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
• 
Dude,
I’m sorry but a tiny poll of less then 3000 people who were probably easy to poll because they were the pro U.S. people rather then the ones in hiding, on the run or in combat with our troops is week. Look at a lot of the other numbers that scrub that thing. We’ve just racked up a total of 700 kills in the most recent fun and games there in a region that we haven’t come close to securing. We have groups that have spent generations at each others throats putting aside their pìššìņg at each other in order to deal with us. That’s something even Saddam couldn’t tick off some of them enough to do. Hate to prìçk Bush’s PR blitz but I have friends who went and came back and went again who were gung-ho about going, told me I wasn’t supporting my country by saying that Bush was an idiot and this private little war of his was stupid and told me when they got back that I was closer to right then they were and that it sucked what they saw of what many if not most the people of Iraq thought of us. Too many people confuse their joy of seeing Saddam go for them liking us. The two aren’t the same thing. Iraq is/was a mess from the word go. They don’t want an American style country for themselves. Now that we’re there we’re really screwed and when it’s all said, done and collapsed, the deaths will have been wasted on a pointless crusade started by a clueless fool of a Pres.
So a poll that doesn’t jibe with what liberals are CONVINCED is right must therefore be wrong! As the Church lady used to say, “How conveeeeeenieeeeeeent!”
Also, Jerry, while I respect these friends of yours and their opinions, there are many soldiers coming back from iraq in my area that have an opposing view about how the Iraqi people view us.
Oh, and if Bush is allowed to finish this, Iraq will not collapse, because we won’t let it. It’s the Democrats/liberals who abandon allies like the Shah and the South Vietnamese, and hightail it after events like Mogadishu in 1994. Republicans actually feel that once we start a fight, we should finish it. And we will. Despite the portrayals in the media, our military men and women are doing an excellent job. The fact that Iran and Syria are secretly supporting the “insurgents” shows how scared they are of us succeeding.
Which we will.
Jerome,
First- I’m not a liberal. hate to break it to you but I’m not. Look at my posts in this blog from above. I may not like Bush right now but I’m one of the people saying he didn’t know about 9/11, couldn’t have stopped it and that the 9/11 hearings are a stupid waste of time. Real liberal points of view, eh? I don’t like polls from either side to be honost with you. How many polls showed Bush winning 2000 with a clear margin of 10% at least? How many showed Gore mopping the states with Bush? How many were ignored by the FOX, CNN, Newspaper and chat people because they showed something other then what they wanted. I saw lots of people stop using Zogbee(sp)because the didn’t like what it was saying. 50/50 race to the bitter end.
I work around a political area (The VA Capitol). You don’t think I’ve seen a hundred ways to warp a poll starting with the location or with the questions asked?
Second- Yes, our soldiers are doing a dámņëd fine job. They are doing what they’re told to do better then most people in other walks of life can and going above and beyond with it. But the guys I’m talking about are coming back changed in mindset, not to the job or the mission, about the success of what we’re being told will happen in Bush’s pipedream script. Yeah, I’ve got more then a few soldier friends who were gung ho, went and have stayed that way. But I’ve yet to meet anyone who went there saying that this was a foolish dream of Bush’s and has now changed to a backer of this mess.
Third- You can bring up all the FOX News talking points you want and it only shows that you’re not paying attention. I never said cut and run. Again, actually read what I’ve been saying here. I have stated quite clearly in this blog that I think we have to stay. We are stuck there until we can finish this in some way, shape or form. I just don’t believe from looking at the history of the region, it’s peoples or our track record over there that this is going to end as the grand glorious thing that Bush and company keep B.S.ing us that it will be.
The thing that I have taken a great dislike to Bush over this for is that it was a foolish thing done in a foolish way. We (the U.S.) went and stepped into a vipers nest that we had no real reason to get into to. Bush and company used 9/11 and the fear of the people of the U.S. to excuse this garbage and we are now well and truly stuck with it.
Bruno,
what do you mean they are repringtin david’s run in spain. Wow, i wish marvel would do that here. They’ve reprinted all of Bruce Jones Arc but nothing from the PAD-meister. What’s up with that?!!!!!
PAD, I’ve always had the feeling that Joe Quesada doesn’t like you. You’ve met him so you know, but me as a fan i get that impression. I’ve got almost your entire run, but i’d still get the trades.
and as afar as anti semitismm on the rise… i don’t think that it has changed since the bible days, the Jews seem to always be one of the most discriminated people on the planet now for 2 millenium. I just think that now we here more of it.
Jerry,
Sorry if I seemed to paint you with a broad LIBERAL brush. You actually have been more one of the more reasonable posters, even when I disagree with you.
I just have REALLY been getting nervous with the way this past week has been covered and people’s reactions to it. Irealy feel if we DO cut and run, it will be disastrous, and I DO mean everything I said about most Democrats being appeasers. It always comes back to haunt us.
Finally, I wish you and other posters would stop assuming that people like myself simply regurgitate Fox News talking points. During the last seven years when i was in Philadelphia, i was unable to receive Fox News Channel. So until this past January, when I had to temporarily move back to my hometown I had NEVER seen “The O’Reilly Factor”, “Hannity and Colmes” or any of the rest of FNC’s programming.
I make my judgements by watching a variety of programs but mainly by reading a LOT of newspapers and books. I even read the NY Times a lot, even though I disagree with them a lot.
And I feel we just HAVE to stay the course in Iraq.
“Do you honestly believe that if Gore would have won the elction that 9-11 wouldn’t have happened.”
