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
• 
I am beginning to wonder if it is even possible for you Bush antagonists to even consider the possibility that the terror alerts are not just politically motivated. Once you make the huge leap that Bush “lied” about the WMD’s, I guess you then extrapolate that he would also lie about a possible threat to our security here.
I have yet to see ANY evidence that Bush deliberately lied, misled, or deceived us about the WMD’s. You can argue he was wrong, but that is NOT the same thing. This rewriting of history is getting rather old. Clinton, Kerry, and numerous Democratic leaders all saw the same intelligence over the last 10 years and all felt Saddam was a threat (do I have to post there many assertions of the same?). To say Bush deliberately lied comes only because we have now not found any weapons. Weapons that history showed he used! So where did they go? By far the more plausible answer is either that our intelligence was bad (which clearly it was since either they did not exist or have been moved), or Bush saw what he wanted to see (which is worlds apart from saying he deliberately misled, deceived, etc.).
Why bring up this old argument? Because the same mentality is at work again. This weekend is a clear case. There is very clear, tangible information that was gathered. As was said above, it is absurd to not take action on it (such as closing a tunnel to trucks) without acknowledging what is happening. Besides, there is a clear reason to put this out. If we had a detailed plan of the person, place, and time, than perhaps a trap would work. But when it is even somewhat general, then having the public alerted does have benefit. Obviously if you cry “wolf” too often, people begin to not notice. But there is a key issue to remember: There IS a wolf. The wolf has ALREADY struck with enormous devestation. Those plans were in place LONG before Bush ever came to office, so this is not just a reaction to Bush’s actions as president. Bush did NOT create this enemy.
Keep in mind that this is a new battle for us. I agree the terror alerts are an imperfect system. But I also point to the fact that we have not been struck again on our soil for the last 3 years. To think this is luck is both naive and absurd. I don’t suggest Bush or the terror alerts are the only reason we have been spared, but I would suggest that the dramatic changes since 9-11 have forced potential terrorists to have to at least revise there plans, etc. Despite the empty rhetoric Kerry is spouting today, there have been significant changes implemented since 9-11.
Honestly, I am not sure why I even spend the time posting this since many of you have already found Bush guilty of basically treason. For ANYONE, Republican or Democrat, to manipulate things to this degree would be more than just a political “trick.” I was unwilling to attribute such motives to Clinton, even though there was also a suspicious number of coincidences, and I refuse to do the same with Bush.
One final thought: I almost wish Bush really was as “manipulative” and “conniving” as some of you suggest since that would mean he will easily win in November. The reality is that 9-11 DID happen, and it happened to us as Americans, not because of the policies of a Republican. Bush’s response was to pre-emptively take on what he considered threats to us rather than wait for another 9-11. I have no problem with someone disagreeing that Iraq was an actual or immediate threat. But that does not mean Bush created or coldly used it for his own political or financial gain. Like him or hate him, Bush is doing this because of his convictions. Most of you will not agree, but unless you rewrite history, that is by far the most likely and consistent reason for his actions.
Jim in Iowa
“Bush lied in the state Of The Union address about Saddam & Nuclear weapons. Since he took an oath to carry out this duty faithfully, he did, in effect, lie under oath.:
I guess I forgot that we had 8 years under Bill Clinton where the definition of a lie was redefined. Unless it can be shown that Bush KNEW it was not true, it was NOT a lie. To even raise this issue now, though, shows a complete ignorance of what has happened in the last few months. Intelligence reports from other countries and sources actually suggest Bush was correct about his assertion in the first place. So Bush is still being called a liar for something that has not even been close to been proven untrue.
But, as I said, the definition of a lie has changed. Sorry, I forgot.
Jim in Iowa
“But when it is even somewhat general, then having the public alerted does have benefit.”
Jim, can you explain why you think there is a benefit to alarming the public rather than various officials? I work in NYC and there are many days I see cops with semi-automatic rifles on one corner and then never see them in the same corner again. I never question it. I just assume they know something I don’t for that day and move on. I would prefer not to know about the threats if I can do nothing about it rather than being “vigilant”. What does vigilant mean when there is an alert as opposed to no alert? Walk by the Arab with the surface to air missile on Sunday but report him on Monday?
Also lumping posters here who believe the alerts are politically motivated and manipulated with those who believe Bush lied about Iraq is silly. Perhaps many feel that way but while I believe the former, I do not believe the latter and I am a Democrat. Over time, I think we will see that the terror alert system was pointless for the public and that Iraq in the end was the right thing to do for the right reasons.
In regards to issuing terror alerts while simultaneously telling everyone to go about their lives normally, I think John Stewart said it best (as he often does). Keep in mind that I am paraphrasing here:
“Be afraid enough that you won’t vote for John Kerry, but not so afraid that you won’t vote for George Bush.”
The terror alerts don’t serve any useful purpose; the intent is to cover the ášš of the people currently in charge. I have no doubt that Democrats will continue to use them if elected. The reasoning behind them is, of course, that people complained about the lack of warning with 9/11.
Of course if you are issuing constant warnings then your butt is constantly covered. This time they came right out and named November 2nd, which basically means that if anything happens between now and election day, they can play the “I told you so!” card.
Now, personally, I am in the camp that says that you should spend more time trying to prevent the events from occurring than you should issuing vague warnings. If an attack is executed successfully, it will be meaningless to say “we told you this would happen!” That’s blaming the victim.
No matter which side of the fence you sit on, the truth of the matter is that these terror alerts have almost no affect now. In the beginning, having the alert level raised made everyone jumpy and jittery. Some people took the day off from work. Everyone was paranoid. Now people say “Gee, that’s a shame” and go about their business.
