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
• 
Greg wrote: “Secondly, its eleven members, as noted, are countries rather than corporations. Do you think countries should be treated in exactly the same way as companies?”
I don’t know. That’s an interesting question. But aren’t we already heading in that direction? Libya, for example, was sued by the family members of those killed in the Lockerbie terrorist incident.
I do know that if a cartel looks like a monoply, acts like a monopoly, and wields power like a monopoly, then perhaps it IS a monoply. OPEC certainly has all of the organization traits anti-monoply laws were designed to guard against.
Russ Maheras
The title of the presidential brief Condi gave to Bush WAS titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack United States”.
That IS NOT the same as “INSIDE the United States”, so that could have been taken to mean any of our embassies, businesses or others around the world.
Sorry, Jerome, but you’re just plain wrong here (a common trait among folks who get their news from conservative talk radio). I’m looking at the full, unedited transcript of Condi’s testimony right now from the New York Times, and here is the passage in question:
BEN-VENISTE. Isn’t it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the Aug. 6 P.D.B. warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that P.D.B.
RICE. I believe the title was Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the United States. Now, the P.D.B. –
BEN-VENISTE. Thank you.
But let’s face it: between the crummy economy, the loss of jobs, the mounting bodies in Iraq, and now the revelation that the Administration did diddly-squat about stopping terrorism before 9/11, the only hope Bush has left of getting re-elected is to lie like hëll.
Craig wrote: “People that actually want freedom usually fight for it. But yet, only now, once we’ve given them freedom, are they fighting. And they’re fighting us. Perhaps you were reading somebody elses post or something, because they don’t want our democracy.”
There are plenty of Iraqis fighting alongside WITH coalition forces. Why do you think the insurgents bomb Iraqi police stations, Iraqi military recruiting operations, etc.? There are currently tens of thousands of police and Iraqi military people working in cooperation with the coalition.
By the way, coalition forces carry out more than 1500 patrols every single day — only a tiny fraction of which are actually attacked. Baghdad alone has 5 million residents, most of whom are armed. Believe me, if the majority of Iraqis wanted us out tomorrow and staged a mass uprising, the coalition would be overrun in 24 hours.
Every day, tens of thousands of Iraqis are working alongside coalition forces to rebuild the infrastructure of the country, but such information is not considered sexy enough news to most media members. Remember the old media addage: If it bleeds, it leads.
If you truly want to find out what is really going on in Iraq, talk to the GIs who are on the ground in country — they are an apolitical bunch who just want to finish what they were ordered to start, and then come home.
Do you really believe Iraqis were better off under Saddam’s dictatorship then an Iraqi-crafted democracy (which is really what they are getting), or are you just arguing the point because a successful democracy in Iraq might mean Bush gets re-elected?
If you are being motivated at all by the latter, I find it disgusting. If you actually believe the former, then I’m at a loss of what to say. What rational person chooses dictatorship over democracy?
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again. In 32 years of voting, I have rarely ever voted a straight party ticket in any election. The reason I vote this way is because I feel that once I align myself with one single party, that means my thought process about the issues has ceased. I refuse to do that because I refuse to be someone’s drone. Are you a drone regarding Iraq, or are you a free-thinker?
Russ Maheras
“But, you’d have to be pretty dámņ blind to see that there haven’t been 2 million jobs created to make up for the 2 million lost.”
You know, it’s remarkably hard to get simple answers to basic questions like just exactly how many people ARE employed? I’ve read that more people are working now than 2 years ago…but since the population is larger, this doesn’t instantly mean job creation.
Meanwhile, the “2 million jobs lost” figure keeps getting bandies about even though the last few month have had close to a half million jobs created. And if I understand it correctly, the official unemployment figures are oddly compiled–if you lose a job at a factory and open your own business you may well not be counted.
At any rate, you’d have to be blindly hating Bush not to have seen significant improvements in the economy. If it’s not enough, hey, that’s fine. If you think Kerry can do better, great. I haven’t heard to much from Kerry about undoing the Bush tax cuts so I don’t know exactly what he will do differently but with a good GDP, relatively low unemployment (5.7 would once have been considered a great number) and low inflation it might be best to do nothing and just take the credit.
I’ve always thought people were awfully naive to think that the President has a whole lot to do with the economy anyway, good or bad. But fiar is fair–if it was called the Bush Recession you can’t complain when things get better and it becomes the Bush Recover.
Jonathan (the other one),
While there is a remote chance that you’re right and Saddam didn’t have WMDs of any kind and lied about it or was misinformed or whatever, that really has nothing to do with Peter’s contention that Bush just imagined it, does it?
After Gulf War I, terms of Iraq’s surrender included that Iraq list all WMds currently in its possession, so that the U.N. could set about a schedule for disarming the weapons. Saddam was increasingly uncooperative, and in 1998 kicked out the U.N. weapons inspectors (the ones overseeing the disarming).