No. I do, however, believe that he would never have been granted the war powers necessary to attack Iraq, that the RAM (Republican Attack Machine) would have been on him before the dust of the Trade Center settled, laying the entirety of the responsibility upon him, and that the rest of his administration would have been mired in hearings with a very specific and direct purpose: How many ways can we blame this on Gore? The same conversatives who rallied behind Bush and established a mindset that criticizing the president was unpatriotic would have been on Gore like barnacles on a hull.
PAD
Jerome,
You get your wish in one way(not worded well. I know you don’t want the soldiers in harms way). Don’t worry. We won’t cut and run no matter who is in office. Someone point out where I’m wrong but most, not all but most, leaders I know of who ran on “I’ll get us out” became “we have to stay” once they came to power. Even this stuff with Spain seems to be going back and forth. Kerry and the Dems know that pulling out of Iraq, no matter what they say now, would be the second biggest mistake of the century (the first being going in like we did). Like I said, we’re stuck. In that way, Bush played checkmate really well. It’s also a bit of a overplay on how the press has played the last week in the hearings. Lot’s of TV and talk radio coverage but not as much water cooler talk. And those that do are the same that always do and take the same side they always do.
You don’t watch that much FOX News?!? I only said that because you write like they talk. Dude, go get a job with ’em. Make the big bucks. You’re a shoe in :).
PAD can be backed up on this pretty easy. Don’t even need to much imagination. Just the prior six years to Bush taking the White House.
One accusation that the RAM (like that) throws around to say that this is Clintons fault in some way is to point out how he gut the spy guys and their funding and never did anything to upgrade them. Big, fat wrong. Lie actually.
FBI counter terrorism budget was doubled in the 90’s under Clinton. Look it up. Budget Office records of Congress show this for anyone who wants to find it. It might have been more if it hadn’t been for such flaming libs as Hatch, Newt, Ashcroft and others. First they fought the funding, all on record, because it wasn’t needed and they (Clinton admmin) needed to learn to use the resources and money the already had better. The Rep majority shot it down. Here’s one that should jog a few memories. After Oklahoma City, siting both it and the Trade Towers from 93, the Clinton Whitehouse tried to get the intel agencies the increased wiretap and covert ops powers it needed to better track some of these groups and stop them before they struck again. How did RAM react? They slandered the FBI. It couldn’t be trusted. They used the Sunday chat shows and talk twits like Rush to wage a war of lies. This wasn’t for the safty of America. It was a Clinton power grab. This was just Billery working to create an enemies list to destroy people. Filegate, filegate, filegate!!!!! and so on. Go back and look at some of the stuff the Clinton Admin suggetsed doing. Some of it is almost the same stuff that Ashcroft did after 9/11 and spoke so highly about how great it was. Of course, when Clinton and company put it foward, he fought it and said that it was an assult on our freedoms.
Would the Reps attack the character of a Pres while or boys were in harms way? Yes. They did it to Clinton. They did it as men were under fire in Bosnia. They told lies over the air waves “Clinton has run the military so far down that they’re running out of ammo. Someone attacks our boys and they can’t defend themselves.” Hannity amongst others. A fave of his. They would do the same to Gore if 9/11 happened on his watch.
How might it have been different? There is no way that I believe Gore would not have gone after Bin Laden. 2001 through 2003 would have played out about the same. But there’s no way we would be in Iraq now trying to get people to forget that it’s about WMDs and fool them into believing this is about giving liberty to the world. But many of the Reps would be just as low as they accuse the Dems of being now. And people wonder why I’m sick of both sides.
One thing I have to say with all this talk about the Republican Attack Machine is that there is no mention of the Democratic Attack Machine. Yes, believe it or not, for a party that wants to appease everyone from Stalin to the PLO, the Democrats have had enough backbone the last few years to absolutely second-guess Bush at every turn and talk about what a failure the War On Terrorism is while our men and women are under fire. The Patriot Act, which – as Condi Rice reminded us – has helped do away with bureaucracy and has helped the FBI, CIA, and the other agencies to work closer together, has been demonized by them – even Kerry, who voted for it – as trashing our civil liberties, wen even the liberal press has not been able to point out one instance where someone’s civil rights ave been violated. John Ashcroft as been slandered unlike anyone I can ever recall. I would say you would swear he was Hitler, but I feel that a lot of these people would actually portray Hitler in a more positive manner. Some black groups have claimed that Condi Rice “is not really black”, and it’s funny ow NOW can celebrate Nancy Pelosi’s rise, but don’t have similar praise for a woman – and a black one at that – who is the National Security Adviser. I guess it’s because she works for an “evil” administration.
And even though I feel a lot of the criticism of Clinton was vile and unwarranted, I have never seen either party’s presidential candidates and elected officials base the rationale on their candidacies on spewing venom at Bush. It’s Al Gore wo has said Bush “betrayed this country”. It’s Democratic elected officials like Cynthia McKinney who have literally said that Bush “knew about the attacks” and “let them happen.”
Yeah, the Democratic Attack Machine is doing a DAM fine job.
Oh, and PAD, regarding the title of this blog, finally being proactive against terrorists rather than waiting for imminent threats to unveil themselves takes imagination.
Trying to make the Mideast a more stable, peaceful and freer place, which a lot of people asume can’t be done, takes imagination.
Feeling that the WMD may be in Syria takes imagination.
Having the balls to try and reform Social Security before it goes broke and/or our young people pay a tremendous price due to inaction – while knowing your political enemies will roast you alive – takes imagination.
Reforming Medicare by passing and providing a prescription drug benefit for seniors that getts the AARP to back the plan takes imagination.
Trying to change our monopolistic public education system with a plan that wins the support of TED KENNEDY takes imagination.
INCREASING funding for the arts and passing a campaign finance law knowing that your conservative base hates both takes imagination.
To move forward on the idea of a palestinian state takes imagination.