It really is “the boy who cried wolf”, as others have mentioned. I honestly believe that, in most cases, the alerts represent some real intelligence. The only blatant contradiction to that was the incredibly vague report after Edwards was announced that had no information, and during which Ridge basically told everyone that there was nothing to be afraid of. What kind of alert is that?
Anyway, though, I believe that for the most part they are not used for political purposes and the folks in Homeland Security really think that they are doing what is best. At the same time, I think the only thing that they are doing is making the American people less safe by desensitizing us to real threats.
Phinn
David Bjorlin says…
Howard Dean made the same accusation
In the interests of accuracy … no, actually, he didn’t.
Here’s the statement in question: “It’s just impossible to know how much of this is real and how much of this is politics, and I suspect there’s some of both in it.”
That is not an accusation, unless it’s an accusation of uncertainty. He didn’t claim the alert was purely or even primarily political in nature.
As such, to claim anything about Dean’s statement or various responses to it is in fact misleading the readership here. After reading more about this particular alert, this one seems based in far more specifics than most, so I’m inclined to take it a bit more seriously — but as many, many others here have pointed out, to assume there’s NO political element to these alerts seems naive to the point of willful blindness.
Mark L writes:
This election really boils down to a voter’s opinion of the Bush Doctrine. The 45% who are in Bush’s camp support preemptive strikes against terrorists and state sponsors – hit them so they don’t get a chance to hit us. The 45% in Kerry’s camp do not want preemption, they would rather use the pre-9/11 model of dealing with terrorism via law enforcement
Way, way too simplistic. Various well-populated exceptions would include:
“I guess I forgot that we had 8 years under Bill Clinton where the definition of a lie was redefined.”
Yes, and I still here people to this day say they would never vote for Clinton because he lied while in office. Most of those people ignore what he accomplished and focus on his lies during a trial that was supposed to be an investigation into real estate fraud and became a witch hunt for anything that he could be nailed for.
But I digress, and I agree with PAD’s sentiment earlier; it is an incredible double standard that we spent 5 (or is it 6?) times as much money trying to get to the bottom of Clinton’s extra-marital affairs than we have spent investingating 9/11. It’s also unusual that we hold lies about a bløw jøb to be that much more important than potential lies about the causes for war.
And whether he lied or not, the truth of the matter is that the man was wrong. There were no ties between Iraq and 9/11, and there were no weapons of mass destruction. Yes, he was a brutal dictator, but he was no worse (was in fact better than) a lot of other dictators out there. Our soldiers are dying, our enemies are growing in number, and we are no less at risk for having spent billions of dollars and our credibility attacking a country that was not a threat.
It disturbs me that people still villify Clinton for lies about whether or not he had sex (than man was impeached for refusing to admit that he let an intern go down on him!) and yet don’t consider the possibility that such horrible crimes against the world were committed by the sitting president.
And whether or not a positive goal was attained (it is still very far off) as a result of the war, the reasons for waging it (stated above) were not and never will be “the right reasons”; they will forever be the wrong ones.
Phinn
Charles,
I agree some might believe the alerts and political but think Bush did not lie. My point, though, is that when one believes Bush lied, then the strong tendency is to treat everything he says as a lie. (I know how this works. I heard friends who hated Clinton doing the same thing.)
Your first question is valid and ultimately a matter of opinion. So here is my opinion. It would be pointless to issue an alert for an individual suicide bomber such as is in Israel. It is much harder to spot, and takes far less resources to pull off. But when you are doing something to bring down a building (such as in Olkahoma) AND when you know the threat might be immediate, then it makes sense to me that a U-Haul rental person or even a casual citizen may notice something. And if that information was passed on, we might this time connect the dots.
The information this time was specific enough that I do firmly believe it was wise to do so. But let’s take the opposite side (and for the moment, try to leave the current president out of it). If the government had very specific warnings that Wall Street might be attacked and said nothing, and an attack succeeded, what do you think the public would say? Valid or not, after the fact, they would be upset that they were not warned.
In the real world, if I was making the decision, I would not be willing to risk saying nothing unless there was enough info to make a specific plan to catch the terrorists. As I said, this is a judgment call, and I think there are valid points for both sides. Of course, any action taken will by its nature have a political ramification, and it does not matter what party is in power, that party will by default do what best covers their rears.
That said, the reaction of the public today suggests this was not a bad decision. Some have complained, but you have not seen widespread panic and paranoia. Will it help? We may never know. Some have suggested that the very “threat” of terror may serve as well as the actual execution. I suggest this works both ways. The very issuing of a warning could slow down or even hinder the actions of a terrorist — and if it did, and if we never caught the terrorist — we would never know.
Jim in Iowa
PAD said:
“And let’s just say that terrorists WERE planning to ram one of the three mentioned buildings with a car bomb. By making the information public, rather than being able to–say–lay a trap for them, we instead GIVE THEM A HEADS UP.”
I agree in principle but lets all try to imagine the outrage taht would come from the families of the dead if the governemnt had info that the financial district of New York was being targeted for a car bombing and told nobody about it, hoping instead to “trap” the bombers. Imagine the gasps when a congressman holds up a memo detailing the exact street that was scoped out, the number of people in the area, the estimated causalty rate. Imagine.
And how do you trap a car bomber anyway? It’s impossible for the police force to inspect every vehicle in New York. It would take the entire army and that would tip off eevn the dumbest terrorist.
Now one could make the argument that by warning everyone about this they have now alerted the public to the degree that we now have thousands of additional people on the lookout for the kinds of activities that might be consistant with a car bomber. If the terrorists show the same level of stupidity that the original World Trade Bombers did (the idiots that blew up a car and tried to get their deposit back) all it takes is one alert person to make the big break.