So for four years, Saddam had time to use, hide, move, disarm, whatever these WMDs–without the U.N. (or the U.S.) knowing what happened.
It is such a mistake to say that the Bush Administration “lied” about the WMD threat–when Iraq had acknowledged that they did indeed have WMDs!!!
Let’s say that I give you a challenge–to find the 12 basketballs marked “WMD” that I hid in the state of California. Only you can’t start looking until the year 2008. And between now and then, I may have friends of mine smuggle said basketballs into Nevada, Oregon, or even Mexico.
What I think the “Bushies” are trying to say, in response to Den’s comments, is that the Democrats who are accusing Bush of going into Iraq under false pretenses, after advocating the same actions under the Clinton administration, are attacking Bush for political reasons, because if reality were introduced they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
But I do see the point of the Bush critics…sure, nobody had any reason to think that Bin Laden would ever attack anyone in the USA. I mean, c’mon! It’s…unimaginable! So when they got a memo announcing the astounding, hard to belive reality that, yes, Bin laden DID want to attack the USA…well, after picking their jaws off the floor they should have put the whole country on double secret red alert.
I wonder what other memos from the prestigious Duh Institute we are unaware of?
Fanzig, if Saddam had been in possession of nukes, given his plentifully-demonstrated mental instability, would he not have used them during the first Gulf War? Since this did not happen, a reasonable person could come to the conclusion that the weapons in question did not exist. This opinion would be further bolstered by the fact that foreign inspectors had been combing Iraq for some time, and come up with absolutely no evidence that any of the weapons, even the chemical and bio weapons, had survived the treaty that let Saddam keep his country. Thus, the oft-repeated contention at the time (and yes, no matter how many times Bush and his handlers deny it, the contention was presented often) that Iraqi forces had thousands of tons of bioweapons, hundreds of chemical warheads, and at least some nukes required someone’s imagination. I don’t think it was Dubya’s – I don’t think he’s that smart, really – but someone came to the conclusion that the UN teams were wrong, the CIA was wrong, the NSA was wrong, and the evidence of history was wrong. They had to be wrong, after all – if you were to trust them more than you trusted Saddam’s hollow threats, there’d be no rush to attack without building a real coalition first!
I guess nobody ever read either Dubya or Cheney the classic tale of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”…
“Yes, we still need to work on our democracy, but do we have the right to inflict it on others? Do the Iraqi people not have the right to manifest their own destiny?”
There’s the rub. Remember the Evil Empire? The late Soviet Union? Seems more and more people there miss those “good old days”. Not because they were on top or part of the oppressors, but just because at least they had a sort of stability and knew where their next meal was coming from. Under the new regime, this isn’t always a sure thing. Yes, I live under a supposedly democratic government (Canada) but democracy doesn’t put food on the table and there are certain practical considerations which can trump idiological ones.
No, I’m not poor and starving and I’m not referring to myself. But that there just may be people in Iraq who aren’t looking at our ‘gift’ of democracy in quite the same way as we do. “Walk a mile in their shoes… etc”.
“down to Starbuck’s for the privilege of paying $3+ for a cup of coffee.”
I don’t. But which alternative do I have to paying through the nose at the corner gas station when the price differs by only a fraction of a cent from one end of the city to the other?
“Ideally, what we are fighting for in Iraq is the ability of the Iraqi people to manifest their own destiny. Under Saddam Hussein, that was impossible.”
And what if what they wish as their destiny is a Stalin-like ruler who will ensure they are crime and violence free? Er, except for the violence perpetrated against them by their own government, of course. :p Do we go in and tell them “no, no, you’ve got it wrong”?
“While in England and Scotland two weeks ago, gas was about 80 pence a liter.”
They aren’t an oil producer. The U.S. and Canada are.
“Come on, man, these people hate Americans. All americans. They hate us. Why can’t you realize that.”
So, let’s give them more reasons to hate us? Brilliant strategy, then.
“Assuming that it’s true that Islamists and Islamofacists wish to kill us because we’re
“infidels” what the heck kind of foreign policy is there that would refute and deflect that?”
The question there remains one I’m still waiting to see answered. There are a lot of other countries ruled by “infidels”. But, other than Isreal, which have been specifically targetted by these fanatics, other than those who have sided openly with the U.S.? What I’m getting at here is that there seems to be a pattern of “if we leave them alone, they leave us alone”. So, the fact that we’re infidels may be at least in part a red herring. Perhaps nosybody foreign policy habits are indeed what’s caused all the problems over the years?
Remember that the only obvious ‘exception’ to this was the bombing in Bali, but that there is strong evidence to show that was done to hit the Australians (a country which was part of the Iraqi invasion force) known to be in that night club.
