As Tom Ridge announces yet another terrorist alert for New York and LA, the money phrase in the statement is here:
“The threat potential remains through the Nov. 2 elections, Ridge said.”
What were the odds, I ask you?
Is it possible that there may be another terrorist attack? Sure. That’s pretty much the case in any country these days. I’m just wondering if other governments are working on keeping its citizenry as perpetually jumpy as this one is…and coinciding, by staggering coincidence, with Kerry’s bump from the DNC. I can’t help but wonder which concerns Bush more: Car bombs or Kerry’s slight increase in numbers.
I notice no one refuting Michael Moore’s claim that the terrorism alert status will never go down to green. Ever.
PAD
• 
Still, after all the evidence, he still would have gone to war. How can you follow a leader who won’t admit that faulty intelligence led him into a war and hindsight shows it was not necessary? Will he EVER admit to any errors? His judgement is called into question almost every week. And those of you who think we have “turned a corner” are living in a nice fantasy land.
“Still, after all the evidence, he still would have gone to war. How can you follow a leader who won’t admit that faulty intelligence led him into a war and hindsight shows it was not necessary?”
Saddam’s defiance of the UN inspectors, his ordering his artillery to fire on American aircraft, and his human rights violations were enough for me to have no problems in his being overthrown. Despite the lack of ready-to-go weapons found thus far, Saddam needed to go.
Gee Darin, good thing that the whole “They’re beliefs aren’t ours, we must overthrow them by any means neccessary, including armed invasion” doesn’t apply to any other nation that hates America…
But, invading helpless foreign nations is what America does best. I notice we still haven’t done squat about those horrible nukes in Korea and their history of human rights violations.
And actually, where do these “human rights” come from? The AMERICA constitution? What right do we have to force our beliefs down other countries throats?
Bush refuses to admit when he’s done wrong, and it’s costing america soldiers’ lives. All Clinton did was get a bløw jøb from a fat chick.
Bushes inability to admit mistakes shows how pathetic a failure he really is.
Jim,
I’ll apologize in advance to everyone, as I suspect this is likely to be long.
First, I find it interesting that it took all of two posts for you to change from thanking me for arguing on the facts to accusing me of living in the Bizarro World. Did the facts no longer fit with your nice neat picture of our country?
I would argue that freedom was a central point of the war.
I’m aware of that. You’d also be incorrect.
As I said and you ignored, “freedom” was not the reason the public was given, regardless of how much it may have been in Bush’s mind. The reason we were told we had to go in was that Saddam was an imminent threat to the U.S., armed with WMD’s that he could use and/or trade to terrorists.
I’d direct you to the following:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-05-30-wolfowitz-iraq_x.htm
In said article (which is itself quoting an article from Vanity Fair), Paul Wolfowitz states unequivocally that “for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason” for the war.
Now, depending on how you parse that phrase, you can take it as (a) WMD’s were the only thing everyone in the administration could agree with as a reason for war, or (b) WMD’s were the only thing the administration felt the public would buy as a reason for the war.
If it’s (a), then their rationale was deeply flawed and should be admitted as such. If it’s (b), then they cynically manipulated public opinion with information they knew to be shaky. Whether their rationale was flawed or dishonest, they’re dámņëd by Wolfowitz’s own statements.
“Freedom” may well be a valid reason for the war — but it’s not the one we got, and it’s not the one that brought Bush the public support he had. As such, to use it now is deeply disingenuous reasoning.
Although there have been atrocities committed, two things are also true: 1.) It is not the norm (it only seems like it because of the amount of coverage), and 2.) We did not deliberately mow down civilians.
I have no doubt those are both true. They are also irrelevant.
Our military is raping children, Jim. There is no justification for that action. None.
What’s more, the information in that Sunday Herald article has been out in various world press agencies for a few weeks now, and indications are that the Pentagon’s had the information even longer.
They have said nothing. They have done nothing.