Long shot/ Yes, but unless there are high tech ways of detecting bombs that I don’t know about which could be set up at the bridges, an alert population seems at least as useful in stopping this as any imaginary “trap” might be.
And again, if my daughters were killed on a street by a bomber and it turned out that someone knew about the bomb and the street…
Tim says:
“You are quite correct in that, given the wording, the statement’s not an outright lie — but I could swear this administration was the one that was going to “restore honor and dignity” to politics by not resorting to those sleazy types of lawyerly arguments.”
Just one question–which part of “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” is untrue? There is no question that the British government received such information and it is becoming increasingly likely that the information was correct. So I don’t know that it requires parsing by F.Lee Baily to make the statement truthful.
“So doing these things you are honestly saying they should have kept quiet? Tried to keep is a secret? I know you’re not stupid PAD, so I am assuming either you a. didn’t know all these facts before you posted, or b. you’re allowing your anti-bush zeal to overwhelm your better sense or c. you truly somehow believe these actions could be taken in secret, or that we should skip these actions, and try to “trap” these terrorists, and risk the lives of all the people at those 3 locations.”
No, as you say, I’m not stupid. Which is why I know that this entire endeavor is assinine.
Geraldo Rivera was castigated for drawing maps detailing troop position…and rightly so. And now Tom Ridge is doing effectively the same thing, and pointing that out is blind Bush-bashing? How about supporting such a dûmbášš move is blind Bush-supporting?
If Tom Ridge says, “We have reason to believe there’s a bomb in the Citicorp building that’s going to go off on August 2, so everybody stay the hëll home while we check it over,” not a word of criticism will you hear from me. Instead we’re told basically, “Be afraid through election day.” And voters who are afraid will either not vote or believe that Bush must be kept in office to continue to “keep America safe.” Win/win either way.
According to what I read today, they had information so detailed that they knew a specific table at a specific coffee shop that was supposed to be used as a rendezvous. Do they secretly plant a listening device there and wait, like lions in the high weeds, for the yaks to show up? No. They grab megaphones and bellow, “LIONS IN THE HIGH WEEDS OVER HERE! WE’RE JUST WAITING FOR YOU!”
If they’re going to step up security procedures, they should do it QUIETLY. Enough to protect the citizenry as best they can while hoping the terrorists will fall into their trap. For that matter, what if all the info they got was put out there specifically to draw them AWAY from where the real attack is going to be? Since the terrorists now know they can panic Americans just by putting word out, that’s really all they have to do.
Were people at those three locations at risk? Possibly. Now, though, it’s perfectly logical to think that people at three OTHER locations are at risk since the terrorists know that WE know and so can be reasonably expected to go elsewhere.
PAD
“It disturbs me that people still villify Clinton for lies about whether or not he had sex (than man was impeached for refusing to admit that he let an intern go down on him!) and yet don’t consider the possibility that such horrible crimes against the world were committed by the sitting president.”
Phinn,
Sorry, guess my sarcasm was too subtle. It does not matter why Clinton lied, the fact is that he did. I do not believe the same can be said for Bush. What bothers me more is your accusation that Bush commited horrible crimes against the world. Would you care to name them? The world (as in the United Nations) agree that Saddam was a threat and that he brutalized his people. The UN did not agree with the timing of Bush’s invasion, but that is a separate matter. The fact is, Saddam had and used WMD’s. General Frank’s new book claims he was told by Egypt that Saddam had and would use biological weapons against our forces. Bush was also very careful to not say that Iraq was behind 9-11. Give me one quote where he does so? The claims of links to al qauda (sp?)were made, but that is a different matter.
Since there is such a consistent rewriting of history, let me quote the following:
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
– President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
– President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
– Madeline Albright,! Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
– Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
I continue to be amazed at how by implication Bush is made out to be worse than a murderous dictator. Bush has NOT commited crimes against the world. He has acted to bring freedom to Iraq and security to America. His actions have been careful every step of the way to take as few lives as possible. I believe to have taken no action would have led to a far greater loss of life. (Even if you assume he would have never attacked America, the fact remains that far more would have died under Saddam than have died in the course of our war.)
Jim in Iowa
I notice no one refuting Michael Moore’s claim that the terrorism alert status will never go down to green. Ever.
So? What’s your point? I haven’t seen anyone reset the nuclear clock back to one o’clock either. Ever since I’ve ever heard of the stupid thing, it’s been between 5 to 15 minurtes to midnight. And really what the hëll does it do?
Same thing with the Ozone codes.
“Were people at those three locations at risk? Possibly. Now, though, it’s perfectly logical to think that people at three OTHER locations are at risk since the terrorists know that WE know and so can be reasonably expected to go elsewhere.”
Yeah, but you know something? If I worked in one of those three buildings, I’d want to know. Period. Yes, it might put someone, somewhere else at risk, but I think all we can do as humans is warn and protect what we know about. To not do so is a decisions I couldn’t make. Maybe it is a choice of ends vs. means. I’m not sure. I just couldn’t make that call to not warn people about something we knew about. Maybe a president should be able to make that call, is what you’re saying?
Now I agree that we hear about these “terror warnings” or “threat levels” too often. I just think todays was specific enough, it was called for.
Jerry
Bill,
Just one question–which part of “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” is untrue?
The word “learned”. One cannot “learn” an item that is not yet accepted as true. (Well, not in any reasonable sense of the word, anyway.)