You can’t see the imagination in these proposals – regardless on how you feel about them – and you accuse the Bush Administration of lackinh imagination?
Maybe you should try looking in a mirror.
Oh, and for those who repeatedly feel we need permssion slips from our “allies” like France and Russia and the blessing of the hallowed United Nations before acting in American interests, there is a huge scandal brewing involving the U.N. AND our allies regarding Iraq.
Seems the (corrupt) U.N. and “allies” like France and Russia had a vested interest in keeping Saddam in power. That being corrupt money.
In Washington, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – following in the footsteps of the Iraqi Governing Council – last week held it’s own hearings on the scam, the scam being a multibillion dollar corruption of the United Nations’ Iraq Oil-for-Food program, the biggest scandal in the U.N.’s history.
The IGC had earlier hired top international accountants and lawyers to investigate powerful evidence found in Baghdad that Saddam Hussein used the program to reward sympathetic foreign politicians and companies – and that top U.N. officials, some of them on Saddam’s take, turned a blind eye to kickbacks and sanctions-busting on a gargantuan scale.
And the U.S. General accounting Office has estimated that Saddam skimmed as much as $10 billion from the $47 billion program.
U.N. SCANDAL Pt. 2
It is not yet clear how much U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan knew about the shameful goings on, including the extent to which program administrators collaborated with Saddam’s regime and conspired in the defrauding of the Iraqi Kurds.
But there is no doubt that Annan played a key role in setting the program up and appointed its chief administrator Benon Savan – whose name is reported to be on a list of untoward Oil-for-Food beneficiaries.
Last wednesday, the Senate committee eard that Saddam had skimmed millions from Oil-for-Food by purchasing and reselling for profit some 37,000 automobiles – including luxury cars and SUVs.
Oil-for-Food’s official purpose, of course, was to let Iraq sell oil and use the funds to buy food and humanitarian goods like medicine.
Instead, and with the knowledge of U.N. officials, the money went for all kinds of non-humanitarian purchases, including building palaces, buying arms and bribing foreign politicians and opinion-makers.
And when food and genuine humanitarian goods WERE bought through the program, it was often at vastly inflated prices, with muc of the excess being kicked back to high-ranking officials of Saddam’s now-defunct regime.
U.N. Scandal – Part 3
It has also been revealed that France and Russia were the two largest recipients of the Oil-for-Food largesse (kickbacks and payoffs). As Sen. Richard Lugar said last week, “The corruption…almost certainly contributed to the international division over containing and ultimately ousting Saddam Hussein.”
Before anyone even considers giving the United Nations real power in Iraq (or anywhere else for that matter) the world must find out the full extent of the Oil-for-Food scandal.
Plus, what Kofi Annan knew – and when he knew it.
Wow! What a scandal! Involving Saddam Hussein, the United Nations, France and Russia!
I mean, who could have IMAGINED that?!
So a poll that doesn’t jibe with what liberals are CONVINCED is right must therefore be wrong!
No, only the fact that some journalists probably aren’t stupid enough to try and poll those that don’t want us there, for fear of their lives.
And rightfully so.
But the other points made are correct: Sunnis and Shiites in some parts of Iraq are working to fight us, instead of each other.
For all of our training of Iraqis, alot won’t fight their countrymen, and others are joining the insurgents.
Sure, we did the dirty work for them in getting rid of Saddam. But just because they cheered us for that doesn’t mean they want us there still.
They DO look at us as just another occupying force.
I mean, who could have IMAGINED that?!
No worse than the thought that France and Russia didn’t want Saddam out because of oil contracts.
But then, oil is part of the reason we are there.
Hëll, I don’t even think any Republican but a Bush could have done the BS that this Bush has.
Btw, I want to know: Why the hëll are Republicans taking the moral high road with Iraq now against other countries?
Some countries might have wanted Saddam to stay in power for a variety of reasons: military contracts, oil contracts, frigging stability in the region was a dámņ good reason.
Yet, we’re the one that put the bášŧárd into power.
Oh, yeah, that should give us the right to take him out of power. Right…
Craig wrote: Some countries might have wanted Saddam to stay in power for a variety of reasons: military contracts, oil contracts, frigging stability in the region was a dámņ good reason. Yet, we’re the one that put the bášŧárd into power.
Where in the world do you get your information? The U.S. had nothing to do with Saddam’s rise to the presidency in 1979. It’s true that Saddam was covertly wooed by the Reagan administration in the early 1980s after he started a war with Iran, but Saddam’s brutal rise to power was done all by his lonesome. Ironically, when Saddam was clawing his way to the top in the 1970s, the U.S. was actually friends with neighboring Iran.
I’ll ask you a better BTW question.
Take out the WMDs (as the White House is now doing) from the reasons to go into Iraq. What is the prime reason that we could go in there. 1441. We had 11 or 12 resolutions that said Saddam had to do this stuff or else. We had 1441 that said that he had to disarm or else.
Just two problems. 1441 says that action would be taken. It did not say “full blown attack, war and occupation”. Also, the start of that line is always wrong. It’s not “we had” but “they had”. 1441 is a U.N., not U.S., resolution. That’s one of the reasons we should have been sseeking “permission slips”. It wasn’t our resolution to enforce. How does that matter? Two ways.
1) I’m a cop. I can enforce Va laws in my state. I can’t go into Texas with my gun and badge and just decide that I’m going to enforce the law there, Texas or Va law, because I’m not a cop there. That action would actually make me a criminal there. I can’t say, “Texas Law 1441 says this and your not doing the job so I will!” Even if I arrested/killed the worst mad-dog killer, I would go to jail as well because I broke the law. Texas aint Va and I have no leg to stand on as a cop there.
