Misdirection is the most fundamental of stage magic arts. When you want to accomplish something that you don’t want the audience to see or understand, you distract their attention elsewhere.
It was something that GWB thoroughly mastered in his first four years. Using misdirection to draw the public’s attention away from his failure to find bin Laden, he and his Neocons used Iraq in what Jon Stewart correctly referred to as “Operation: Re-elect Bush.” To draw the public’s attention away from the fact that Iraq was not a threat to the US, he managed to say “9/11” and “Saddam” in the same breath so many times that the majority of Americans became convinced they were linked. Misdirection. He waved his right hand widely and sweepingly and drew America’s attention away from his true motivations neatly tucked in his other hand. And it worked.
But now we’re into bad misdirection. Because his recent speech could have been delivered a year ago, as if the ongoing war (it’s not an insurgency; it’s a war. Let’s call it what it is) hadn’t happened. As if dead Americans weren’t piling up like cordwood, and weren’t going to be doing so for the foreseeable future. Now the problem is that instead of being distracted by the deftly moving right hand, people are starting to say, “Wait…what’s he got in his left hand?” Bush’s response? A speech that basically shouts, “Look at my right hand! See? Right hand, over here! Look at it, look at it!” His attempts to link 9/11 and Iraq yet again, at a time when more and more Americans are starting to realize that there is no link, are more pathetically obvious than ever before. His manipulation of a shell-shocked America and his naked politicizing of the terrorist strike at the WTC by using it to support a long-standing Neocon war initiative remains one of the most ugly moments in recent presidential history. I think it ironic that Democrats get slammed for invoking Nazi Germany while Bush and his pals continue to invoke 9/11 to support everything from a flag burning amendment to an unnecessary war.
The absolute lowpoint was the following:
“Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: “This Third World War is raging” in Iraq.”
Am I the only one who finds this a hoot? What the hëll has the world come to when we consider this: The credibility of the President of the United States is so non-existent, that if we won’t take his word for it that the Iraq war was a necessary strike against terrorism, certainly we’ll take the word of a murdering sociopath with the blood of three thousand Americans on his hands. Yes, that’s right, kids: George W. Bush apparently believes that the words of Osama bin Laden have more street cred than his own.
Bush will always have his apologists, of course. Those who embrace the oldest rationalization of all, namely that the ends justifies the means. Karl Rove can try to shift blame to the Democrats all he wants. But the trickery is becoming more obvious, the misdirection more obvious, and the curtain more frayed.
Most people can quote Lincoln saying “It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all the time.” But what is less known is the sentence right before that: “If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem.”
Presto.
PAD
• 
“Understand now?”
Oh, I understand. I understand that your whole argument rests upon shouting “liar, liar pants on fire,” when in fact you don’t understand what it means to tell a lie.
Christine: If we attempted to overthrow all of our “enemies” we’d be the worse for wear.”
If you attempt to get rid of every bit last of dirt in your house, you’d be the worse for wear. So why do you bother vacuuming all the time?
It’s only a matter of time when the school yard bully will get beaten up by the other kids ganging together.
Nonsense. The world is not about to attack us, and the world is not a schoolyard.
How many countries do you think are wondering “Are we next?”
Hopefully, ALL of them — if they wish us harm!
I don’t think you’d find many fans of SH here, and I do think Iraq will be better off without him. But the time to do that was back when Bush Sr. was in office and we had ALL of our allies with us.
Yes. I’m sure that back then, you were DEMANDING that we enter Baghdad and oust Sadaam. Right Christine? Were you demanding that?
Unfortunately, the way “junior” handled it cause more hard feelings with other countries.
You mean Germany and France, who loved the money Sadaam was bribing them with, and didn’t care a bit about the people of Iraq? They hate us? Too bad — for them.
Not exactly the wisest course of actions, especially if we want to be welcome in the playground.
There would BE no “playground” without us. And you are exactly wrong — it IS the wisest course of action.