Saying that “well, it’s looking likely nowadays that they were right” is a post hoc rationalization. The information was ambiguous at best at the time. Joe Wilson’s made that clear, and George Tenet said something similar at the time. (Both have been lifelong Republicans by all accounts, for the record.)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You want to send my friends and family to die in a war? You better prove to ANYONE watching that it’s absolutely necessary beyond any and all doubts.
This was not done. This is not to the administration’s credit.
TWL
Jim,
Bush has NOT commited crimes against the world. He has acted to bring freedom to Iraq and security to America.
“Freedom to Iraq”.
Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed as a direct result of our efforts since March 2003. I guess that’s one sort of freedom.
The interim head of Iraq, Iyad Allawi, was head of an exile group that worked to plant bombs in Baghdad during Saddam’s reign, and has personally executed insurgents since coming to power now. Seems to me that we’ve traded one strongman for another. (And apparently car-bombs are fine if they help take out people we don’t like.)
“Security to America.”
Show of hands, please: how many people feel more secure right now?
I feel neither safer from terror nor safer from my own government under this administration — and I’m far from alone in that sentiment, Jim.
Since one of the administration’s big claims these days is that they’re exporting democracy … can you name any country where a majority of the population supports Bush’s security policy? The U.S. doesn’t have a majority. The coalition of the shilling has been dropping more than a few members of late. Our allegedly stalwart allies such as Britain and Australia are facing massive popular opposition. Jose Maria Aznar has already lost his job over Iraq.
Invading Iraq, combined with the complete and utter lack of attention to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, has generated far more terrorists than it’s killed off. Every time we bomb a wedding, that’s a thousand more people willing to die if it hurts America. Every time more news comes out of Abu Ghraib (and the worst is yet to come there), that’s another ten thousand.
Meanwhile, we’re getting terror alert after terror alert here, have been advised not to travel to several Middle East countries, and are generally being told to keep an eye on anyone acting as though they are Not of the Body. The Patriot Act was just recently used to invade the home of someone running a Stargate fan site — you want to explain to me how that’s an anti-terrorist action on their part?
I don’t doubt that Bush is taking actions he believes will make America safer — but to understand what the effect on our country’s safety is likely to be, you need to understand the rest of the world. He has no interest in doing such; he lives in his bubble, kept safe from bad thoughts like having to read newspapers, and makes his decisions based on nothing more than what his gut and his advisors say.
That is not someone I want running any country. Especially mine.
TWL
TWL wrote:
David Bjorlin says…
Howard Dean made the same accusation
In the interests of accuracy … no, actually, he didn’t.
Here’s the statement in question: “It’s just impossible to know how much of this is real and how much of this is politics, and I suspect there’s some of both in it.”
That is not an accusation, unless it’s an accusation of uncertainty. He didn’t claim the alert was purely or even primarily political in nature.
Also in the interests of accuracy, here’s the full quote in context, courtesy of CNN.com:
In an interview on CNN’s “Late Edition,” Dean said he was “concerned that every time something happens that’s not good for President Bush, he plays this trump card, which is terrorism.”
“His whole campaign is based on the notion that ‘I can keep you safe, therefore, in times of difficulty in America, stick with me,’ ” Dean said.
“It’s just impossible to know how much of this is real and how much of this is politics, and I suspect there’s some of both.”
I believe that if you include the remark that “every time something happens that’s not good for President Bush, he plays this trump card, which is terrorism” then I represented the tenor of his comments correctly. I said that Dean was taking essentially the same position as PAD, which was to imply that the alert was likely (not certainly, but likely) to be a political maneuver as much as or more than a genuine warning. I believe that’s an accurate assessment of both men’s positions.
PAD’s more recent point, that the Feds should run a sting instead of revealing the enemy operation in public, is something altogether different. Even if you accept the Kerry position that terrorism is essentially a law enforcement problem, that’s a bad tactic. You run stings to catch counterfeiters, or drug dealers, or deranged husbands hiring hit men to take out their wives. You arrest violently criminal people without stings, because putting armed men in the vicinity of their targets is generally a bad idea. Add to that the fact that we don’t have a time frame on this threat; do we know if there was even time to set up a sting? If the plot was supposed to go off today, then the guys staking out the coffee shop down the street would have been wasting their time, while the people in the target zone were walking in unaware. As to the other point, Bloomberg and the Police Commissioner addressed the possibility that the intel was a diversion, so that possibility actually has occurred to people in government.
David:
Also in the interests of accuracy, here’s the full quote in context, courtesy of CNN.com:
[quote snipped for space]
I believe that if you include the remark that “every time something happens that’s not good for President Bush, he plays this trump card, which is terrorism” then I represented the tenor of his comments correctly. I said that Dean was taking essentially the same position as PAD, which was to imply that the alert was likely (not certainly, but likely) to be a political maneuver as much as or more than a genuine warning. I believe that’s an accurate assessment of both men’s positions.
I think it’s still overstating Dean’s case somewhat, but not nearly so much as I thought before without seeing the full text. Objection withdrawn, counselor. 🙂 (Or at least toned down substantially.)
TWL
Tim,
Where, exactly, do you get the figure that “tens of thousands” have been killed? I do not doubt the figure is higher than anyone would like, but anytime you go to war, people die. That is what war is about.
Every struggle for freedom has been costly, and innocent civilians are not immune. I can say this: Iraq is far more free today than it was before our invasion. The proof? The daily attacks. They would NEVER have happened like this under Saddam. He would not even have worried about getting the right person. He would have just hauled in family after family and executed until they stopped. (That is not an assumption. That is essentially what he did while in power.) So while it is not perfect, there is no question that there is truly more freedom now than before. And with freedom comes the risk of people choosing to reject it. There is a lot of work still to be done so that they don’t revert back to something similar or even worse, but there is truly more freedom today.