2) We enforced 1441 because Bush wanted to. He used 1441 as an excuse. OK. He and his supporters are the same people who have been flipping the U.N. the bird for years now. They have made fun of U.N. resolutions and claimed that we, the U.S., won’t have anything to do with whatever U.N. act or resolution that the Rs didn’t like that week. So now we’re to believe that they find the U.N. resolutions to be writ in stone? And, even better, would they just sit back and say OK if someone else said that force was needed to get us to do what the U.N. said because, hey, the U.N. has a resolution?
Jerry wrote: “Dude, I’m sorry but a tiny poll of less then 3000 people who were probably easy to poll because they were the pro U.S. people rather then the ones in hiding, on the run or in combat with our troops is week.”
Three thousand is a tiny sample size?!! You apparently don’t know much about the science of polling. As far as the type and quality of the people being polled, it’s true that that’s an unknown. Suffice to say, however, ABC has far more access to the average Iraqi than any U.S. official, and what makes this poll interesting to me is the fact that ABC has never been a fan of the Bush Admiinistration.
Jerry wrote: “We have groups that have spent generations at each others throats putting aside their pìššìņg at each other in order to deal with us.”
The way I see it, there are only a few folks in Iraq actively doing this — probably no more than a few thousand or so in a country of 28 million. In Afghanistan, our special forces guys have made great inroads with tribal infighting. I think it’s still possible to do the same in Iraq — especially after the new Iraqi government moves into power.
Jerry wrote: “Hate to prìçk Bush’s PR blitz but I have friends who went and came back and went again who were gung-ho about going, told me I wasn’t supporting my country by saying that Bush was an idiot and this private little war of his was stupid and told me when they got back that I was closer to right then they were and that it sucked what they saw of what many if not most the people of Iraq thought of us.”
Yeah, well I have a number of colleagues who are in Iraq, and they are painting a very different picture. They are doing their job to the best of their ability, and tough as thing have been, almost all agree that significant progress has been made. Sure, there are problems, tensions, distrust, and death, but keep in mind that the Iraqis lived in fear for decades and tens of thousands were routinely tortured or killed by Saddam’s thugs. It’s no wonder they are suspicious and hateful.
I wouldn’t write off Iraq yet. There are a lot of Iraqis who want this to work as much as we do.
Russ Maheras
Russ,
Jerome hit me with those points a while back and I’ve answered him/them already. Look above cause I really hate typing.
Plus, look at how much this is dragging on. One thing I hear all the time is, “look at Germany and Japan after WW II. We had to stay there and look at where they are now.” Yeah, and look at how many fire fights we had to deal with there after WW II. Look at how many battles we had to get into. Scratching your head? That’s because we didn’t go through anything like this with either of them. And dámņëd sure not one year after our then leader said that it was all done in his nice little staged photo op.
Look, I don’t like what Bush has done or gotten us into. But we’re there. Some of this is like a bunch of guys over pints talking over the play that should have been made in the 83 superbowl. Nice, fun but pointless (to a degree).
Here’s what I would like to know. Straught up, who thinks we would be best served by staying and who thinks we should leave? Best guess (this thread did start with “Imagination” in the name), where will Iraq be ten years from now after all of this is said and done.
Craig,
So the thought that an organization that is supposed to be a fair and balanced arbiter of peace throughout the world (and one I’ve always known to be corrupt) may have turned a blind eye at best – and been complicit at worst – in the diversion of moneys that was explicitly supposed to be going to these Iraqi people you seem so concerned about doesn’t bother you enough to even pause on your Bush-bashing for a papragraph? We’re accused of “coddling a dictator” because we helped him during a war with an equally vicious neighbor, yet a scandal involving said organization and two of our supposed “allies” in the defrauding of innocent people doesn’t give you pause? Doesn’t make you sick?
And really, where in the world do you get the idea we PUT him in power? Or are the facts inconsequential to an argument to Blame America First, Last and Always?
One thing I have to say with all this talk about the Republican Attack Machine is that there is no mention of the Democratic Attack Machine.
Jerome
That’s because any Dem Attack Machine has been pretty ineffective. We had our last president investigated almost from the time he entered office for business and moral issues while the so-called-liberal press egged them on. Bush had many shady dealings that have NOT been exonerated by the SEC, even though his spin is that they have, but where is the investigation? Where is the outcry? Anyone from the press who has asked questions this administration hasn’t like has been threatened with denial of access. How open are these people? Why all the secrecy? Not everything they do is involved with national security. Why is there not more outrage about the secret meeting with the big oil producers? Why are there no answers to questions? When wil someone with a true investigative journalistic background start asking REAL questions?
Am I the only one here who remembers the “Impeach Clinton” bumper stickers coming out two months before the man even took office? Oddly enough, I don’t recall seeing any “Impeach Bush” bumper stickers in December 2000…
As for Iraq, as I’ve said before, the controlling principle here is, “You broke it, you bought it.” Before our troops went in (liberating/invading, depending on your own beliefs), we could still walk away without losing anything more than face. Now, however, now that we’ve torn up the countryside and removed their government and generally screwed the place up worse than Jersey, abandoning Iraq to its fate would lose us any pretense of morality we may have had. It would be the act of thoughtless, uncaring cowards – and as little as I think of most of those in the upper echelons of US powermongering today, I don’t think that applies even to them, much less to any of us here. It is our responsibility, one we can neither evade nor deny, to return the Cradle of Civilization to a state somewhat less resembling the anteroom of Hëll – since we took it there in the first place. I could wish this had never fallen to us; however, Uncle Walt to the contrary, wishing won’t make it so.
Jerome wrote: “One thing I have to say with all this talk about the Republican Attack Machine is that there is no mention of the Democratic Attack Machine.”
