I was making a hypothetical there, right?

    Ah, but they really aren’t doing all that great ajob of killing Americans–it’s the Iraqis that are bearing the far greatest brunt of the harm. I’m saying that if Al Qeada really wants us to stay they would be limiting the violence that is throwing the country into a civil war–the one thing that would absolutely ensure that we get the hëll out of Dodge.

    But the people killing Iraqis aren’t, for the most part, Al Qaida, or at least that people directly affiliated with Al Qaida. They’re other Iraqis. The Shias are killing the Sunnis and the Sunnis are killing the Shias. They’d be doing that whether Al Qaida was there or not.

    Since their actions are more consistant (in my mind) with those of people who want to get us to leave, that’s the hypothesis I’m going with. But let me ask, what do YOU think they would be doing if they wanted us to leave–that is, what would they be doing that is different from what they are doing now?

    First I have to ask which “they” are you talking about: Al Qaida or the Iraqi insurgents. If by Al Qaida, then I’d say they’d be doing nothing different. Their goal is to kill Americans. If they can’t do it in Iraq, they’ll just go somewhere else. If you mean the Iraqi insurgents, then I’d say that they most certainly want us to leave and therefore, have no motivation to ramp down the violence against us either.

41. If Al-Quaida had a choice, they would prefer to see the americans leave Iraq and claim the victory. It’s an easy choice for them, since even if the war continues it is not completely bad for them.

    The choice of the US is more difficult.

    a very hypothetical utopian democracy in Iraq is not relevant to the choices the US has.

    the local Iraqi militias are fighting for power in Iraq. Success against the americans gives them more power in Iraq. Their struggle and Al-Quaida’s are interrelated.

42. Yes, it does. George W. Bush is a former Texas oilman, and his Vice President, Ðìçk Cheney, still has a financial interest in Halliburton, a company that is heavily involved in oil exploration and production. Had the postwar reconstruction gone according to the Bush administration’s predictions — i.e. that we had been hailed as liberators — Halliburton would be helping them get the oil flowing again. And they wouldn’t be doing it out of the goodness of their heart.

    i think you’re assuming that they want cheap oil. they don’t. they’re Texas oilmen as you pointed out. they don’t make money off of oil being cheap, they make money off of oil being expensive. if the supply goes down, the price goes up.

    the invasion of Iraq has slowed down a major source of oil. this has raised prices and made huge profits for the oil industry.

    the Heritage Foundation had a plan for the privatization of Iraq’s oil reserves that would have undercut OPEC and lowered the price of oil.

    this plan was passed over in favor of locking up the reserves in a state oil company with profit-sharing agreements with International Oil Companies that would help OPEC restrict supply.

43. spiderrob8,

    You can “interpret differently” all you want. But facts are facts.

    “But the fact that these guys wanted him gone before 9.11 does not mean anything sinister happened.”

    No, on its own it doesn’t. But when you add it to the ever growing list of B.S. that Bush and crew served up it makes a nasty picture.

    Bush and crew used a whole lot of information that they got from just one man. His name was Chalabi. The CIA told Bush and crew, pre-invasion, that Chalabi was full of it. Didn’t matter. Bush liked the spin that Chalabi put on things. Post-invasion? Chalabi is proved to be a liar and a crook, Bush and crew act shocked at this and disowned him. Of course, that was easy for them to do. He was no longer useful to them.

    Bush and crew released part of an interview that they did with an man who ran part of Saddam’s weapons programs. He was asked what type of weapons Saddam had and gave a long list. This man had no reason to lie. At least that’s what we were told and that’s what turned out to be true. The lie came in the form of a half truth. The press got hold of the next few pages of the interview. He was asked about what happened to the WMDs. His answer? The were destroyed. Bush backers dropped that one real fast after that.

    Bush and crew had intel people actually taking things about WMDs and Saddam’s WMD capability out of their pre-invasion speeches because of their dubious nature. Not just advising them that they were dubious but actually removing them and telling them that they were crap. Bush and crew put them back in. The had a story to sell.

    Bush and crew did everything they could to imply a direct link between Saddam and OBL. They were often told by intel people that the information that they were sourcing was weak and/or b.s. Didn’t stop ’em. And they did such a good job that many iQ deficient minds out there still believe that Saddam had ties to the events of 9/11. Oh, and what was the fear factor with those ties? Why, Saddam, who was just loaded to the hilt with WMDs, was going to arm the terrorist/OBL with mega WMDs. Why, our next 9/11 would involve a mushroom cloud if we didn’t stop Saddam from arming OBL and others.

    Bush lied in his pre-invasion State of the Union Address. He said that Saddam had thrown the U.N. inspectors out and that he wasn’t allowing them to do their jobs. Problem? News stories from earlier that day, even on Fox, showed that the inspectors were still their and working. By the by; that’s another WMD thing.

    “and the quotes you have support the idea that democracy in Iraq is not a new goal.”

    And???? The U.S. having groups wanting to make a democracy out of another country is nothing new. But that’s not what we’re talking about. we’re talking about how they sold it to the people of the U.S. and what they said to do it. Plus, those quotes only serve to show what liars Bush and crew are. Ask them, as the press has many times, about whether or not they wanted to go into Iraq or had plans to do so before the found the “proof” or “need” just before the invasion. They’ll say that that charge is utter nonsense. They had no such plans. But, there they are signing off on document after document saying that they wanted just that years ago and had it planned out as well. Hëll, some documents in their archives say that any major event in the Mid-East should be used as an excuse to go into Iraq. 9/11 came along and they jumped on it.

    They used 9/11 and WMDs like there was no tomorrow (and, listening to them, failure to take down Saddam really would mean no tomorrow). And they lied and twisted facts to do it. Can non-WMD arguments made pre-invasion be found? Yeah. But every other argument combined is dwarfed by the shear number of WMD arguments, speeches and statements made by Bush, Rummy, Rice, Cheney and Powell. That is what they sold the invasion on and it is that that knew they were playing fast and loose with the truth with. Hëll, Cheney was still trying to sell debunked loads of crap connecting Saddam to OBL in the 2004 debates. Almost as laughable as his http://www.factcheck.org gaffs.

    “They really really really wanted toi get rid of Saddam because they felt he was a threat to the region and for democracy and other reasons. So did Clinton in 1998. He stated regime change was our goal. So did Kerry.”

    But the question becomes one of how they would have done it VS how Bush did it. I don’t think that we would have been sold the bill of B.S. that we were and the fear game would not have been used anything like it was.

    Interpret all you want. The facts are that Bush and crew lied, still lie today and that they sold the Iraq war mostly on fear of terrorist strikes and WMDs.

44. Bill (Myers),

    Yes, by “paper-free” I specifically meant the computer voting. Thanks for pointing out the ambiguities there — I’d generally agree with what you said about it.

    As for someone willing to forgo cheap oil — it would probably be difficult to find a single person who’d be willing to do so unilaterally if it would make no change in society. If I knew that I could help bring about a societal change, though, count me in.

    My wife does not follow politics much at all. Yet every election, she spends at least a couple of hours reading about even the local candidates, looking at the newspaper election inserts, reading their stance, reading about the job, etc. It really isn’ too much to ask in the information age.

    I agree with this. Both Lisa and I try to do the same thing every election, which got particularly tough when we were living in CA and the elections also had umpteen propositions. As a general rule, at least for ballot issues, if we can’t find the time to research the issue we don’t vote on it.

    TWL