“Thus, the oft-repeated contention at the time (and yes, no matter how many times Bush and his handlers deny it, the contention was presented often) that Iraqi forces had thousands of tons of bioweapons, hundreds of chemical warheads, and at least some nukes required someone’s imagination.”
So if I asked you to provide the quotes from administration officials that Saddam posessed “at least some nukes” you’d have little trouble providing it?
Isn’t this great, we have people that read comic books as a hobby, discussing world politics, like we all really know what is going on.
I say let’s have PAD return to the Hulk so that all may be right with the world again.
Star Wolf answered my statement, “While in England and Scotland two weeks ago, gas was about 80 pence a liter,” with a reply of, “They aren’t an oil producer. The U.S. and Canada are.”
Uh, sorry to break this to you, but they’ve been pumping oil out of North Sea oil wells since the 1970s. As a matter of fact, in 1998, North Sea oil accounted for nine percent of the world’s oil production. And the poor Brits are still paying three times what Americans are paying for their petrol.
As I said, most Americans (and I guess Canadians as well) are spoiled and don’t even know it.
Russ Maheras
What I think the “Bushies” are trying to say, in response to Den’s comments, is that the Democrats who are accusing Bush of going into Iraq under false pretenses, after advocating the same actions under the Clinton administration, are attacking Bush for political reasons, because if reality were introduced they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
Well, I’m neither a democrat nor a republican, so it doesn’t matter to me what reasons someone has for criticising the administration. Politicians say lots of things all the time and 90% of it is pure rhetoric. What matters to me is who acted on this intelligence by sending our troops into this quagmire. Who stripped all nuance out of the intelligence reports, eliminating words like “may” or “possibly?” Who committed us to a long-term occupation in a country whose entire history is one of tribal blood feuds and iron-fisted rule and expected democracy to magically appear and take hold? Who has stretched our military forces dangerously thin? Who diverted resources last year away from hunting for the people who were actually behind 9/11 so that he could fix his daddy’s mistake?
In short, who got us into this mess?
George W. Bush.
YES, he reads books. Go to hëll anyone who wants to reply otherwise.
And yet, he’s the one who says he doesn’t read newspapers. His wife says otherwise.
If he can’t even keep that straight, how can we expect him to run a country?
Heck, he could probably understand that Clancy book far better than I can because of all the fighter pilot terms, aircraft terminology, business market workings and government abbreviations that tended to make it slow going for me.)
That’s only if you assume he actually went to flight school and all the stuff that goes along with actually *serving* in the military.
Do you really believe Iraqis were better off under Saddam’s dictatorship then an Iraqi-crafted democracy (which is really what they are getting), or are you just arguing the point because a successful democracy in Iraq might mean Bush gets re-elected?
Iraqi-crafted democracy? When it’s that going to happen? Before the next ice age?
All that’s going on right now is that we watch our gov’t pull the strings on what is and isn’t going to be allowed in an Iraqi gov’t.
So, again, it comes back to the fact that they’re not getting what THEY want and what will work for THEM, rather than us.
As for Bush, if he gets reelected, I fear what this country has turned into.
Hëll, I fear what this country has turned into already because he got elected the first time around.
But, we know that Iraq won’t be stable any time soon, so we don’t have to worry about that improving Bush’s odds of getting reelected.
Either way, I’m not going to sit here and say that the ends justify the means since Saddam is captured… the country is in tatters and our gov’t has no dámņ clue what to do about it.
Meanwhile, the “2 million jobs lost” figure keeps getting bandies about even though the last few month have had close to a half million jobs created.
Like I said, I want to see what KINDS of jobs are being created.
If it’s Wal-Mart jobs, I’ll just laugh at you. Hëll, I’ll laugh in your face till I pass out.
Who diverted resources last year away from hunting for the people who were actually behind 9/11 so that he could fix his daddy’s mistake?
You know what’s funny, is that there is no mistake on the part of George W the First. Atleast as far as I’ve read.
We went to Kuwait the first time around, and we did what we were allowed to do and set out to do: get Iraq out of Kuwait.
Afaik, we never were after Saddam.
Which makes things look worse for Bush.
So if I asked you to provide the quotes from administration officials that Saddam posessed “at least some nukes” you’d have little trouble providing it?
Here, try this one on for size:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3403519/
Including the gem:
“We believe that he [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons”
Speaker: the honorable Richard Cheney, March 2003. (The 16th, I believe.)
Now, he says what he meant was a reconstituted PROGRAM … but that’s most assuredly not what was actually said.
TWL
Robert Jung,
You are correct. I was wrong. I got a bunch of papers today, and somehow I read the quote wrong (probably tired from working 3rd shift). Both the New York Times and New York Post have the “Inside The United States” quote, by the way.
But please, don’t assume all Bush supporters/ conservatives/ Republicans get their news from conservative talk radio. I very RARELY EVER listen to any of those shows, and have not listened to one second of them since I moved back to my hometown in January. I watch some TV. And I READ. A lot.