As far as I’m concerned, ANYONE in this chain of command who had the ability to impede or prevent these actions and did not do so is guilty of aiding and abetting them. (Frankly, I think Kerry and Edwards get some mud tossed at this as well — less so than the administration, as they’re further outside the loop, but as senators they should be getting at least some of this info and acting accordingly.)
You may say (actually Darin said this, but the tone of your message suggests you’d agree with it) that these atrocities “do not invalidate the overall mission.” You have every right to that belief, but it’s not mine: no “freedom” is worth the torture of children.
One side point. You say that a majority of Iraqis “don’t want us there any longer.” If we’re indeed exporting democracy, shouldn’t we listen to that and leave?
(No, I don’t think leaving is a good option at this point. I’m merely pointing out the hollowness of the statement.)
And freedom is always worth it.
I think there are thousands of corpses who would dispute that.
Saying “X is always worth it”, where X is ANY abstraction, is dangerous and foolish. I support freedom. I support honesty. I support equality. I support knowledge. But I could easily come up with examples where any of those ideas might not be worth it UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
This is such a time. You cannot impose freedom at gunpoint.
“Begging your pardon, good sir, but the war in Iraq in its current form DID start with the Bush presidency, because he ordered it done. Bush’s policies are directly responsible for those deaths, Iraqi and coalition. “
Again, you are looking only at one piece of the puzzle. If, as Bush clearly states, he is attacking terrorism at its roots, than this began before Bush. Even if 9-11 never happened, this is just a continuation of the first Gulf War.
Ah. I see. We have always been at war with Eurasia. Thank you for clarifying.
The quotes saying Saddam was a threat are again misleading. Yes, everyone thought he was dangerous. Everyone also acted in ways to keep him contained and toothless. ONLY Bush decided he was enough of a threat to be worth war.
The parallels don’t wash. Everyone may have had a somewhat similar assessment, but not everyone chose to take the same actions based on those assessments. Not Gore. Not Clinton. Not any of the others you use to bolster your case. This is Bush’s war.
As I said to Bill earlier in this thread, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” If Bush is going to put tens of thousands of American lives at risk and undoubtedly kill thousands of Iraqis (soldiers or not), the onus is on him to make it clear that everyone is going in for the right reasons and that there was no other choice.
He did not do this. Other methods would have worked and did work. Bush decided they weren’t good enough. Not Clinton. Not Gore. Bush.
“I don’t agree with everything Kerry said, but he absolutely nailed it last week when he said that a commander-in-chief absolutely should be able to look a parent in the eye and say that their child’s death was both justified and a last resort. Bush has passed neither test — which probably explains why he doesn’t go to the funerals.”
Why is it necessary for Bush to go to a funeral?
Oh, I don’t know — maybe to demonstrate that he sees the military as something other than a juggernaut full of his own toy soldiers?
He has looked parents in the eye.
Name six. Let’s remember that journalists have lost their jobs for even snapping pictures of coffins coming back from Iraq. No gore. No faces. Just flag-draped coffins treated respectably.
Yet we as a public are not allowed to see it.
Yep, it’s just a good, clean, video-game war while Bush gets to play his large-scale game of Risk with the world.
Bush DOES believe every American death — and every Iraqi death — while tragic was both justified and the last resort.
Jim, unless you’re either Bush or a telepath, you DON’T KNOW what he believes. I assume you’re not claiming either of the above.
Let me repeat myself. Saddam invaded another country.
For which we have fought and won one war, generally with the respect of America and the world. That was thirteen years ago.
Who’d he invade this time?
Your litany of Saddam’s sins is ultimately meaningless, as I could name other world leaders who’ve done the same. Those reasons are not the ones we were given for the war, and not ones which justify taking on Saddam and Saddam alone.
What more reason do you want?
I want to know that the reasons we have are just and honest. This war is neither. The deaths are empty, and the torture is monstrous.
And our country has blood on its hands that will not easily depart.
“Killing and torturing Iraqis in the name of giving them freedom is rather like fûçkìņg in the name of chastity.”
Give me a break! We are not doing this.
Yes we are, Jim. I’m sorry you can’t see that. Apparently you don’t pay attention to any media source other than Fox News.