To Robert Fuller:
“Liar, liar pants on fire!”
“Liar, liar pants on fire!”
“Liar, liar pants on fire!”
Love, X-Ray
P.S. What does it mean to tell a lie?
Michael Brunner: “I vote we all refer to Bush as “The Child-president” from now on.”
You got it!
THE CHILD PRESIDENT SUCKS!
he connection between the Iraq war and September 11 was made explicit in the text of the Congressional resolution that authorized military action in Iraq.
Some excerpts:
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Note that the resolution puts the Iraq war in the context of September 11 without saying that Iraq was involved in those attacks; it recites what was indisputably true–that Iraq harbored members of al Qaeda.
a) Ansar al Islam, an al Qaeda branch, manufactured ricin for use in attacks on Europe.
b) Saddam hosted al Qaeda’s number two leader, Zawahiri, in the 1990s.
c) Saddam harbored, and put on a government pension, one of the few perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing who escaped apprehension.
d) Saddam harbored Abu Nidal, once the world’s most famous terrorist, until, for reasons that remain mysterious, Saddam apparently had him murdered shortly before the war began.
e) Saddam harbored Abu Abbas, organizer of the Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking in 1984; Abbas was captured in Iraq during the first days of the war.
e) Zarqawi, the world’s most deadly terrorist, fled Afghanistan when the Taliban fell at the end of 2001 and went to Iraq. Why? Because he knew that terrorists were welcome under Saddam.
f) From Iraq, Zarqawi organized the murder of American diplomat Lawrence Foley in Jordan.
g) From Iraq, Zarqawi organized and financed a chemical weapons attack on Jordan that could have killed tens of thousands. The perpetrators of that scheme are now on trial in Jordan.
h) Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers to encourage terrorist attacks against Israel.
Yet the Democrats now claim that it is unconscionable for President Bush to link our military action in Iraq to 9/11 and the war on terrorism. What the Democrats really mean is that it is unconscionable for Bush to keep mentioning an issue that has cost them back-to-back elections because they can’t convince the public they are sufficiently serious about it.
One would think that administration critics like Joe Biden, John Kerry, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer would remember what was in the resolution, since they voted for it. I can understand why it would be convenient for the Democrats to forget that the resolution that authorized the Iraq war specifically and repeatedly linked the rationale for that war to the September 11 attacks. It is not so clear why mainstream reporters and commentators are so willing to share the Democrats’ amnesia.
Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?
“You can’t agrue with Bush. Back him into a corner and he just changes the concept of his entire POV on a dime. Doesn’t seem to matter that it often is at odds with the POV he held seconds before.”
In that respect he’s a lot like our ex-and thoroughly loathed-Prime Minister, Lyin’ Brian Mulroney who once held a press conference and, when questioned by a reporter about something he’d just said, first denied having said it, then said it again.
“We kicked total ášš in Grenada…”
Ah yes, the military campaign which was voted [in a documentary on such blunders] the worst military blunder in history because, although it was deemed a success by the administration, had more screwups than one could count and, worst of all, even more so than the Iraq thing, had no reason for having taken place to begin with. Ostensibly a ‘rescue mission’, this came as a surprise to those being ‘rescued’ as they later confided they’d been perfectly all right, in no danger whatsoever, imminent or otherwise, until the ‘rescuers’ came storming in, guns drawn.
Hillary has one thing going against her.
A politician is a creature of ambition, especially those vying for higher office. But some wear it better than others. Hillary’s blatant lust for power won’t sit well with some people. After all, the only reason she didn’t split from Bill and tolerated his infidelities was that she’d probably have had to leave the White House, something she’d rather die than do. And there are people who are unpleasantly aware of this. They do recall the old saw about those who seek power over their fellow men should under no account be allowed near it.
Well, this will be my last response to X-ray as reading the vowel-less posts are making my eyes cross
To answer what I think your question was – Yes, at the time, I did want Sr (and our allies) to remove Saddam from power.