Robert Jung,
The title still doesn’t change the fact this briefing contained “historical threat information” about the domestic danger of al Qaeda but no terror threat warnings that pointed to a potential – let alone imminent – attack.
“It did not warn of attacks inside the United States,” Rice said. “It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information”.
This is what Rice said under grilling from that obnoxious partisan schmuck Ben-Veniste.
As today’s New York Post headline declares:
“The Lady Is A Champ”.
Karen and Others,
To all those who would depict us as “shoving democracy down the Iraqi people’s throats” and that “thousands of protests are being ignored” I have only one question:
After we got rid of Saddam Hussein, what would you have us do? Just leave? This assumes the competing Iraqi factions would get along and sing Kumbayah after we left. We are helping them rebuild (that’s what the $87 billion is earmarked for – you know, the money Kerry voted for before he voted against? – because we realize that if a “free” Iraq does “not help them put food on their tables” then they will find it harder to see “freedom” as better than oppression.
Yes, thousands are protesting. About 60-100,000 people protest Roe v. Wade every January 22 and throughout the year. Do these people reflect the views of all Americans? And does that mean it should no longer be the law of the land?
We are taking the Iraqi people who are protesting into account, but the majority of the people there do want to be free. If you simply focus on the protesters you see on TV then you must also assume the majority of the Muslims in the Mideast are angry Islamic fanatics, since that is the way thousands are portrayed on TV as well. Deep down you seem to feel these protesters represent the wishes of the majority of the Iraqi people, and I would truly like to know why you are more inclined to see the angry protesters you see and hear as being more representative of the Iraqi people than the many who are working with us to construct a new, free Iraq and those who HAVE welcomed us with open arms.
They are more free now than they have been in years – maybe ever – and will continue to be if we have the fortitude to do what is right and stay the course.
After we got rid of Saddam Hussein, what would you have us do? Just leave?
See, I hate this type of reasoning over Iraq.
“Well, we’re there, we can’t leave now” and “We got Saddam didn’t we?”
Well, we shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
I said 3 years ago that the only way Bush would get reelected is if we were in a war, because people don’t like to change leadership in times of war.
And here we are.
Yes, thousands are protesting
Please. People are protesting all over the world. Our enemies, our allies.
These aren’t backyard hippie gatherings we’re talking about.
They are more free now than they have been in years – maybe ever – and will continue to be if we have the fortitude to do what is right and stay the course.
I wish I could see things your way, but I can’t.
Now that we’re in Iraq, and we’ve attracted all the terorists from around the world (terrorists that weren’t there before), the situation will drag on for years.
“Like I said, I want to see what KINDS of jobs are being created.
If it’s Wal-Mart jobs, I’ll just laugh at you. Hëll, I’ll laugh in your face till I pass out.”
Funny, I don’t remember that being a big consideration when the jobs were created under the previous administration. The fact is, manufacturing jobs have been vanishing for quite a while and probably aren’t coming back any time soon. Unless you want to tariff the hëll out of the goods we import…but that would almost certainly lead to economic disaster.
“Here, try this one on for size:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3403519/
Including the gem:
“We believe that he [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons”
Speaker: the honorable Richard Cheney, March 2003. (The 16th, I believe.)”
Now, he says what he meant was a reconstituted PROGRAM … but that’s most assuredly not what was actually said.
Well, I can’t do any better than copy what Eugene Volokh wrote at http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-volokh063003.asp
“But then if you do a bit more research, you see a rather different picture. First, a clue that there might be more to see: People don’t generally talk about “reconstituted nuclear weapons,” but they often talk about a “reconstituted nuclear weapons program.” That was my sense when I first heard the Cheney line, and a LEXIS-NEXIS search confirms this
Joe V,
Yes, the people who are posting here – or most of them, anyway – read comic books. This does not preclude us from having not only strong but informed opinions about what is going on in the world. The fact that the people who post on this site actually have an interest in reading puts them (and me) in a dwindling fraternity of those who actually do so, as evidenced by declining newspaper and newsmagazine circulations, etc. I have been involved in politics for many years. I founded and environmental club in college AND was president of my College Republicans group, in addition to being class president (How’s THAT for a trifecta?). In 2002 alone, I was involved in four winning PA State House Races. And you know what? The debates I have had with the people in the short time i have been posting on this site is a heckuva lot more interesting, thought-provoking,honest and informed than the vast majority of conversations I have had with my political colleagues and adversaries and dámņ sure beats the “conversations” I have with most of the rest of the people I encounter which usually comes down to the “Bush sucks!” or “We should nuke the whole Mideast! Screw those arab bášŧárdš!” type of discourse.
Maybe MORE people should read comic books. Then maybe we would eventually have more people interested in reading, the arts, and making informed choices in regard to their government and its policies.