We have killed many, many innocent civilians, some of them deliberately. We have tortured and raped Iraqis, and those cannot be done accidentally.
And we are not taking steps to make sure those “inappropriate” actions stop. If we take no actions to prevent them, they become de facto policy.
Go look up the last 30 years of Iraqi history. We did not attack a country that has been sitting in a corner minding its own business.
I’d really like you to find the place where I said or implied that last sentence. If you can’t (and I’m quite sure you can’t), then you’re simply arguing with a straw man of your own creation. Not interested.
I don’t make excuses for the abuses that have occured.
If you’re not speaking out about them and demanding action be taken … yes, you are. Granted, you’re not taking Limbaugh’s approach and calling it nothing more than fraternity hazing, but apparently you think opening a school is sufficient to balance the scales for torturing a child.
As a teacher, and as someone about to become a parent, I feel ashamed of my country and of my species if you truly hold that viewpoint.
We live in an upside down world where what was once called black is now called white, and vice versa. Which makes these discussions somewhat pointless.
Now that I would completely agree with. I suspect we would differ on the reasons and the means, however.
TWL
Okay, a couple of little ones this time.
Darin:
No, British Intelligence, Russian Intelligence, the FBI and the CIA do not set the US’s terror alerts. The US Department of Homeland Security does.
A somewhat shifty response, given that DHS didn’t exist during the initial run-up to war. Were the same people who set the terror alert involved in publicizing the alleged WMD threat?
EClark:
Actually, I have a huge problem with that site and their methodology.
No problem — I cited another one in that same post, and someone else came up with a third one shortly thereafter. It doesn’t change the basic point.
That said, if someone had a nice neutral site in hand I’d love to see it. If there were an official one I’d certainly use it … but alas, our country’s said “we don’t do body counts.” And like good little sheep, the media have just played along.
Darin again:
Saddam’s defiance of the UN inspectors
What defiance? In the run-up to war, the inspectors were in and were working hard. They left because we told them to go, not because of Saddam’s intransigence.
Why no one called Bush on that when he stated publicly “we told him to let the inspectors in and he didn’t” is utterly mystifying to me. That one was an unabashed and bald-face rewriting of reality.
TWL
A general thought this time, and then I promise I’ll go away.
I was thinking today about how politics work — or rather, don’t work — these days. Jeff’s allusion to a religious war upthread rang disturbingly true to me — it does often sound like that, complete with different sacred texts. As an atheist, I probably find the idea of a religious war more disturbing than most 🙂 — but regardless, I think the country’s gotten so polarized that it’s deeply unhealthy in a host of ways. (I’ve said this part before.)
A question to all: do you think this next election’s going to do anything to change that? Are we ever going to be able to discuss legitimate differences again without it turning into a figurative bloodbath?
I have my own thoughts on this, but for now I think I’d rather just listen. I’ve been spending way too much time and emotional energy over here lately, and I could use a break as much as you all could stand a break from me. 🙂
TWL
back to the original topic of the thread for a sec, Byron York has a good bit of speculative fiction on what John Kerry might have said were there an attack on the Financial Buildings (and had t he Bush team taken the advice of some of you and not issued the warning).
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200408031409.asp
It’s not a Kerry-bash. Far from it; had things happened as they do in the article and were Kerry to deliver something along these lines he would be more than likely to get my vote. I’m just agog that some of you could possibly think that they would have kept this under wraps when a memo merely stating that Al Qaeda was determined to attack inside the USA was used by some to claim that Bush should have seen 9/11 coming.
And give Kerry credit–he shot down speculation on the political motivation of the warnings. Smart move and also the right one, but the damage may have been done. At least 2 democrat co-workers expressed disgust with Dean’s comment (Actually one blamed Dean AND Kerry, leaving me in the awkward position of having to come to the guy’s defense).
Hmmm, interesting posts. Who agrees and who disagree with Bush
I can’t find the source now, but at work earlier today I saw a report that the target date for these attacks was “two months before the November election”. It was then pointed out in the report that particular day would be Thursday, September 2nd: the day Bush is scheduled to accept the nomination at the Republican Convention.