Karen responded: “That’s because any Dem Attack Machine has been pretty ineffective. We had our last president investigated almost from the time he entered office for business and moral issues while the so-called-liberal press egged them on. Bush had many shady dealings that have NOT been exonerated by the SEC, even though his spin is that they have, but where is the investigation?”
What
Want a peak at the RAM? Want to see how it worked with concrete or less then concrete facts? Try David Brock’s Blinded by the Right. Now, I’ll also be the first to say that you should take most of what’s in there with at least a few grains of salt. This is a book that was written to say, “hey, before now, everything I’ve written has been politically motivated and was a lie but this time is differnt.”
But even if you only take it as about half true, it doesn’t paint a pretty picture.
“John Kerry wants to raise the gas tax. Just something for you Bush haters to ponder. The unemployment rate is the same as Bill Clinton’s 2nd term in office. Just something for you Bush haters to ponder. Bill Clinton gave a report to congress during his 2nd administration stating Hussein had weopons of mass destruction. just something for you Bush haters to ponder. John Kerry, in a letter to Bill Clinton said congress would approve a preemptive strike against Iraq if Clinton ordered one. Just something for you Bush haters to ponder at. Do some research before you go jump all over someone.”
What is it about the Bushies that on the one hand they bash Clinton relentlessly, and on the other hand pull up examples of things he said and did as excuses/precedent for Bush’s actions? Haven’t *any* of them twigged to the notion that you can’t have it both ways?
By the way, search as you might, you won’t find anything from me that wildly endorses either Clinton or Kerry. Do some research before you jump all over someone.
PAD
“As for Iraq, as I’ve said before, the controlling principle here is, “You broke it, you bought it.” Before our troops went in (liberating/invading, depending on your own beliefs), we could still walk away without losing anything more than face. Now, however, now that we’ve torn up the countryside and removed their government and generally screwed the place up worse than Jersey, abandoning Iraq to its fate would lose us any pretense of morality we may have had. It would be the act of thoughtless, uncaring cowards – and as little as I think of most of those in the upper echelons of US powermongering today, I don’t think that applies even to them, much less to any of us here. It is our responsibility, one we can neither evade nor deny, to return the Cradle of Civilization to a state somewhat less resembling the anteroom of Hëll – since we took it there in the first place. I could wish this had never fallen to us; however, Uncle Walt to the contrary, wishing won’t make it so.”
Dear Lord, this is incredible. It really, truly is.
Reading this in a vacuum, one would never guess that the former ruler of Iraq was a ruthless dictator. That the people of Iraq had no freedoms. They lived in fear of murder, torture, and oppression on a daily basis. Saddam Hussein used WMDs against his own people. His regime abused and raped women. Tortured and murdered parents in front of their own children.
And now, because we have gone in and removed this evil piece of filth and are attempting to liberate this country, we are considered the bad guys? The “anteroom of Hëll”? Iraq was already that. Or haven’t we found enough mass graves for you to reach that conclusion yet?
This idea that Iraq was some kind of decent place that existed in peace and harmony until we went in and destroyed it is total, unadulterated nonsense. Actually, my personal standards won’t let me use the real word that describes it. Iraq wasn’t already “broken?” In what sense? As far as treating people without a shred of dignity and respect, it was humming along just fine.
I do share your viewpoint that we need to stay as long as is necessary to finish the job we started is right on. But the idea that Iraq was fine before we showed up is ludicrous. If you really believe that it’s not, would you object to our troops cleaning up Saddam and returning him to power? If not, why? Everything was fine until we “broke it.” Until we “generally screwed the place up worse than Jersey.” Why not put everything back the way that we found it?
On a lighter note, and guaranteed to anger those of you on the right:
There was a bumper sticker out for George the 1st that said “Annoy the media, re-elect George Bush”
I think we need one now that says “Annoy the media, re-elect Al Gore”
And that the media has been liberal for the past 40 years? Please, look at the evidence. The conservatives have been crying liberal bias for the past 40 years. Now it is an accepted “fact”. But if you watch the news or read the papers any time a reporter attempts to report anything negative on the right, you hear the same cry. I wish we had more truth out there, but I’m thinking that all we hear is the spin. Now the left is trying to catch up with their own spin on the facts. I want a press that is interested in finding out what happened, not what the politicians say happened. I don’t believe we are hearing enough of any story to base competant opinions on almost anything. This is aimed at both sides, by the way.
Tim,
No one is saying that Iraq was a good place to be before the war. What we are saying is we had no business going in there and now we can’t leave because our presence has royally screwed up the area and if we go, it will get worse. This does not mean all was good before. Our being there has not improved life to a high quality there, just created a different discontent.
I am also tired of hearing how we “liberated the Iraqi people” That was not the reason we went there and they are only “free” to develop an American style democracy. That is not liberation, that is occupation.
Mr. Butler, have you read anything written by Iraqis? Not stooges of Saddam’s, nor flunkies of the humorously-named “Governing” Council, but genuine Iraqi citizens? Here’s a clue – start with “Where is Raed?” (dear_raed.blogspot.com), and follow his links to other posts in the Iraqi Blogosphere.
No, Saddam was not a decent human being. Hëll, he only qualifies as “human” on the technicality of genetic coincidence – in any meaningful sense, he’s a vicious, psychotic animal. HOWEVER – under Saddam Insane’s rule, while the people did have to live in fear of his sons, and his brownshirts, at least the fear they lived in was leavened with running water, electricity, and relatively peaceful cities (hard to be anything else, when getting out of line gets you shot…).