If they had done, I believe -rightly or wrongly- that we wouldn’t be in the fine mess we are now.
But then again, you’ll probably say that I am “xctly wrng” again! LOL
Adios X-Ray.
‘”We kicked total ášš in Grenada…”
Ah yes, the military campaign which was voted [in a documentary on such blunders] the worst military blunder in history because, although it was deemed a success by the administration, had more screwups than one could count and, worst of all, even more so than the Iraq thing, had no reason for having taken place to begin with. Ostensibly a ‘rescue mission’, this came as a surprise to those being ‘rescued’ as they later confided they’d been perfectly all right, in no danger whatsoever, imminent or otherwise, until the ‘rescuers’ came storming in, guns drawn.’
Wolf: I do trust you realize I was being completely tongue in cheek about our grand military success on the Caribbean island paradise (and notorious hangout for Communist ne’er do wells that like to capture med students and hold them hostage, yet do it so subtly none of them actually realize they are being held hostage) known as Grenada.
What the Democrats really mean is that it is unconscionable for Bush to keep mentioning an issue that has cost them back-to-back elections because they can’t convince the public they are sufficiently serious about it.
Oh give me a break. This war was built with bricks of lies, and Bush is the bricklayer.
I think the public are sufficiently stupid enough to believe anything Bush says, even when he’s lying through his teeth.
Hillary’s blatant lust for power won’t sit well with some people.
No, it probably won’t.
Bush’s blatant lust for power (and destruction) didn’t sit well with over 55 million voters this past November either.
What I find interesting with the Bush supporters, here and elsewhere, is that they alternate between telling us that Bush never said that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 and insisting that there was indeed a link between his government and the terrorists behind 9/11.
Can’t you guys at least come up with a consistent story?
A smattering of thoughts:
I used to hope Hillary would run because I didn’t think she’d have a chance of getting elected (and I’m utterly horrified at the thought of her getting elected). I still think she’s unelectable, largely because nothing will mobilize the right like Hillary running. Further, I don’t think she would have any more hope of taking a Southern state than Kerry did.
This is the only site I’ve seen where Hillary is touted as a good candidate.
Kerry didn’t beat Bush. Honestly, gang, if y’all don’t have someone who could beat Bush, that speaks loads about your party.
I am a conservative, but not a Republican. I like Powell and would vote for him under any party. The closest person I’d vote for as a Democrat (and I wouldn’t ever vote for Democrat) was Leiberman.
The South is the key to a Democratic victory, so it amazes me that the Dems are so intent on alienating the South on every issue.
We’re in Iraq. It happened, Iraq is better for it (we may not be) but all this fussing about how we got there is honestly history’s subject, not ours at this time. Ours is to do everything we can to win and get out. I miss the days of a united front, but I guess with the partisan divide that will never happen again.
As for X-Ray, either ban him or give him back his vowels, because he’s more annoying this way than before.
It wasn’t Barnum who said “There’s a sucker born every minute.” See this link.
So I suggest you’re mistaken. Note: I’m not calling you a liar. Two different things.
I am. X-Ray is a liar.
Mchl Brnnr: ” vt w ll rfr t Bsh s “Th Chld-prsdnt” frm nw n.”
I didn’t say that. I suggested boy emperor. Someone else suggested child president. YOU’RE TWISTING WORDS!! YOU’RE A LIAR!!
BTW X-Ray – are you okay? You sound like you’re speaking with a mouth full of marbles.
So I suggest you’re mistaken. Note: I’m not calling you a liar.
I am. He’s a LIAR!
Mchl Brnnr: ” vt w ll rfr t Bsh s “Th Chld-prsdnt” frm nw n.”
I didn’t say that. I suggested ‘boy emperor’. You’re twisting words! YOU’RE A LIAR !!!
BTW, are you okay x-ray? You sound like you’re speaking with a mouth full of marbles.
Sorry about the double post. I got ‘internal server error’ and tried reposting.