(By the way, do your figures include the brutal deaths being done against their own people today as car bombs explode, etc? There may be tragic mistakes such as bombing a wedding, but we do NOT target civilians in this way.)
I understand you do not feel what Bush is doing is making us safer. I disagree. These problems did not begin with the Bush presidency, and I think he is doing the best he can. But even if you are right, that is far different that what many on this site claim, that Bush is deliberately lying, etc. That is what I was responding to, their maligning the reasons *why* he was doing it, not to your disapproval of *how* he is doing it. You both would vote against Bush, but I find your viewpoint more based on facts than just an attack on Bush.
Jim in Iowa
“Show of hands, please: how many people feel more secure right now?”
Tim,
To answer your question, I do. And I am not alone either. The threat is not gone, but I feel I am far safer than if Gore or Kerry were president.
As I said above, I have no problem if you disagree. Just disagree based on facts, not just on an attack on Bush.
Jim
Jim,
Where, exactly, do you get the figure that “tens of
thousands” have been killed?
The most immediate source would be http://www.iraqbodycount.net , which has about 12,000 as an estimate. (I’ll grant that’s not “tens of thousands” — I misremembered that slightly. Sorry ’bout that.)
The Christian Science Monitor gave a number in the 8K-11K range at the end of March. [http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0331/p15s01-wogi.html ]
I do not doubt the figure is higher than anyone would like, but anytime you go to war, people die. That is what war is about.
Which rather nicely argues against going to war under false pretenses or with bad information, doesn’t it? 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.
I can say this: Iraq is far more free today than it was before our invasion.
Would the Iraqis themselves agree? More importantly, would they feel that was worth it? I can think of about 11,000 who’d vote no on the spot — how many “yes” votes you got?
Perhaps even more importantly than that — “giving the Iraqis freedom” is not and never was the reason we were given for taking the US into this war in the first place. Had that been the argument, Congress would never have granted Bush the authorization they did. (At least, a sizable number of senators have said they’d have voted differently.) The argument given was that Saddam was an immediate threat to the safety of the US and its people.
That argument is at this point clearly false. “Freedom” wasn’t the point.
And even if it were … why exactly is it our job to go around giving freedom to every country in the globe? I’m far from an isolationist, but it seems to me that we should really let that be the call of the country in question, not us. The Iraqi people did not ask for our help, the surrounding region did not ask for our help, and the UN quite clearly did not welcome our “help.”
We went in because we wanted to go in (pick whatever set of justifications you like), and because we could. That is not the country I grew up learning about, and it’s not the country I value.
Killing and torturing Iraqis in the name of giving them freedom is rather like fûçkìņg in the name of chastity. (Or, since you’re here and probably a sci-fi fan, akin to the 1980 Flash Gordon film’s “All people shall make merry … under pain of death.”)
I understand you do not feel what Bush is doing is making us safer. I disagree. These problems did not begin with the Bush presidency, and I think he is doing the best he can.
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.
But even if you are right, that is far different that what many on this site claim, that Bush is deliberately lying, etc. That is what I was responding to, their maligning the reasons *why* he was doing it, not to your disapproval of *how* he is doing it. You both would vote against Bush, but I find your viewpoint more based on facts than just an attack on Bush.
An awful lot of people here have those same facts, Jim. I’m just the one who bothered to dig them up for you. Peter’s not an irrational person who decides things solely on bias. Nor are most other folks here. I find it a smidge condescending that you assume most anti-Bush folks here are doing it out of personal bias rather than an actual examination of the situation.
TWL
“Where, exactly, do you get the figure that “tens of thousands” have been killed”
Here’s a few sources:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=iraqi+body+count
One Iraqi puts the number as high as 37,000
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/66E32EAF-0E4E-4765-9339-594C323A777F.htm
“I guess the administration decided that it was time to drive the DNC from peoples minds.”
I think the Democratic Convention itself sorta did that for them.
Tim says:
“The word “learned”. One cannot “learn” an item that is not yet accepted as true. (Well, not in any reasonable sense of the word, anyway.)”
That’s pretty weak, IMO. By that standard it would be difficult to ever learn anything in the intelligence business. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
Bill,
That’s pretty weak, IMO.
Granted. Bush/Cheney have been very careful to avoid outright lies — like the Iraq-9/11 linkage, it’s all insinuation and creating links in people’s minds rather than on the page. The context of the “sixteen words” in the SOTU was “holy šhìŧ, we need to act now or we’re all gonna dieeeeeeee”, and that context was and is obvious bûllšhìŧ — but the wording is slippery enough that it’s not impeachable.
Clinton should be awfully jealous.
By that standard it would be difficult to ever learn anything in the intelligence business.
Oh, there I disagree. Intelligence can be and is verified all the time. We’re looking for “preponderance of evidence” here, not “carved on stone tablets” — despite how well the latter fits in with other policies.
We’ll have to agree to disagree.
Fine.
TWL
By the way, this link is required reading for all who think we’re bringing “freedom” to Iraq. As a friend put it, “if it’s American to make excuses for this, then I’m not American.”
Forget Bush. Forget Kerry. Why is this something ANY American isn’t ready to take leaders to task for?
http://www.sundayherald.com/43796
TWL
PAD’s more recent point, that the Feds should run a sting instead of revealing the enemy operation in public, is something altogether different. Even if you accept the Kerry position that terrorism is essentially a law enforcement problem, that’s a bad tactic. You run stings to catch counterfeiters, or drug dealers, or deranged husbands hiring hit men to take out their wives. You arrest violently criminal people without stings, because putting armed men in the vicinity of their targets is generally a bad idea. Add to that the fact that we don’t have a time frame on this threat; do we know if there was even time to set up a sting? If the plot was supposed to go off today, then the guys staking out the coffee shop down the street would have been wasting their time, while the people in the target zone were walking in unaware. As to the other point, Bloomberg and the Police Commissioner addressed the possibility that the intel was a diversion, so that possibility actually has occurred to people in government.