That’s a surefire way to make something besides the President the lead story.
Prozac Man:
“Hmmm, interesting posts. Who agrees and who disagree with Bush
No problem — I cited another one in that same post, and someone else came up with a third one shortly thereafter. It doesn’t change the basic point.
That said, if someone had a nice neutral site in hand I’d love to see it. If there were an official one I’d certainly use it … but alas, our country’s said “we don’t do body counts.” And like good little sheep, the media have just played along.
First, Tim, let me just say that I suspect that even if our country did keep body counts, you, like most of the human rights groups out there, would question both its accuracy and authenticity.,
Second, you were the only one to give me an actual website that made claims as to how many people have died in Iraq. I’m not guessing at how they come up with their body count. They state it on their home page.
I did check out your second site which turned out to be the Christian Science Monitor. The numbers that THEY cited came from an article which cites another organizations body count estimate.
“Between 8,789 and 10,638 civilians have died since war began March 19, 2003, according to one group of British and American researchers that surveys media reports and eyewitness accounts.”
Notice that the group cited has no name and no way you can check to verify either their numbers or their methodology. In fact, it scares me that you so readily accept their estimates without challenge just because it supports your position. Yet you hypocritically question the media’s veracity?
The last site was from Aljezeera which bascially did the same thing that the CSM did. Quote some unknown and unverifiable group’s claim of how many civilians have died. Like the IBC site, this group makes no effort to discern the actual cause of death. They died of other than natural causes and that’s good enough.
Yes, it does change the basic point. Tens of thousands have NOT died due to a direct result of the invasion. Have some died? Sure that was a given. If we leave though, you can pretty much bet a civl war will break out and the body count will go up even higher, and then we’ll get blamed because we’re not there to contain it. We’re going to get blamed for it no matter what. Might as well do it now. If we leave we’ll just have to come back in about eight years.
> Saddam’s defiance of the UN inspectors, his ordering his artillery to fire on American aircraft, and his human rights violations were enough for me to have no problems in his being overthrown. Despite the lack of ready-to-go weapons found thus far, Saddam needed to go.
North Korea also did the invasion bit and has claimed possession of atomic weapons. Maybe they just might have needed to ‘go’ first?
> Saddam had proven that he had no problems invading another country to try to take it over. Or to use WMD’s in a different war.
Again, see above vis North Korea. or, for that matter, if we’re talking serious threat, the religious nutcases in Iran working openly to develop atomic capability should be something which worries the White House a heck of a lot more than a de-fanged Saddam.
Did anyone just catch General Tommy Franks’ appearance just now on The View? I found his answers evasive, rhetorical, and loaded with “Oh! Oh!” histrionics that really grated on me.
They asked him if we were safer now following the Iraq wars, and he said yes. Joy Behar asked him why then, we were having all these terror alerts, and he responded that he thought it was better that we have these terror alerts than to not have them. Apparently, he was arguing the importance of warnings, when Joy’s question was obviously about why were still afflicted with the terror situations that required the alerts. She was focusing on the continued existence of the threat of terrorism, and he was focusing on the alerts themselves.
He also said that one of the best decisions Bush made was to put him in charge of both Afghanistan and Iraq, and Barbara Walters mentioned how the warlords had come back to Afghanistan, and asked why we had not yet caught Osama bin Laden, and Franks reponsed that he felt bin Laden would be caught. I wonder if Franks is familiar with Bush’s comment from some time ago that he doesn’t think much about bin Laden, and that bin Laden is not a priority any more.
I got this rant from one of my fave blogs.
It says it all!
So I was having a conversation with a friend the other night, and I mentioned how much I like Cheney and Rumsfeld, mostly because they just don
That’s a cute little rant.
You want a cookie?
As usual, I’m arriving late for the party. Hope I’m not too late on this thread…
Bill Mulligan wrote: “Just one question–which part of “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” is untrue?”