Kerry didn’t beat Bush. Honestly, gang, if y’all don’t have someone who could beat Bush, that speaks loads about your party.
Thankfully, the Democrats don’t believe in the “Karl Rove School of Propoganda”.
In other, very sad news, Sandra Day O’Connor has just announced her retirement from the Supreme Court.
I’m willing to place bets that within days of Bush’s nominations being announced, the “nuclear option” is mentioned by Republicans.
*sigh*
Kerry didn’t beat Bush. Honestly, gang, if y’all don’t have someone who could beat Bush, that speaks loads about your party.
Thankfully, the Democrats don’t believe in the “Karl Rove School of Propoganda”.
The South is the key to a Democratic victory, so it amazes me that the Dems are so intent on alienating the South on every issue.
Let’s see: make sure they can wave the Confederate flag around, prayer in schools, Ten Commandments anywhere they want.
Yeah, I’d say that’s just about alienating the South on every issue.
In other, very sad news, Sandra Day O’Connor has just announced her retirement from the Supreme Court.
I’m willing to place bets that within days of Bush’s nominations being announced, the “nuclear option” is mentioned by Republicans.
*sigh*
TheOtherBlogger,
no, i’m not sure who i would like to see as Chief Justice. i’ll admit that i don’t follow the court closely enough to have an informed opinion.
the KELO decision is very bad news for individual rights. i understand the need for imminent domain, but when it’s extended to helping private business make a buck (like when the G.W. Bush owned Texas Rangers used imminent domain to get the land to build a privately owned stadium) that is certainly taking it too far.
all i know is that 99% of the time Scalia comes out vociferously on what i consider to be the wrong side of the decisions.
Whoops. Figured that the first one didn’t go through with the error message too, and then I found something I wanted to add anyways. 🙂
Huh, everyone was so sure that Renquist would step down that Justice O’Connor’s decision seemed to be quite a surprise.
Now THAT’S misdirection! 🙂
But seriously, this is a godsend to the Bush camp. If Renquist had stepped down, I don’t think there would have been a great hullaballo since his replacement would not have changed the balance of the SCOTUS. But with swing-vote moderate O’Connor being replaced, this becomes Karl Rove’s wet dream. Not only will the inevitable partisan bickering and posturing energize the theocon base Bush and the GOP rely on, but it will also put the Iraq Conflict on the back burner, conveniently allowing the stench of it to lessen, allowing Bush to try and revive his sinking political capital.
“This is the only site I’ve seen where Hillary is touted as a good candidate.”
Clearly you never visit sites like DailyKos.
“Kerry didn’t beat Bush. Honestly, gang, if y’all don’t have someone who could beat Bush, that speaks loads about your party.”
Actually, the Democrats did have a candidate who could have beaten Bush, but they went for the name brand instead.
“I am a conservative, but not a Republican. I like Powell and would vote for him under any party. The closest person I’d vote for as a Democrat (and I wouldn’t ever vote for Democrat) was Leiberman.”
That is such a tired canard. So what are you? That’s like me saying I’m a liberal, but not a Democrat. Sure, I could be a Green, but I like to win the occasional election (and fortunately, in Washington State, we do).
PAD wrote: “Gather an assortment of the best non-Neocon minds the country has to offer, sit down in a large room with them, and say, “Give me the best scenario as to how to get America the hëll out of there within twelve months.”
Seems a bit optimistic to me, especially since, in another part of the world where we have had a far less-obvious strategic interest, namely South Korea, we’ve had tens of thousands of U.S. troops on hair-trigger alert for 55 years. Yet in the Middle East, whose oil is a foundation of not just our economy, but the rest of the world’s, you want us to just turn our back and walk away? Doesn’t make much sense to me.
By the way, if you stacked both combat and non-combat-related military deaths for the U.S. in South Korea against those in Iraq, South Korea would win by a landslide of Brobdingnagian proportions.