Yay and verily….informed political discussions from all sides of the political spectrum…the sure-fire way to REALLY piss you off (no fun debating folks who don’t know what they’re talking about, you know….)
Craig Ries,
1.) As Ive stated before, not do I feel in the end that this was a necessary preemptive strike – which I actually did struggle with for a LONG time and which I know you vehemently disagree with – but I feel even more strongly and with absolute confidence that helping the Iraqi people attain and sustain a freer and self-governing society will not only inspire some who would lean toward the terrorist way of thinking, but inspire many more freedom-loving people in the Mid East that freedom is a viable concept. It will be a beacon and help stabilize the region.
You may feel differently, but i really feel doing so shows “lack of imagination”.
I’ve read the Volokh article, Bill — in fact, I came across it while finding Cheney’s exact quote.
I’m perfectly willing to believe that the only time the phrase is generally used is in the context of a program.
Just one problem: as I said before, that is NOT what Cheney actually said. I, for one, have difficulty believing that he doesn’t pick his words pretty carefully, particularly when going on national television where he’s got to know his words are going to be repeated and analyzed for millions of people.
When you take that quote in combination with “we don’t want the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud” (said repeatedly by both Bush and Rice), and the implication to the American public is extremely clear.
Sure, Volokh’s “explanation” is enough to keep Cheney’s statement from being an outright lie, just as the weasel-phrase “British intelligence has learned that” keeps the infamous “16 words” in the State of the Union from being an outright lie and thus impeachable.
It doesn’t mean it’s not deceptive. If I put “Bush Sexually Abuses Dead Fowl” on page 1, and two days later publish a page-22 correction that he was actually only seen stuffing a Thanksgiving turkey, I don’t think a reasonable human being would think that constituted fair treatment.
I don’t think that was a slip of the tongue for Cheney. I think it was a deliberate bit of fear-mongering.
TWL
BTW, Bill, I’m not the one who said it was an oft-repeated contention. Just for the sake of accuracy.
TWL
Tim,
You’re right, I didn’t mean to say that it was you who had said “oft repeated”. The hazards of cramming too many comments in one posting.
Again, Cheney DID say “reconstituted nuclear weapons program” several times throughout the interval. Unfortunately, it is only the one time he left out weapon that ever gets mentioned.
And one further point–why was it not headline news the very next day that the vice president of the United States had claimd that the country we were about to invade had NUCLEAR WEAPONS??? Wouldn’t that be fairly big news? I suspect that most people, hearing the interview as a whole came away with the idea he was trying to convey–that Iraq was full of dangerous WMD and planning on upgrading to the most dangerous ones.
I was attempting a little humor, with my previous comments. I know that just ’cause we read comics doesn’t ALWAYS mean we live in a fantasy world (although some of us do seem to live in a fantasy world) and that we all have opinions and are involved in other interest. I too am involved in politics and although have a degree in education, I actually work for the banking industry.
But since I know PAD reads this I want to ask him a question that you all seem to be ignoring… WHERE THE HÊLL IS “TEENAGE NINJA MUTANT TURTLES”? Was it cancelled? Did Dreamwave loose the licensing? What’s up?
“So, you enjoy long lines at the gas stations online the Garden State Parkway because everyone there is too stupid to be trusted to pump their own gas?”
People still take the parkway?!? Are they mad???
And one further point–why was it not headline news the very next day that the vice president of the United States had claimd that the country we were about to invade had NUCLEAR WEAPONS??? Wouldn’t that be fairly big news?
I’m fairly certain it DID make the front page of most papers, actually. Not a six-column headline a la the Onion’s “WA-” [headline continued on page 2], but I distinctly remember the newspapers and newsfeeds I looked at considering this a Highly Big Deal.
Hëll, if you want to get into the “why wasn’t X a huge story”, I’ve got a swooningly long list of X’s to bring up…
TWL
You may feel differently, but i really feel doing so shows “lack of imagination”.
Of course I feel differently. It wouldn’t be an argument otherwise. 🙂
The whole mess that is now Iraq came about because Bush wanted to take out Saddam, regardless.
Saddam could have honestly converted to Christianity and Bush still would have done this.
Sure, eventually, we might actually help the Iraqi people.
But that doesn’t convince me that we needed to start our sudden (and unconvincing) “humanitarian conquering” with Iraq. There are many other places that we could have overthrown a dictator and tried to give the people freedom and democracy.
The fact that Iraq was the first choice, that it’s supposedly part of the “war on terror”, when in fact the terror didn’t arrive till after we got there, and Afghanistan is still sitting near Square One… well, you can see that this isn’t adding up at all.
“I’m fairly certain it DID make the front page of most papers, actually. Not a six-column headline a la the Onion’s “WA-” [headline continued on page 2], but I distinctly remember the newspapers and newsfeeds I looked at considering this a Highly Big Deal.”