And Tim Lynch replied: “The word ‘learned’.”
While I usually agree with Tim, this is one time I have to disagree. I do not think the word “learned” in this statement is dishonest. What’s dishonest is the phrase “The British government has learned…”
Not because it’s untrue. It is true, as others have pointed out, that the British government at that time did think they had learned that. They thought that because (as the portions of the Butler report that I’ve read say) the British were told this by several sources and, although they weren’t able to find actual evidence it was so, they decided it wasn’t a ridiculous idea.
The US government, on the other hand, [b]had[/b] investigated these claims more thoroughly, and largely concluded the claims were false. So when Bush tried to put into his speech the assertion that Hussein had tried to acquire weapons-grade uranium from Nigeria, my understanding is that the intelligence people vetting his speech refused to support that claim.
But Bush wanted to use that claim in the speech — so he asked, how about if I re-word it to say British Intelligence has learned? Yes, the vetters replied, that would be literally true.
In my religion, while it is good to speak the letter of the truth, it is considered even more important to speak the spirit of the truth. If I say something which is literally true, but which I know my listener will take to mean something other than that limited literal truth, then I have not been honest. I think that’s a reasonable standard to hold people to. (It’s the standard Michael Moore is being held to over Fahrenheit 9/11, for instance. While statements in the film are literally true, many people here have held the film to be dishonest because it omits key facts and may lead viewers to jump to incorrect conclusions.)
In the statement, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”, a reasonable person would take the main point to be Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa with The British government has learned… being a minor, subsidiary point. When Bush assures us he is speaking the truth, that this speech has been vetted for accuracy, etc., most people will come away feeling it is the main part of the statement that is being referred to and which they are supposed to be able to rely on. Instead, Bush deliberately made a misleading statement, where it was the minor, trivial point that was true, because the people vetting the speech had told him that the statement he wanted to make (that the US intelligence agencies thought Saddam had tried to buy uranium) was not true.
There are several honest statements Bush could have made. For example:
(1) “I believe Saddam tried to buy uranium to make WMD, even though our intelligence analysts disagree with me.”
(2) “I fear that Saddam may try to buy weapons-grade uranium and build nuclear weapons, even though our best intelligence indicates he hasn’t so far.”
(3) “British Intelligence thinks that Saddam may have tried to buy uranium in Africa, even though our better-funded agencies did a more thorough investigation of these claims and discount them.”
It is the careful and deliberate wording of the statement that especially offends me. According to Bush and others in his administration, this was not a careless mistake. They deliberately chose this wording because they had been told the wording they wanted to use was false. This wording gave the same impression as what they knew to be a false statement, but was technically true if one allows the point of the statement to be the minor rather than major clause. That’s dishonest, and deliberately so.
By the way, similar careful wording appears to be being used in the Butler report to give the impression that the British Intelligence report that Saddam tried to buy uranium from Niger was well-founded. That is not what the report actually says. The words “credible” and “well-founded” do appear in the conclusions, but it is important to read carefully what they are actually referring to.
Here’s what the Butler report summary actually says:
a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.
b. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.
c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased… uranium and the British Government did not claim this.
d. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it.
Regarding credible, read point (b) carefully. On casual listening, if someone says to me that they have investigated something and found it to be credible, I take it to mean they were able to find verifying details which lent support to the story and made it seem probable the story was true. But the Butler report is using a different meaning for credible here. What they are actually saying is that, while they didn’t necessarily find any verifying details, the story seemed to be plausible, within the bounds of possibility — not incredible.
A lot of people who have heard the news reports of the Butler report are repeating the word credible with the idea that means the story turned out to be true. No. What the report (which is an analysis of how well the British intelligence agencies did their job) is saying is that the claims were not obvious nonsense and so the agencies were correct not to immediately dismiss them. The claims were plausible, so it was right at that time to keep the possibility they were true in mind. (In light of further investigation, which the US did, it may no longer be right to maintain those claims, but that wasn’t the point of their investigation. Their charge was to see if the British agencies acted properly based on what they knew then.)