“By the way, if you stacked both combat and non-combat-related military deaths for the U.S. in South Korea against those in Iraq, South Korea would win by a landslide of Brobdingnagian proportions.”
Why would you compare the two? Korea was a valid military action (poorly executed at the outset, to be sure, but valid). Iraq is not.
Brobdingnagian? Man. I had to go google that!
According to dictionary.com:
Brobdingnagian \brob-ding-NAG-ee-uhn\, adjective:
Of extraordinary size; gigantic; enormous.
The venture capital business has a size problem. A monstrous, staggering, stupefying one. Brobdingnagian even.
–Russ Mitchell, “Too Much Ventured Nothing Gained,” Fortune, November 11, 2002
Any savvy dealer . . . will try to talk you up to one of the latest behemoths, which have bloated to such Brobdingnagian dimensions as to have entered the realm of the absurd.
–Jack Hitt, “The Hidden Life of SUVs,” Mother Jones, July/August 1999
“Korea was a valid military action (poorly executed at the outset, to be sure, but valid). Iraq is not.”
How are they any different? Korea was an example of good ol’ fashioned contaiment, with us moving in to stop a dictator from taking over his neighbor. That was Gulf War I. What we have here is a simple coup d’etat, with us overthrowing a genocidal maniac. I have said it before: the Iraqui war is ding the right thing for the wrong reason.
the Iraqui war is ding the right thing for the wrong reason.
The problem I have is that conservatives fail to admit that it was done for all the wrong reasons.
To them, it’s all about the end result – which is, right now, alot of dead Americans and Iraqis, alot more terrorists, and not much else.
And even then, they fail to recognize that end result, right now, is pretty crappy.
“How are they any different? Korea was an example of good ol’ fashioned contaiment, with us moving in to stop a dictator from taking over his neighbor. That was Gulf War I. What we have here is a simple coup d’etat, with us overthrowing a genocidal maniac. I have said it before: the Iraqui war is ding the right thing for the wrong reason.”
Hugely different. Korea was an ally, invaded by a far superior military force from the North. Iraq was, well, just kind of sitting there after we didn’t overthrow the dictator when we had just cause. I would argue that the Korean War was not, in fact, containment. It was recovery. Again, MacArthur attempted to conquer the whole of Korea, at which point the Chinese decided they’d had quite enough of his braggadocio.
The US really didn’t have much choice in Korea. They could get involved, or just allow the NK troops to overrun the nation. However, if the US was to retain ANY validity in the eyes of it’s allies, it needed to do something. So it did do something, and did it very badly at the outset. Now, I’d accept an argument that the wars themselves (in their essentially unwinnable nature) might be the same, but the reasons behind the military actions (and their justifications, or lack thereof, on the global stage) are completely different.
Knuckles,
I’m an independant who will vote for the candidate who best represents my ideals, win or lose. The Republicans seem to be dividing themselves – socially conservative, fiscally irresponsible.
I don’t surf the web much, but I do talk to liberals every chance I get. The sites I do frequent trend toward liberalism but not to the extreme this site does.
What part of Washington? I spent my first thirty years in the Lake Washington area.
Craig,
Why can’t we admit we’re there for the wrong reasons? Dunno, maybe we believe that WMD was a good reason. He thought he had them, we thought he had them, everyone thought he had them… I just can’t bring myself to believe we’re there for petty reasons. I do believe there is a lot more to why we’re there than we’ve been told. I think there is a bigger picture that I’m not privy to. Naive, yeah, probably, but I’d make the worst kind of president, so he gets some slack.
“we didn’t overthrow the dictator when we had just cause.”
You could argue that bush is just fixing his pappy’s mistakes. Like I said, Right war, wrong reasons. As opposed to overthrowing Saddam for being a genocidal maniac, we overthrew him A) for Oil, B) to make Bush look good for not catching Bin Laden, C) to make the Patriot Act go sown easier, and D) to finish what Pappy started.