Now, they still live in fear, this time of al-Sadr’s pet bloodthirsty fascists, random street thuggery, and the occasional home invasion from a group of uniformed men with whom no one present shares a language (and no, “body language” is not “universal” – one culture’s nod is another culture’s peremptory jerk of a chin). Were our troops to leave now, the Iraqi people would be far worse off than they were before. Before, they knew where their threats were coming from, and could dodge them with greater ease. Before, they didn’t have to wonder where their next drink was coming from. Before, they could put petrol in their autos without having to wonder how much of the liquid involved was kerosene, or some similarly useless, less expensive fluid. Before, no one hid in fear of stray rounds flying through walls or windows.
No, Iraq under Saddam was not exactly a Paradise, especially for the Kurds or the swamp Arabs – but neither is it a Paradise today. If we want to be able to leave that nation and still look in our collective mirror, we must leave it better than it was – not worse. Yes, “worse” is a stage which must be passed through, just as an ill-set limb must be rebroken in order to be mended afresh. Let us not break the patient’s leg, then wander off, convinced it will knit itself somehow.
Karen,
To say that we “broke” Iraq is to say that it wasn’t broke before. To say that it wasn’t all good before is to say that there was some good before. To say that we screwed up Iraq is to say that it wasn’t screwed up before.
All of that is baloney. Since forcing Saddam out, we have made great strides in restoring the infrastructure and the society of Iraq. No, things are not stable everywhere. A lot of Saddam’s thugs are there still fighting. But whether you accept it or not, the end goal that we are striving for is the liberation of this country. That’s something to be proud of.
The reason we went there was to depose a dictator and disarm a regime. Mission accomplished. Now, if we were truly the bad guys, we could just set up a perimeter around Iraq and let the place degenerate into mass chaos. But we’re the good guys. We are trying to build something better there.
Did you read my last posts? I am not arguing that Saddam was a good leader. I am saying that we went in for WMD’s. There was no humanitarian talk when Bush pushed this war. Mission NOT accomplished. If it were our troops would be on the next plane out. That area is destablized and won’t get better for a nice long while. We should NOT be trying to build something better. That is for the Iraqi peopleto, with our help since we messed up the infrastructure. We are NOT liberaters right now. We are occupiers. And we had NO business going in there at all. The reasons we were told were lies and though getting rid of Saddam is a good thing, it was not for us to do.
Karen wrote: “I am also tired of hearing how we ‘liberated the Iraqi people’ That was not the reason we went there and they are only ‘free’ to develop an American style democracy. That is not liberation, that is occupation.”
Using your logic, then we’ve been “occupying” Germany, Italy and Japan since World War II, and South Korea since the Korean War. I guess none of those countries will ever willingly adopt U.S.-style democracies. Oh, that’s right, they all did. Not only do they all have successful U.S.-style democracies, they have all prospered — in most cases, beyond anyone’s wildest expectations. And it may surprise you, but the majority of people in those countries don’t mind at all that we still have bases there. Why? Because having U.S. bases in these countries not only lowers their defense budgets considerably, the U.S. bases pump hundreds of millions of dollars each year into their economies.
Russ Maheras
Russ,
Couldn’t agree more. And to think that until we destroyed the infrastructure of Berlin, the people had access to food and water and the trains ran on time. Sure, Hitler was a bad guy, but at least the country was stable and the infrastructure was intact.
And then we went in and messed everything up. And then we occupied and freed the people of a ruthless dictator. Man, we are evil.
Karen,
It’s funny how absolutely no one in the world doubted the existence of WMDs until it became politically expedient to do so. They were there. There’s no doubt of it. Hussein wasn’t evil AND stupid. I highly doubt he would let his regime get blown out of existence for something that wasn’t there. And don’t forget, he’s used them in the past.
Let’s say you’re right though. They weren’t there. If that’s the case, it’s an error based on faulty intelligence. Not a lie. Know the difference.
“The reasons we were told were lies and though getting rid of Saddam is a good thing, it was not for us to do.”
Then whose job would it be? The Iraqi people had tried multiple times before, and Saddam cheerfully crushed every uprising. We could have armed them, perhaps, but doing that has gotten us into trouble a number of times in the past with other countries. For whatever harm may have come to the Iraqi people through this war, without it Saddam would have remained in power until he died of old age.
Russ,
I was stationed in Germany with the USAF. A lot of people in all those countries do NOT want us there. Many bases have protesters at the gates year round. And we hardly occupy those countries. We are not the government and The 2 world wars were not just us and our decision to invade. The enemy at that time was going out and conquering other countries. Hardly the same threat level as Iraq. The intelligiance was not as faulty as we wer led to belive, but manipulated by the current administration. Going out of their way to tweak the facts is not an error. It is a lie.
Gorginfoogle,
It is arrogant to think this decision should have been only ours. We live in a world with others. We do not have to be the bully. We could have used diplomacy to get others on board, but we told the rest of the world we knew better and did it on our own. We do not know best. No wonder so many countries an allies find us so distasteful now.
Karen,
1.)I would really like to read your thoughts on the U.N. scandal involving the almighty U.N. and our infallible “allies” France and Russia. Amazing the same people who seem to jump on Halliburton at every turn are silent on this historic and absolutely disgusting scandal.
2.)Also, these people are free for the first time in years, perhaps forever. Do you really think filling the power vacuum and getting them to work together would be easy?
3.) Yes, partisanship is a two-way street. I realize that. But I always give credit where it is due. I feel it was beyond silly for the GOP to not give Clinton one iota of credit for the longest peacetime expansion in history. I credit him for gathering enough of a coalition together to pass his initial budget.I also give him credit for going against his base and signing welfare reform, NAFTA – the same way I gave Bush the Father credit for going against his base and passing the Americans With Disabilities Act and his tax increase.
Is ther ANYTHING Bush the Son has done that you agree with? I listed some things in an earlier post that I would think you would agree with him on: more federal funding for public education, more federal funding for the arts, campaign finance reform, to name just a few/
4.) Seeing as how Syria and Iran are helping the insurgents in Iraq, is it not logical to assume they see a victory by us as a threat? And that we are accomplishing some good?