I would prefer that this sort of thinking would occur higher in the government. I don;t feel confident that this sort of thinking IS going on in the upper levels of government.
As far as tactics are concerned, I’m sorry, but I disagree. We are talking about not allowing the enemy the extent of your information gathering capabilities…which is entirely a military and intelligence strategy. We are talking about effective ways to thwart terrorists, right?
I’d feel differently if this were a disinformation campaign, but I have no confidence in this Administration’s ability to handle such a relatively simple strategy.
Tim, your Herald story link, while disgusting, does not condemn the whole operation any more than the original Abu Ghraib “scandal” did. Yes, if this story is true and Americans are doing these things to children, or anyone, it’s apalling and should be dealt with accordingly. But the truth is that the coalition has freed Iraq from Saddam, a man who routinely allowed such behavior to occur far more frequently and engaged in such behaviour himself (along with his sons). The perpetrators of the crimes in the Herald story will get far more justice thrust upon them than and of Saddam’s rapists did during his time in power.
That last line should read “The perpetrators of the crimes in the Herald story will get far more justice thrust upon them than ANY of Saddam’s rapists did during his time in power.”
Tim,
I would argue that freedom was a central point of the war. A free, democratic Iraq would serve to bring an unheard of stability to the region. 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. Far from it. Many of those deaths were soldiers. Many others died because of the actions of those enemy soldiers. By many accounts, there are many who are glad for the freedom. They don’t want us there any longer (which is understandable), but they are very glad Saddam is gone.
Bottom line, freedom is the tool to bring about a new Middle East. Will it work? Obviously no one knows. But other than Israel, there is NO free society in the Middle East. And freedom is always worth it.
“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. See the quotes I posted above. Until our invasion showed that the WMD’s had been moved, hidden, or destroyed, Democrats and Republicans both believed Saddam was a clear threat. This looking back in hindsight is stupid. Yes, we do know better now what is going on. But no one, Democrat or Republican, knew any of this before the war. September 11 demonstrated the danger of waiting until we were actually attacked. He felt (right or wrong) that Iraq was a clear and present threat. He acted. There are plenty of things we would do different now that we have torn down the corrupt regime (sp?) and seen that the tiger was apparently toothless. But I believe we could not take that risk.
My point remains: Bush did not create Saddam. He was around for many administrations. G W Bush is just the one who decided we could not wait for him to attack us first.
“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? He has looked parents in the eye. He has looked the country in the eye. Bush DOES believe every American death — and every Iraqi death — while tragic was both justified and the last resort.
Let me repeat myself. Saddam invaded another country. Saddam gassed thousands of people. Saddam murdered and tortured thousands of people. Saddam shot at our airplanes (which were enforcing a no fly zone to prevent him from killing even more innocent people) almost daily. Saddam took money from the oil for food program out of the mouths of kids and built more palaces for himself. Saddam clearly had and used WMD’s. (See the quotes of Democrats stating exactly this that I posted above.) Saddam was actively seeking materials to make WMD’s. What more reason do you want?
“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. We are not willfully killing and torturing Iraqis in the name of freedom any more than a cop shooting an armed bank robber is doing so. Go read about most wars throughout history. We have accomplished much with a very minimal loss of civlian life. Your analogy is invalid and based on a false premise. 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 don’t make excuses for the abuses that have occured. But I also don’t make excuses for the schools that have been opened, the hospitals that now have what they need, and the children who no longer live under the threat of a brutal dictator. Those who do commit abuses will not go unpunished as they did under Saddam.
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. But I am sure I will post again.
Jim in Iowa
the point of lying or not about WMD is moot after Bush
>>”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. We are not willfully killing and torturing Iraqis in the name of freedom any more than a cop shooting an armed bank robber is doing so.
I disagree. The big difference is that police officers are trained not to fire or attempt to kill bank robber unless 1) They have a clear chost and won’t hit civilians. 2) They have taken the time necessary to properly assess the situation. Any offier willfully disoberying this training is subject to harsh discipline.
Prozac Man, I saw the quote too and it is another very blatant reminder of why this man needs to go. Again proving one or both of two things to me:
1) The man can never admit a mistake and continues to cover them up instead of being a man and a moral leader who admits mistakes.
2) He had ulterior motives with Iraq and a plan to invade well before the “threat” was presented to us. Documents and official records proved this last year.
Sorry, that’ll teach me to post right after waking up. My first point should read “having a clear shot”.
(We are willfully killing and torturing innocent Iraqis in the form of collateral damage. It was and is known that these people would die. It was and continues to be acceptable by the administration as being for “the greater good”, whatever that is.
Bleh, now I see they’re saying this information is 3 years old…
Gonna have to see the official response to that rumor.
The most immediate source would be http://www.iraqbodycount.net , which has about 12,000 as an estimate. (I’ll grant that’s not “tens of thousands” — I misremembered that slightly. Sorry ’bout that.)
Actually, I have a huge problem with that site and their methodology. They ascribe any civilian death other than natural causes or old age to the Iraq war and blame the US Coalition because it’s the occupying force. So every death that the terrorists cause gets attributed to the Coalition body count, including, incidentally, any terrorists killed in the attack.