As for Korea, that was an exercise in the Domino theory. We really should have let nature take its course there….now Hungary in’56 on the other hand….. Also, McArthurs invasion pìššëd øff the Chinese, but they had been getting Russian support for quite some time. (Why D’ya think we were fighting MIG’s?) It was another war by proxy, with us fighting the Russians through the Koreans. Iraq is a well justified Coup D’etat.
“Why can’t we admit we’re there for the wrong reasons? Dunno, maybe we believe that WMD was a good reason. He thought he had them, we thought he had them, everyone thought he had them… I just can’t bring myself to believe we’re there for petty reasons. I do believe there is a lot more to why we’re there than we’ve been told. I think there is a bigger picture that I’m not privy to. Naive, yeah, probably, but I’d make the worst kind of president, so he gets some slack.”
I sure as hëll didn’t think he had them. And to say Saddam thought he had them is rather suspect, in my opinion.
I live in Bremerton, across the Sound from Seattle.
“As for Korea, that was an exercise in the Domino theory. We really should have let nature take its course there….now Hungary in’56 on the other hand….. Also, McArthurs invasion pìššëd øff the Chinese, but they had been getting Russian support for quite some time. (Why D’ya think we were fighting MIG’s?) It was another war by proxy, with us fighting the Russians through the Koreans. Iraq is a well justified Coup D’etat.”
I disagree. Korea was not an exercise in Domino Theory in the classic sense of the term. Vietnam, on the other hand, was. (Oddly enough, Vietnam was intended as a repudiation of containment, yet ended up being a classic example of why it worked as well as it did.) While the military advisors that Truman had at his side may have argued as such, he didn’t view it as such. He viewed it as a necessary war to defend one of America’s allies (whether it was worth it or not, is a completely seperate issue).
I also disagree that Iraq is a well-justified coup d’etat, because with that reasoning we should be invading Niger, Sudan, Syria, Egypt (hëll, most of Africa really), a good chunk of the former Soviet Union, not to mention places like Colombia and Mexico.
Democracy and stabilization will never come from the pressures of the outside, it has to come from within. Iraq will fail because we are attempting to force American style democracy on a region that has NEVER in modern history known such a thing. Do I want it to fail? No. But the Golden Moment of the US to overthrow Saddam passed in 1991 when Bush I and Rollin’ Colin Powell decided to stop their advance. I thought that was a mistake then, I think it’s a mistake now. However, that doesn’t justify this latest war.
Knuckles wrote: “Hugely different. Korea was an ally, invaded by a far superior military force from the North. Iraq was, well, just kind of sitting there after we didn’t overthrow the dictator when we had just cause. I would argue that the Korean War was not, in fact, containment. It was recovery.”
The fighting stopped in Korea in 1953, but we have still had tens of thousands of troops there for the past 52 years (and I was one of them for a year in the late 1990s). If you calculated the total cost of our presence there, and the total combat and non-combat deaths in country since 1950, you just might rethink any “let’s leave Iraq now” ideas you may have been entertaining. Like I said, at least our presence in the Middle East has a tangible strategic value to every man, woman and child in the U.S. (and the world, for that matter): Oil.
Is protecting our oil supply worth it? You may as well ask is it worth fighting for water, food and air, because after those three necessities, oil and natural gas are arguably the next most important resources this country needs to survive. Try to imagine one winter in the U.S. without any oil or natural gas. Try and imagine getting food processed and distributed nationwide without oil.
Perhaps someday, we will be able to, but right now, we can’t. Politics aside, anyone who drives to an anti-war protest with a “No blood for oil” sign in his/her car is at worst, an idiot, and at best, a hypocrite.
Keep in mind, that I’m not one of those “Leave Iraq Now” people. That said, you are making the presumption that our access to the oil supply in the Middle East was ever in jeopardy. I am unwilling to do so, as I believe it’s patently untrue. Any oil sanctions levied on Iraq were done so with the US’s blessing (under the purview of Bush I). I would argue that it’s in significantly greater jeopardy now than it was before.