5.) Also, considering the previous point, is it that far-fetched that the WMD are in Syria?
Jerome,
1) The UN is a world hope. Yes, it is not perfect, but neither is our government. Just because some of us focus on Haliburton does not mean we approve of other scandals. But I must also admit that I am not as informed on this scandal as I could be, so don’t feel I can comment on it.
2)No, I never thought it would be easy. I feel it is not our place to forcie them to think and act only in a manner we feel appropriate. I don’t think we should have been there in the first place, and have been saying this since the war was first brought up. (Which is a rebuttal to a poster who thinks those of us against the war only jumped on the bandwagon when no WMS’s were found)
3)Thank-you for giving credit to Clinton. It’s nice to hear that he did some good from someone not liberal. I agree that he did a lot of good, although I certainly didn’t agree with ALL his policies. Bush, on the other hand has passed a few bills that I agree with, such as education, but has not funded them. Now states are stuck with new rules and no way to pay for them. But the majority of the things he has done has been so harmful to this country that it is going to take a long time to come back. Be it the deficit, job loss, or damage to the environment.
4 & 5) That whole part of the world would be more than happy if we fell off the face of the earth, with the exception of Israel. Syria and Iran have their own agendas, whether they think they can get a piece of the oil or they just want to make things as difficult as they can for us.
“Couldn’t agree more. And to think that until we destroyed the infrastructure of Berlin, the people had access to food and water and the trains ran on time. Sure, Hitler was a bad guy, but at least the country was stable and the infrastructure was intact.
And then we went in and messed everything up. And then we occupied and freed the people of a ruthless dictator.”
And then our troops STAYED there and helped the locals rebuild their smashed infrastructure (try looking up the Marshall Plan). Similarly, it matters not whether you think the war in Iraq was justified or not (I don’t, but that’s bygones) – we are now obligated, by our OWN principles, to rebuild what we destroyed.
Tim (may I call you Tim?), this is an example of the “binary thinking” I cited in another thread. Apparently, to judge from your posts, there are only two positions to take:
1) Saddam Hussein was the greatest threat since Adolf Hitler, we had to remove him, and now we have to teach the locals how to govern themselves properly.
2) The war in Iraq was an unwarranted intrusion, and we need to recall all troops immediately.
Since I have referred to the war as being (IMO) unjustified, you seem to leap to the conclusion that I must therefore want our troops out. Nothing could be further from the truth. I feel that we have taken on the awesome duty of shepherding the people of Iraq through the times of chaos and anarchy that our own actions caused, so that they can emerge later as a free, proud, and independent nation, ruled by the principles that they choose. I hope powerfully that they choose to reject radical Islam, as history seems to show us that it’s a piss-poor way to run a country, but if they insist in it, we should permit them the experiment – with aid standing by in case it works out as poorly as usual.
Incidentally, Bush Jr has not provided more funding for education – his “No Child Left Behind” policies call for certain mandatory changes to all school systems, but do not provide the funding to make those changes happen. That, however, is a whole ‘nother argument, one I choose not to indulge in further in this thread.
Karen,
If you want to learn more about the UN/”allies” scandal, which almost no one – not even FOX or CNN -is covering up to this point, check out NYPost.com. They have had many articles and editorials on the subject in the past week. It really has me disgusted, and I have really lost whatever respect I had for the UN and/or France, which was already minimal at best.
I would be anxious to get an informed reaction from you, since i always respect your opinions even when we fundamentally disagree.
Karen wrote: “I was stationed in Germany with the USAF. A lot of people in all those countries do NOT want us there. Many bases have protesters at the gates year round. And we hardly occupy those countries.”
First of all, people protest outside of almost all military bases, not only in Germany, but England, Japan, Korea and also right here in the United States. That is there right, but as I said in my previous post, they do NOT represent the majority opinion. At Kadena Air Base, on Okinawa, the only time we usually had protesters outside the gate is when B-52 bombers flew in for a typhoon evacuation from Guam. The rest of the time, things were fine. The same goes for when I was stationed in England, and South Korea. Sometimes we’d have protesters, but most of the time, the local nationals went about their business, and we went about ours. I lived off base for a total of 4 1/2 years when I was stationed overseas, and never once had an incident. Over the years, I’ve heard some horror stories about incidents in various overseas locations, and I’m sure with the current Iraq situation there is more protest activity now. But such incidents are the exception. And despite the German goverment’s stance last year regarding the war in Iraq, I know for a fact that many German government officials still want our remaining bases to stay in Germany. As I said, this is for both security and economic reasons. It’s a symbiotic relationship, and fulfills the national interests of both countries.
Problems usually arise both here and abroad when hard core protesters get frustrated and destructive because they feel no one is listening to their point of view. They just don’t understand why everyone in their country is not taking to the streets for their cause. But the reality of the situation is the majority of people don’t agree with their extremist ideas. Most people — even in Iraq — do not condon the destruction and violence caused by this vocal minority.
In the past 60 years or so, the U.S. military has had the role as occupying force in dozens of instances following military conflicts. Yet in NO instance in this recent span of history has the U.S. attempted to permanently grab land from anyone. In some cases, we were an occupying force for more than a decade. But once the local goverment stabilized, we turned everything back over to them. If they want the U.S. military completely gone, as did France in 1966, then we leave for good. I do not see us doing anything differently in Iraq, regardless of which party’s candidate is sitting in the White House.