This isn’t unlike the Iraq body count that was into the millions because of US led sanctions against Iraq, even though the UN had eased the sanctions and was allowing Iraq to sell “Oil For Food” and medicines. But we know now where that money was being diverted to, cdon’t we? But the US still gets the blame.
“I disagree. The big difference is that police officers are trained not to fire or attempt to kill bank robber unless 1) They have a clear chost and won’t hit civilians. 2) They have taken the time necessary to properly assess the situation. Any offier willfully disoberying this training is subject to harsh discipline.”
And I disagree, though I used the wrong analogy. Our problem is that there are two very different ways of approaching this. One way is to look at it as a “police” action where yes, you do take every precaution. But even here in America, if hostages are being executed, the police often move in to save as many as they can. And sometimes someone does die by friendly fire. But many more are saved.
However, this is NOT a police action. This is a war. When we were at war with Germany or Japan in WW2, most attacks led to colateral damage. The bombing of factories, etc., killed civilians. The dropping of bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasoki (sp??) clearly killed civilians (and I understand why some disagree with the decision). But my point remains valid. Saddam was killing people for kicks and to maintain his own personal power. Though some may claim that about Bush, I don’t think it is the case. He is doing all of this to protect the US, first and foremost. Freedom for Iraq is even secondary to this.
Bottom line, in a war stituation (and that is what is going on whether we want to admit it or not), the rules are different. You have to make hard choices. And there are times when you reluctantly take actions that may lead to the deaths of a few innocent people.
I realize I am wasting my breath if some of you see no difference between us and Saddam or any other dictator.
Jim in Iowa
“if some of you see no difference between us and Saddam or any other dictator.”
Yes there is a difference – Under Saddam the Iraqi people had jobs, electricity, water, hospitals, and no daily ‘insurgent’ attacks.
Other than that, the Iraqi people are still being rounded up, jailed, tortured, raped, and have no choice in who is running their government.
“We must take action. Be bold, positive, decisive. Suggest we move from blue alert to red alert, sir.”
“Forget red! Let’s go all the way up to brown alert!”
“But there’s no such thing as brown alert, sir.
“You won’t be saying that in a minute. And don’t say I didn’t alert you!”
Did you hear the news? Tom Ridge just announced that the Department of Fatherland Security has reliable information that the Japanese are planning a surprise attack on a US military base somewhere in the Pacific theater.
FYI: From Newsday.com — The terror alert was raised based on the combination of old data with recent intelligence of a timetable. I know some of you will still think it is politically timed. However, I seriously doubt anyone on this site has access to the actual intelligence as to why it was raised, and I do think the Homeland Security is smart enough to say everything we know. In other words, things are not always the way that they appear (and yes, I know that can cut both ways!).
BY KNUT ROYCE
WASHINGTON BUREAU
August 3, 2004
WASHINGTON — More financial institutions than previously disclosed may be at risk of attack, and an al-Qaida operative has told British intelligence that the group’s target date is early September, intelligence sources said yesterday.
The operative, described as “credible” by British intelligence, told his debriefers that the attack would take place “60 days before the presidential election” on Nov. 2, according to a former senior National Security Council official. On Sept. 2 President George W. Bush is expected to address the Republican National Convention at Madison Square Garden.
Jim in Iowa
“Did you hear the news? Tom Ridge just announced that the Department of Fatherland Security has reliable information that the Japanese are planning a surprise attack on a US military base somewhere in the Pacific theater.”
Once again, it looks as though the President’s opponents in the press have groped for something they can trump up as something negative. The truth is that the laptop our boys acquired is a treasure trove of data, only some of which has been verified as being 3-4 years old. Given that the 9-11 attack was something planned ten years prior and that Al Qaida often updates old data just prior to attacks (as they did with 9-11), there’s nothing wrong with acting upon the data that’s been acquired. But that’s irrelevent to the New York Times, of course.
“Yes there is a difference – Under Saddam the Iraqi people had jobs, electricity, water, hospitals, and no daily ‘insurgent’ attacks.
“Other than that, the Iraqi people are still being rounded up, jailed, tortured, raped, and have no choice in who is running their government.”
The first list was also true under communism, but they were not free. Furthermore, they do have electricity, water, and hospitals today, and it is more stable than under Saddam except for when it is attacked. One of the misrepresentations of the media is in this very area. Things were not great under Saddam. They were stable, but not great. Now they are not stable, but they are improving.
It is also crucial to note that we are NOT suppressing (sp??) the general population to prevent attacks. On the contrary, while the majority want us to leave, there is no armed movement going on. There are a few, including the radical groups that lost power or want to gain power, and outside terrorists, who are the insugents. We are not primarily fighting Iraqi’s who are fighting for freedom, we are fighting factions that want to take up where Saddam left off.
Your last paragraph does not even deserve a response. If you truly think we are rounding up people like Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, and others used to do in order to torture, rape, etc., than nothing I can say will change your mind. That does not excuse or ignore that crimes have been done by a few. That does not gloss over the fact that when you do have insurgents blowing up carbombs, you may mistakenly imprison people who are innocent while trying to stop the attacks. That is worlds apart from systematically imprisoning people for the sole purpose of striking fear and terror.
Jim in Iowa
Ooops, typo (or brain freeze, whatever).
I wrote: “and I do think the Homeland Security is smart enough to say everything we know.”
I meant to say “and I do think the Homeland Security is smart enough to *NOT* say everything they know.”
Jim in Iowa
“That does not excuse or ignore that crimes have been done by a few”
When the orders/authorizations/justifications come from on high (Bush, Rumsfeld, Deptartmant Of Justice), then it is a matter of more than a few. It is a government sanctioned act just as it was under Saddam.