The fact is, we get more oil from Venzuela these days then we do the entire Middle East.
I am not part of the “no blood for oil” crowd, but I’m also not part of crowd that follows the Ann Coulter line of, “what’s wrong with a war for oil? We need oil.”
Like Knuckles, I don’t believe that Saddam was ever a threat to our oil supply. I believe that the sanctions and no-fly zone enforcement had him effectively contained as a threat to our interests. And I don’t believe it’s out job to depose every murderous dictator in the world. We just don’t have the resources to do it even if we wanted to.
“making the presumption that our access to the oil supply in the Middle East was ever in jeopardy.”
That takes a mind like Ann coulter to make THAT claim. as per the invasion…it could be argued that here, the ends justify the means. Sure we are invading a soverign nation for economic reasons, but, hëll, we did get rid of Saddam!
“I also disagree that Iraq is a well-justified coup d’etat, because with that reasoning we should be invading Niger, Sudan, Syria, Egypt (hëll, most of Africa really), a good chunk of the former Soviet Union, not to mention places like Colombia and Mexico.”
soooooo….because we aren’t going through egypt like Napoleon on speed means we are wrong for taking down a dictator? I mean, we went after Hitler, but not Franco, so that means WWII was an exercise in futility? Personally I am all for an international colition with a name like “The International Colition to Destroy All Dictators Who, Without Use Of Hyperbole, can be Compared to Hitler.” Or ICDADWWUHCH for short. But that isn’t going to happen….
and you don’t think I’m all conservative do you?
I mean, I like Reagan and overthrowing dictators, but that doesn’t make me a conservative…does it?
Of course, the other thing we should be doing is investing in alternative sources of energy to wean us off our oil dependence. Right now, the emphasis is on gassified coal and renewed interest in nuclear power. Those may help us in our electrical needs, but except for in Back to the Future, we don’t have any nuclear powered cars. And try running you Hummer on coal.
Gas is $2.19 a gallon here and I’m talking my wife into getting a Prius.
“I also disagree that Iraq is a well-justified coup d’etat, because with that reasoning we should be invading Niger, Sudan, Syria, Egypt (hëll, most of Africa really), a good chunk of the former Soviet Union, not to mention places like Colombia and Mexico.”
First. I think that here, the ends DO justify the means….sure, we are there for the wrong reasons, but we did get rid of Saddam. Even a stupid squirrel finds an nut sometimes.
Second. Because we don’t go through Egypt like (to quote a great movie) “Crap through a goose”
Taking down Saddam was wrong? I am all in favor of an international colition against dictators, but till that happens, we will take what we get.
And, Knuckles, you don’t think I am some kinda conservative do you? I mean, I like Reagan, and I think getting rid of dictators is good, but that does not make me conservative. I hope.
awwww HÊLL….I posted the same Idea….twice…sorry guys
Den, make sure you analyze the upfront cost versus long term savings on any hybrids you look at. I’ve seen data that it can take several years for the fuel savings to equal out the premium price you pay at the dealership. However, some states and I think the federal governments have incentives, maybe tax breaks, for buying alternative fuel vehicles.
As for alternative energy in general, I’d love to see a concerted research and deployment effort, but I honestly don’t see it happening until every last drop of oil’s been squeezed out of this planet. And as for the war for oil stuff, OPEC’s stated that the prices are not their fault, as they’re operating at peak production. They’re pointing to a lack of refining capacity, which is either a fantastic marketing ploy by OPEC to keep prices high without being the bad guy or a very, very bad sign. Because think about it; what incentive does the oil-fuel complex have for increasing refinement capacity? That would require huge upfront investment for an effort to drive the price of their primary commodity down? I think we’re looking at some bad times ahead.