Russ Maheras
Pad,
Wow, of all the statements up there, you picked 2 of mine to rip. In a sick way, I’m honored 🙂
Hey,
I never said YOU endorsed Kerry or Clinton. What I said was a response to the posts that came before that were saying “oh i hate bush & kerry’s better” & that may be true,who am i to say, but, i sure as hëll don’t want to pay more taxes. Gasoline is getting more expensive & the last thing we need is someone putting more taxes in the dámņ thing. Call me selfish.
& by the way, what’s up w/ calling me a “BUSHIE”?
What are you, like 10. You didn’t see me calling you a “DEMONcrat”. C’mon, we’re adults here, no need for name calling.
Oh & i love your stuff. Fallen Angel is like my Favorite series out there. Keep it up. It’s awesome. Bendis is over rated. You da man! (even if you call me a “BUSHIE”
Joe V.
“As far as the press giving Bush a free ride, that’s baloney.”
Maybe not a free ride, but given the far less severe level of scrutiny for lapses with far greater consequence than Clinton’s, I’d say at the very least he’s been charged off-peak rates.
PAD
“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.”
Yeah. Startling coincidence that. Couldn’t have anything to do with a backdoor deal in place to keep the hostages there until Carter was out of office…
PAD
“And now, because we have gone in and removed this evil piece of filth and are attempting to liberate this country, we are considered the bad guys?”
There. Right there, that’s the basic disconnect.
It’s not “this” country. It’s “their” country.
We unilaterally decided to go in and depose this evil piece of filth–who is ever so much worse than every other EPOF in the world, apparently–and now we won’t leave. We won’t leave THEIR country. We attacked in such a way that bringing in manpower more constructively suited toward nation building (something Bush swore in 2000 we shouldn’t be in the business of) is problematic at best–which displays a horrifying lack of foresight–and now we are seen as occupiers and conquerors, motivated not out of concern for the Iraqi people, but for the Iraqi oil.
It’s like we’re a SWAT team that captured a guy holding a family hostage…and then moved into the family’s house, started eating out of their fridge, redecorating the living room, looking over their tax returns, deciding they need to live on a tighter budget, and then bringing in a team of accountants to implement their new lifestyle. And the family’s frantically going, “Get the dámņëd SWAT team out of there or someone’s gonna get hurt.”
PAD
Joe V sez:
Hey,
I never said YOU endorsed Kerry or Clinton. What I said was a response to the posts that came before that were saying “oh i hate bush & kerry’s better” & that may be true,who am i to say, but, i sure as hëll don’t want to pay more taxes. Gasoline is getting more expensive & the last thing we need is someone putting more taxes in the dámņ thing. Call me selfish.
OK, you’re selfish.
The problem with this argument is that, in reality, the government now DESPERATETLY needs revenue. In 4 years, we’ve gone from the first surplus in a long while to the largest deficit in history. Guess what two events created that? I’ll give you a hint: One was under Bush’s control, one wasn’t.
The tax cuts are far more damaging to the federal budget than 9/11, mainly because we were going to have active armed forces anyway. Sure, the military spending might not have increased the way it did had 9/11 not happened, but there were going to be American soldiers overseas. However, the tax cuts basically cut revenue to the bone. The tax cuts are across the board, but they’re also difficult to get back, because the layman always thinks that his taxes were never lowered in the first place, when in fact, they were.
If Kerry (or Bush, whom I have no reason to think he won’t take back the tax cuts), were to raise taxes somewhere else (like raising gas prices), take a good guess what money you’ll be using to pay that? Yes, that’s right, money from the tax cut. So, in reality, things balance out. Except that people will complain about paying 10 cents per gallon more for gas than before the stupid gas tax, while not noticing the 4 cents per hour more they get with each paycheck because of the tax cut. For those of you not fluent in math, this equates to $1.60 more for a 16-gallon tank, while the cut gives you — presto change-o — $1.60 more in your 40-hour work week paycheck. It all balances out.
PAD,
See, this is what drives me crazy. This talking point about how “we won’t leave”. If you want to argue we shouldn’t have gone in the first place, fine. I strongly disagree, but fine. But the ideas that once we ousted Saddam that we should just leave the Iraqi people to “their” country is unbelievably simplistic. There is a power vacuum and it would be filled by people who would waste no time in tearing each other to pieces. You seem resigned to the possibility of an Iraqi civil war. As if it would be no big deal. As if the majority of Iraqi people – after a lifetime of oppression – can just automatically step up and run things. We are HELPING them and doing our best to prevent fanatics from taking over.
It was never “their” country, it was “Saddam’s” country. In time, it will truly be “their” country. Until then, we are helping them along and protecting the majority.
Honestly, PAD, if you think the majority of Iraqi people see us as occupiers, you are mistaken. I have yet to see nationwide uprisings. It is a bunch of fanatics with the backing of Iran and Syria (because they’re scared of a free Iraq.)
How would you “leave” and still protect the Iraqi people, PAD? Just curious.
PAD,
Oh, and you’re right about a backroom deal to keep the hostages “until Carter was out of office.” Why would they care? Because they didn’t FEAR Carter, that’s why. If Carter was reelected, those hostages would at best have stayed there until January 1985, and at worst been killed.
As a President, Carter made a good peanut farmer. He was an appeaser through and through.
PAD,
Finally (for now), in regards to our “unilateral” approach, it is ironic that critics of it such as yourself have not once mentioned the scandal brewing in which it has been revealed that Saddam skimmed billions off oil sales that were to be used for medicine and other humanitarian ends for “his” people (hey! It was THEIR country, right?) to build palaces. The “sacred, infallible” United Nations turned a blind eye even though they knew what was going on and our wonderful, all-important “allies” France and russia received kickbacks so as not to intervene.
And this and is the institution and countries you feel we should ask permission from to defend ourselves as we see fit. These paragons of virtue?
Please get serious sometime soon.