“you may mistakenly imprison people who are innocent while trying to stop the attacks”
I’m sure Saddam can make the same argument. Just because we say we’re the good guys doesn’t make it any more acceptable for us to do it than when someone else does it.
“it is more stable than under Saddam except for when it is attacked”
Which is every day. Which did not happen under Saddam. This is like saying that California is very stable, except when it has earthquakes. Or There is less crime than ever before – except when someone gets mugged.
“it is more stable than under Saddam except for when it is attacked. … Things were not great under Saddam. They were stable, but not great. Now they are not stable … “
What?
“there is no armed movement going on”
Except for entire towns uprising, and blood enemies uniting against a common invader.
I hope those of you who listen to Fox news religiously will watch “Outfoxed”. I don’t mind that they hammered Clinton unmercifully or that they are cheerleaders for this administration. It really irritates me that they keep saying they are “fair and balanced” and unbiased. Those of you who get all your news from them should know there are other points of view about this administrations activiites. Why do I bring this up? Because some of you are buying everything the administration tells us without filtering the BS (just like Fox).
Just out of interest are the people who set the terror alerts the same ones who said that Iraq had WMD that were a serious threat to the United States. This is a serious question, how do you trust your government? What have they done to earn your respect except put you in fear?
“Just out of interest are the people who set the terror alerts the same ones who said that Iraq had WMD that were a serious threat to the United States.”
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.
Posted by Prozac Man at August 3, 2004 02:18 AM
“(Any one know a web sight that post transcripts of the presidents press conferences?)”
Go to:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/radio/
“Posted by JW in Iowa at August 2, 2004 03:19 PM
I am beginning to wonder if it is even possible for you Bush antagonists to even consider the possibility that the terror alerts are not just politically motivated. Once you make the huge leap that Bush “lied” about the WMD’s, I guess you then extrapolate that he would also lie about a possible threat to our security here.
I have yet to see ANY evidence that Bush deliberately lied, misled, or deceived us about the WMD’s.
Bush saw what he wanted to see (which is worlds apart from saying he deliberately misled, deceived, etc.).”
When a leader of a nation misleads the public into a war with information that is faulty then whether one is convinced that he lied or that his intelligence gathering system has no merit, then yes, the tendency is to question and doubt any statements made past that point.
After 9-11 the US was in a unique position to garner the cooperation of the world due to the extraordinary outpouring of sympathy and compassion for the attack here. That quickly changed when Bush began making rumblings of war towards Iraq and resolutely refused to listen to give creedance to the opinions and concerns of our allies. Now the opportunity to use that global show of outrage towards the terrorist acts is gone and with it, I fear, our opportunity to find and bring Bin Laden to justice.
Bush did not, as someone stated earlier, try every other option before attacking. Perhaps if he and Blair had not been so anxious to flex their muscles the true status of the imagined WMD might have been discovered, leaving us with the ability to work in a global community that now views us with disdain.
“Posted by JW in Iowa at August 2, 2004 03:19 PM
I am beginning to wonder if it is even possible for you Bush antagonists to even consider the possibility that the terror alerts are not just politically motivated. Once you make the huge leap that Bush “lied” about the WMD’s, I guess you then extrapolate that he would also lie about a possible threat to our security here.
I have yet to see ANY evidence that Bush deliberately lied, misled, or deceived us about the WMD’s.
Bush saw what he wanted to see (which is worlds apart from saying he deliberately misled, deceived, etc.).”
When a leader of a nation misleads the public into a war with information that is faulty then whether one is convinced that he lied or that his intelligence gathering system has no merit, then yes, the tendency is to question and doubt any statements made past that point.
After 9-11 the US was in a unique position to garner the cooperation of the world due to the extraordinary outpouring of sympathy and compassion for the attack here. That quickly changed when Bush began making rumblings of war towards Iraq and resolutely refused to listen to give creedance to the opinions and concerns of our allies. Now the opportunity to use that global show of outrage towards the terrorist acts is gone and with it, I fear, our opportunity to find and bring Bin Laden to justice.
Bush did not, as someone stated earlier, try every other option before attacking. Perhaps if he and Blair had not been so anxious to flex their muscles the true status of the imagined WMD might have been discovered, leaving us with the ability to work in a global community that now views us with disdain.
Apologies for the double posting.
Thanks for the link Catori
Here is the exact quote along with the question asked.
“Last question. Deans.
Q Yes, sir. Mr. President, would you say — can you say what you regard as the model for this National Intelligence Director? Is it the Fed, would it be the Joint Chiefs of Staff? And in what way would this new structure prevent the kind of intelligence failings that preceded the war in Iraq with respect to weapons, difficulty of the opposition faced, and those sorts of things?
THE PRESIDENT: Not like the Fed. More like the Joint Chiefs, because the Joint Chiefs have got a — even though not a part of the chain of command, they are affected by the chain of command.
And the second part of the — oh, why would this — listen, let me talk about the intelligence in Iraq. First of all, we all thought we would find stockpiles of weapons. We may still find weapons. We haven’t found them yet. Every person standing up here would say, gosh, we thought it was going to be different, as did the Congress, by the way, members of both parties, and the United Nations. But what we do know is that Saddam Hussein had the capability of making weapons.
And let me just say this to you: Knowing what I know today, we still would have gone on into Iraq. We still would have gone to make our country more secure. He had the capability of making weapons. He had terrorist ties. The decision I made was the right decision. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power. And I find it interesting, in the political process, that some say, well, I voted for the intelligence, and now they won’t say whether or not it was the right decision to take Saddam Hussein out. It’s the right decision, and the world is better off for it.
Listen, thank you all.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040802-2.html