On the other hand, if you’ve had a $4 20 oz. latte recently while bìŧçhìņg about the price of a $2-3 gallon of gas to a friend drinking a $3 cup of pumpkin spice coffee, you might wonder about perspective…
Hmm, that last post came off as completely directed at Den; I just meant the first part about hybrid vehicles to be for Den in particular. The rest was for everyone to have an issue with 🙂
“and you don’t think I’m all conservative do you?
I mean, I like Reagan and overthrowing dictators, but that doesn’t make me a conservative…does it?”
Not at all. You may well be, but it really doesn’t matter that much to me. You’re a good guy to dialogue with. That’s all that really matters, you know?
“soooooo….because we aren’t going through egypt like Napoleon on speed means we are wrong for taking down a dictator?”
Not at all. I simply find the argument that “well, he was an evil, wicked, mean, bad and nasty dictator” argument to be completely without merit. The world is FILLED with them. We just happened to go after the one that was sitting on top of a hugeass oil reserve. Let me make it clear that I do not think Bush went into Iraq because of the oil, I think that just made for a happy coincidence. What I do think is that the invasion occurred because Bush had to do something that looked like he was continuing the “War on Terror”, and taking it to them overseas.
I think the US is wrong for taking down Saddam because they had no legitimate beef with him. Period. The reasons given for the invasion were complete fabrications, so the reasons have been changing over the years. Is it good Saddam is no longer in power? I would assume so, yes. However, I still think it was wrong.
I think the invasion of Afghanistan was completely valid on the international stage, as their government was actively hosting those who DID pose an immediate and dangerous domestic threat to the United States of America. Iraq did not. If there were terrorists in Iraq, they were most likely in Kurdish controlled Northern Iraq, and had no bearing on Saddam whatsoever.
Double post, James. Be patient, grasshopper, and ignore the internal server error message you are getting. The posts are getting sent to the DB, but for some reason the error is still being generated. As quickly as you can, take this error message from my hand…
First. I think that here, the ends DO justify the means….sure, we are there for the wrong reasons, but we did get rid of Saddam. Even a stupid squirrel finds an nut sometimes.
So… stupidity makes right?
You can argue till you’re blue in the face that we did the right thing, but we didn’t go to Iraq to do the right thing.
That’s Bush’s argument NOW, but it wasn’t THEN.
Bush argued that we needed to go to Iraq because a) Iraq was a terrorist nation (debatable), b) Saddam had WMD (based on questionable evidence), c) that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 even though it was never explicitely stated (but always insinuated and also completely false).
But these lies and false pretenses justify a war? No, they do not.
Saddam was contained. He did not have the capability to launch anything at us. The No-Fly Zones were effective – our going to Afghanistan didn’t make Saddam think he wasn’t being watched.
Unlike some other nations: Iran, North Korea, and others with dictators just as worthy of being toppled and far more capable of doing us harm than Iraq.
Yet, Saddam was most important.
Suddenly, diplomacy could work with these other nations, but not Iraq? Sounds like a case of revenge to me.
“As for alternative energy in general, I’d love to see a concerted research and deployment effort, but I honestly don’t see it happening until every last drop of oil’s been squeezed out of this planet. And as for the war for oil stuff, OPEC’s stated that the prices are not their fault, as they’re operating at peak production. They’re pointing to a lack of refining capacity, which is either a fantastic marketing ploy by OPEC to keep prices high without being the bad guy or a very, very bad sign. Because think about it; what incentive does the oil-fuel complex have for increasing refinement capacity? That would require huge upfront investment for an effort to drive the price of their primary commodity down? I think we’re looking at some bad times ahead.”
Jason: Kevin Drum did some fascinating analysis of this last fall/summer (?) when the presidential campaign was in full swing. I’ll see if I can find anything on the Washington Monthly website.
Craig: How in the H-E-Double Hockeysticks did I forget NK? Ðámņ this job…
“Brobdingnagian? Man. I had to go google that!”
I’m sure you got a Swift response.
PAD
“I’m sure you got a Swift response.”
Man, that just isn’t right.