And I’m fairly certain it didn’t…but we may well just be reading different papers! I do know that the Washington Post, no great friend of the administration, saw through the mistake–they pointed out that Cheney had “contradicted himself” during the interview by saying that iraq had no such weapons and 4 days later, in a dana Milbank article, they mentioned that Cheney’s aides had already clarified his remarks by saying that he meant weapons programs. It seems that the significance of this statement was not all that great at the time and quickly clarified. I haven’t found any headlines dealing with it at the time (by no means an exhaustive search–I’m getting ready for a trip to pennsylvania to spend easter break with my girls).
So…while this is certainly fair game, no denying, if this is the best example of Bush administration people claiming that Iraq possessed nukes I think it’s safe to say that the claims that this was an idea that was actively put out there are less than accurate.
Anyway, have a great vaction everyone. Drive safely, drink in mederation and give your loved ones a hug.
Re: “people who read comic books” debating political issues.
Let’s go for one from each end of the spectrum; Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont is such a big Batman fan that he did a voice role on the first Dini-Timm Batman:TAS (Governor in the Jonah Hex episode). Justice Clarence Thomas was a major Milestone Comics fan, Icon in particular, and told Dwayne McDuffie he was a big Rawhide Kid fan in his youth.
And, just for the heck of it, per Joe Straczynski who got it from Bruce Boxleitner, Karl Rove told Boxleitner that Babylon 5 was his and Dubya’s favorite sf tv show ever. And Rove made a special effort to track down Boxleitner when he was in D.C. to tell him that; we’re not talking saying something in a receiving line to be polite.
Side comment about Boxleitner: I heard him on a radio talk show a few weeks back hosted by Jerry Doyle. They talked a lot about being conservatives in Hollywood and how it creates stress in the career and limits it sometimes. Bruce said he is just about convinced the only reason he’s allowed in the room at the SAG is because he’s married to Melissa Gilbert (D).
Hello, this will be my last post for this thread. It has been most wonderful to read & share some ideas w/ others, but I find that this thread has perhaps gone long enough. No one here is going to change anyone
Gee, it sound as though that 8/6/01 memo, while not a “smoking gun”, sure shows a lack of imagination on the part of the Bush Administration.
Isn’t it great to see we take the POTENTIAL of a threat seriously only after it’s already been used successfully.
Let’s see a show of hands on whether or not we could have had stronger airport security pre-9/11?
Hi there everyone from Spain.
I’m a Spanish guy who has been coming to this website lately, and I’ve been trying to read all the posts I can (there are so many). I’ll try to make an effort with my english so you can understand me.
My contry has been shaken recently with terrorist atacks, and a lot of people have died. And, for sure, more people will.
I want to state some things first: I dont hate americans, my opinion isn’t against the U.S. and I admired that you seemed so united after the 11-S (at least thats what TV showed). I read your comics, watch your movies and buy other stuff from your country.I enjoy this things, I respect you people.
But I can tell you what I (and lots and lots of other people) feel about how your goverment reacts. Not only Bush’s administration. I’ll try to explain my point of view. In Spain we had ETA terrorists, bomb exploding and all that stuff…Bush said that he went to Iraq to make the world a safer place, but it’s obvious that money is stronger than peace and comprehension. 11-S was horrible, but people can’t kill other people so lightly, or at least they shouldn’t. I see Bush on TV saying that they wont give up to a few terrorists and murderers, and that they will continue. But then I see 100 people blown up in a temple. Not terrorists. Inocent people.
All I want to say is that after the “actions for a better and safer world”, the world is not safer. Is more dangerous. In Spain people have died because our goverment backed Bush’s decision. Even after the whole country stood up against the war.
How can we stop that? I don’t know, but I think that you (or your army or whatever) can’t go around killing poor people. Terrorists must be caught. But inocent people can’t be paying with their lifes for that. Maybe we, the occidental world, can’t completely understand the way they think, the way they live they religion…but that doesn’t make them less human.
Get the terrorists, get THEM, but dont start a war on inocent people. It’s sad to me that, not only U.S., many countries accept the death of people for money. Because, seriously, that’s almost all it goes about.
Look the History books and you will see in how many wars have been the U.S. involved the last century. I beg to the people in charge: STOP PROMOTING WAR. War isn’t the way. Dont kill inocent people. Stop the Janet Jackson silly thing (dámņ, it’s just a breast), don’t get so spiritual with The Passion of the Christ (hey, not bad feeling about catolic people)and try to actually make a better world.
But that’s impossible. War will continue. People will die.
Terrorism will go on, now and always will be, because there will allways exist lunatics and murderers, with or without war. Don’t fool yourselfs.
Now people of my own countrie (country?) will die because of lunatics and because of money.
One last thing that comes to my mind.
Once I read in this forums someone saying something like “a big percentage of europeans regrets that Hitler didn’t finish the job”……….what the hëll is that? please excuse me but that’s soooooooooooooooo…better shut my mouth..