Regarding well-founded, read point (d) carefully. “… the fact of the forgery does not undermine it.” What calls for careful reading here is the word it.
I believe many people reading are mistakenly thinking this means that the British conclusion (that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Niger) was not undermined. But the actual antecedent for the pronoun it in this sentence is the intelligence assessment.
Bridge players may have a slight advantage in understanding the distinction. In bridge, you try to figure out what cards the other players have in their hands (by analyzing the bidding, the cards played so far, etc.) in order to come up with your best line of play. Sometimes, though, the other players holds their cards a little too close to the chest, you can’t actually see what they’ve got, and you have to guess which play will be best. A good player relies on the percentages — this line of play has a 75% chance of succeeding, while that one only has a 50% chance. Which means there will be times when a good player, playing the odds, makes a play which loses the hand, while a poor player with the same cards does something that would usually fail but lucks out. In the post mortem it would be recognized that the good player had made the technically correct play (even though it lost).
That’s what this statement is about. In conducting a post mortem on the play, the Butler folks have concluded that British Intelligence made the technically correct play, given the knowledge they had about the cards, even though that play turned out to be wrong.
If I’m reading the statement correctly, it is not saying that British Intelligence reached the (factually) correct conclusion, simply that people analyzing the information did their job correctly and honestly. The assessment was well-founded — not the conclusion.
NOTE: I have not read the full Butler Report, as it’s a 216 page PDF document that would take hours to download on my computer. I am basing this on the portions which I have read. If anyone, on careful reading of the full report, finds that I have misunderstood what they are saying, I would be grateful to have this pointed out. Thanks.
NOTE 2: With a post this long, I certainly wish there were a working preview function here. (Hint, hint.)
Republican National Convention Schedule: Revised, July 2004
6:00pm – Opening prayer
6:15pm – Supplementary opening prayer
6:30pm – Prayer in thanks of first two prayers
6:45pm – New energy policy presented by Exxon
7:00pm – Canonization of Reagan
7:15pm – Additional prayers
7:30pm – Opening remarks by Halliburton
8:00pm – Prayer for the safety and well-being of Ken “Kenny-boy” Lay
8:15pm – Additional remarks by Halliburton
8:30pm – Stoning of the first homosexual
8:45pm – New healthcare polices presented by HMO leader, Kaiser Permanente
9:00pm – Invasion of Iran or North Korea (TBA)
9:15pm – Halliburton contributes 1.4 billion to Republican party
9:30pm – Reagan elevated to savior, Holy Trinity now referred to as “the quads”
9:45pm – Bush undergoes plastic surgery to look more like Reagan
10:00pm – Chaney runs into Ron Reagan, Jr. Tells him to go fûçk himself
10:15pm – Recall of troops from accidental invasion of South Korea
(Bush: “Ðámņ, the SOUTH is our ally. My bad.”)
10:30pm – Burning at the stake of 16 year-old Jenny Williams, who had an illegal abortion after being raped by her cousin
10:45pm – Dancing around the golden calf
11:00pm – Stoning of the partner of the first homosexual
11:15pm – New forestry policy presented by Weyerhaeuser
11:45pm – Thanking God for his wisdom in choosing Bush as president
12:00pm – Closing prayers (lasting until 2:00am)
2:00 am – Høøkërš arrive for all delegates
To answer your question, I do.
Well, having lived most of my life in western Illinois and southern Iowa, I believe I can honestly ask: what the hëll would you have to not feel secure about in the first place?
Woopee, you feel more secure living in Iowa. Guess what? The terrorists don’t give a rat’s áršë about Iowa right now.
Now, since I now live in Denver, a wonderful prime target, I can be somebody else who says that Bush is making things worse, not better. I am less secure now than I was before, because Bush is creating more terrorists than he’s preventing.
Will he EVER admit to any errors?
Bush once stated he regretted trading Sammy Sosa away when he was an owner of the Texas Rangers.
Of course, this might be the biggest error/regret he ever owns up to, so make of that what you will.
Speaking of terrorism, slightly off topic, from the