I don’t know but sometimes with some potsts in this forum I get the feeling that people talk about European contries as if they were other worlds and we were stupid…please, be a little bit more open-minded.
Bruno,
That was not the only comment in poor taste. Some people post before they think, some post exactly the nasty things that are in their minds. I hope you know that the majority of Americans do not think like that.
“But then I see 100 people blown up in a temple. Not terrorists. Inocent people.”
Bruno,
About the mosque that was hit in Iraq; there was a news report (again only stating what i read)that there were Sheites distributing weaopons in there to people. I’m sure there were innocent people in there also, & I’m not condoning the act, but that was the reason for the attack of the Mosque.
War isn’t the way.
Bûllšhìŧ.
Peace under these conditions is merely the horrible status quo between conflicts and actions that create positive change!
CJA
Craig wrote: “Isn’t it great to see we take the POTENTIAL of a threat seriously only after it’s already been used successfully.”
That’s the American way. Always has been, it seems. Someone has to hit us over the head before we realize that adversary means business. After the surprise Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that led to our involvement in World War II, you’d think we would’ve learned our lesson. But no, we were surprised again just nine years later in 1950 when the North Koreans suddenly invaded South Korea. Not only were we again caught by surprise, but we came within a hairsbreadth of losing that war. There are plenty of other examples as well. The surprise attack by North Vietnamese forces during the Vietnam War’s Tet Offensive, for example. Although we won virtually all of the battles during that coordinated, country-wide offensive, there were so many U.S. casualties, and so much surpise at the large number of attackers involved, it is looked upon by many as the turning point of the war from a standpoint of U.S. public opinion. More recently in Lebanon, we had more than two hundred Marines killed like sitting ducks in their rooms by a truck bomb during U.S. peacekeeping operations there. This, even after we knew terrorists were starting to use large truck bombs as weapons. The World Trade Center attack (not the first attack under Clinton’s watch in 1993 — the attack under Bush’s watch eight years later that finished the job) was our latest in a long history of “wake-up” calls.
The problem with our “surprise attack” track record in THIS day and age, however, is that if (or should I saw when) a nuke is eventually used by terrorists, there might not be a U.S. government left anymore to argue with each other about which party’s fault the attack was.
Russ Maheras
The Blue Spider,
I agree. For those who feel “war is NEVER the answer, I would just say: ‘That depends on the question now, doesn’t it?’
War has ended slavery, fascism, Sovirt totalitarianism, but other than that, it has limited benefits.
For those who say, “The best way to solve problems is to not have any enemies”, well, war solves that problem too. If we proceed the right way, we won’t have nearly as many enemies because we’re going to kill them.
For those who say “violence only begets more violence, I say, “You’re right! They killed three thousand Americans and now we’re going to kill them.”
the previous statement may seem a little rough, but I have witnessed in my lifetime, the effects of appeasement, which most Democrats/liberals seem to favor.
From FDR on, Democratic presidents were only feebly opposed to Soviet expansionism (FDR called Joseph Stalin “Uncle Joe”, glossing over the fact he killed FIFTEEN MILLION people during his reign)
But the worst was Jimmy Carter, who perhaps most naively believed if we were “fair” to the Arab world and our other enemies and let them sort out their own business, it would benefit us.
The result, of course, was disaster after disaster.
Under carter’s watch, Soviet-backed Marxists came to power in Nicaragua, the Seychelles and Grenada. The Soviet Army invaded Afghanistan. Carter lifted the ban on travel to Cuba and North Korea. Also, with his impeccable timing, Carter gave a speech on May 22, 1977 exhorting Americans to abandon their “inordinate fear of Communism”. days later Cuba dispatched a military force to Ethiopia.
But besides being weak on Communism, Carter abandoned our one Arab ally in the Mideast, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi of Iran.
Carter withdrew American support for the Shah in 1978 and then stood idly by when, weeks later, the Shah was deposed by a mob of Islamic fanatics. The Shah was pro-West. So what? seemed to be the response of most liberals.
Indeed, Carter’s U.N. ambassador Andrew Young actually said that the Ayatollah Khomeini would “eventually be hailed as a saint.”
He was not alone.
Richard Falk of Princeton also praised khomeini, and predicted that he “may yet provide us with a desperately needed model of humane governance for a Third World country.
And in what sounds eerily familiar to arguments being made today, Ramsey Clark, an avid “peace activist’ in the war on terrorism returned from a meeting with Khomeini in Paris in 1979 and urged the u.S. government to take no action to help the Shah. He argued that Iran should be able to “determine its own fate.” Clark implored members of Congress not to come to the Shah’s defense.
So soon after Carter allowed the pr-Western Shah to be deposed by a raving anti-American Islamic mob, the mob seized the American embassy and took fifty-two Americans hostage, an act that i feel is a shining example of liberal american diplomacy. It resulted in American citizens being held captive by angry barbarians in a frightening land for 444 days, during which time carter’s sole mission to rescue them ended with a helicopter crashing in the desert.
Of course, the hostages were finally freed – the day Ronald Reagan was inaugurated and they knew they wouldn’t be able to screw with us anymore.
Appeasement and “being nice” simply DOES NOT work with some people!
Karen,
The Hitler statement regarding Europe may not have been “sensitive”, but it is correct. Anti-semitism IS rising in France and Germany. Which is kind of ironic seeing as how these countries are repeatedly used as examples of how WE should be.
Sorry if the truth hurts anyone, but it is the truth.
Terrorists must be caught. But inocent people can’t be paying with their lifes for that. Maybe we, the occidental world, can’t completely understand the way they think, the way they live they religion…but that doesn’t make them less human.
The major difference is that terrorists attack innocents intentionally, where we don’t. Terrorists use mosques and civilians as shields to try to prevent attack.
The violent upswing in Iraq is not surprising with the June deadline looming. Right now, one of the things keeping al-Sadr in business is that it is considered an American occupation. Once Iraq has control, they lose part of the argument. That’s why we have to stick to that deadline. If we continue to postpone each time there is an uptick in attacks, we are allowing them to dictate the terms.
Well, it seems that more or less my english is understandable. I’ll try to make it better this time.
KAREN
I hope so. And I’m glad to hear that. It’s easy for people to generalize. I’ll try to avoid that.
JOE V.
I also read that some of the people in the temple was shooting to the U.S. soldiers. And I also read on CNN that Bush’s administration said that only one person died in the Mosque. And that doesn’t seem quite true. With media manipulation it’s hard to know exactly what happened.
THE BLUE SPIDER.
War is horrible, but sometimes it is necessary. I’ll give you that. My own country was in civil war this century (1933-1936). And then we were under a dictatorship(Franco) until 1975 more or less.
War is necessary when people has to fight for their life, for their rights. Probably you saved our butts at the World War II. But tell me: what are you doing in Iraq? You got Saddam out of the power, that’s great. Congratulations, seriously. But a year has passed and no weapons has been finded. And even Powell, I think it was him, said lately that maybe their information wasn’t actully very precise a year ago. MAYBE?. Ðámņ, they said that the weapons WERE THERE. They worked hard trying to make us belive that.What is your reason to be there now?. Now that american people is dying (is it spelled like that?): what are they dying for? It is not your land. It is not your country. You did a great thing, getting Saddam out. But what is your reason for keeping your people dying there? for money? To be sure that when the dust is down U.S. and allys will have they portion of the cake? Is that an ideal to die for?
“Peace under these conditions is merely the horrible status quo between conflicts and actions that create positive change!” For who?
Lots of technology improvements through history relate to war. War is, in lots of ways, bussines. Countries like U.S. oftenly promote war to reactivate economy. That’s not a secret.
JEROME MAIDA
I’m sorry but I’m afraid I wasnt able to completly understand what you posted. You make reference to a lot of U.S. historical points and I’m not an expert at that.
One thing that comes to my mind sometimes. Let me explain. I know you had civil war. But since then: in how many wars have your country been involved, and how many of them have been in your territory? I think it is easier for the goverment and a percentage of the population to be willing to get into war when you know that you wont be hearing a single shot in your neighbourhood. You had terrorism, Spain also, but it is not the same.
Through the centuries many countries has played the “powerfull country” rol. Spain did it looong time ago. Spanish empire was known has the “empire where the sun never sets down”. France did it with Napoleon, and lots of other countrys. Now is U.S.’s turn to be the strong one. The expansionist. But that doesn’t last forever. Try to make things better, to make a better world to live in, because maybe in the future you wont be so strong. (well, that was speculation, but whatever.)Be more opened to the world.
Anti-semitism is growing in Europe as it could grow in other places. I live in Ibiza Island and it is full of inmigrants, muslims. And after what is happening lately in Spain, sometimes people have a bad feeling but you have to live with it. You can’t make them all pay for what a few lunatics did.
Well, thats all for now hehe. I don’t want you people to feel my opinion like an insult or whatever to you. Most of my opinions are questions I was asking myself about your country, to understand what american people (not the goverment) think about all that.
Thank you
OFFTOPIC:
PETER DAVID (why is written PAD?)
Love your Hulk comic-books. Actually thats how I found out about this web. They are reprinting your whole Hulk run here, I’m reading it for the first time and I’m enjoying it a lot. I loved Captain Marvel also.
Regards 🙂
Several people here said most Iraqis don’t want us there. To that, I say take a look at this recent ABC poll of 2700 Iraqis: http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html
I think by anyone’s standards, “most people” is an exaggeration — especially if you happen to be Kurdish.