Bush, in describing Cindy Sheehan, stated, “She expressed her opinion. I disagree with it.”
This puts Cindy Sheehan in the company of military experts who told Bush things he didn’t want to hear prior to the attack on Iraq. Experts who turned out to be correct.
PAD
• 
Didn’t David Duke win office as an R?
Yes, he did in fact. He defeated another Republican for a state House seat in 1989 (Louisiana has weird election systems), and both President George H.W. Bush and former President Reagan campaigned against him. So he was a Republican in the sense that the rest of the Republican party didn’t want to be associated with him.
Even more so than Dan Quayle.
Remo,
Don’t know much about Lincoln, what he said about the issue pre-war, what he said during the war or what we were going to pass as the 13th admendment before the Civil War broke out, do you?
“Most of them were normal individuals who wanted the basics of human rights. And, one day, one of them said a little too much to the wrong person and dámņëd themselves and thier entire families.
And, most of them weren’t “revolting” in the sense that they had taken up arms and were rioting in the streets. They were going about
thier normal business when they got grabbed, in many cases brutally tortured and executed.
Normal people doing normal things and they got killed for it.”
Some were. No doubt about it. Some were killed because people in their village supported people who were more active in their actions against Saddam and the weapons he chose to use were a wee bit less the discriminating about who they killed (gas attacks often are that way.) They didn’t support the actions and were innocent. No argument. Doesn’t change the fact that many who died would have supported a theocracy government in the place of Saddam’s that would be just as bad or worse in our eyes and to our overall safety.
Look, if I lived under the rule of a Saddam then I would revolt myself or support in some ways those who did as well. The differnce is that I would not be happy to put a new government in place that decided that all law would be based on the Christian church’s word, the Bible and God. Nor would I support a government that would try and force that world veiw down the throats of everybody else in the country and around the region. Many of those dead were part of tribes or cultures who would have been quite happy with an extremist theocracy in charge of Iraq instead of Saddam. I’m not gonna get all broken up that the died and he kept ruling rather then the reverse. I also just don’t believe that the blood of American G.I.’s was worth what looks to be forming in the new Iraq.
Bush was and is an idiot. He was told what the real world was like. He was told the costs and the most likely outcomes but he wanted to live in his happy little dream world and rule from Crawford while clearing brush. He did and we’re screwed. So much fun.
“And, by the way, how exactly do you mean Bush killed thousands of innocent Iraqis? Back it up with a credible source, please.”
Read much news? Read any news? It was and is what is so colorfully called in the pres and by the military, “collateral damage.” We didn’t and don’t still do it on purpose as Saddam did but it doesn’t make them any less dead and gone then when Saddam killed people. But, hey….. At least they’re buried in freedom loving soil now.
Sorry. That last bit about the soil was a bit too snide even for me. I’m tired. I’m going to bed. Argue with you all some more in the morning and tomorrow evening.
🙂
Jerry C –
Are you un”Huh?” yet?
I think so. At the time, for some reason, I couldn’t wrap my brain around the sentence. It’s been a long week.
Scipio –
Bush crafted the entire case for war around the presence of WMDs in Iraq?
Yep. Don’t remember the speeches? “9/11, bin Laden, Saddam, Iraq”. Rinse, repeat.
AnthonyX –
Plllleeeeaasssse do the clicky and learn!
Well, I must have just imagined that photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam then.
Remo Williams –
If that isn’t worth fighting for, then why the Hëll did we do the American Civil War?
You conveniently miss the point, which isn’t a surprise – it happens quite frequently with your type.
We didn’t go to Iraq to play humanitarian. We went there because Bush said Saddam had WMD.
Saddam didn’t. So Bush changed his story. And then he changed it again, and again, and again.
We were told this war would last a couple of weeks, cost $2 billion, and the troops would come home.
More bûllšhìŧ straight from the horse’s ášš (in this case, Cheney).
Remo Williams –
And, by the way, how exactly do you mean Bush killed thousands of innocent Iraqis? Back it up with a credible source, please.
How about you visit this site: http://www.iraqbodycount.net and see that their list of sources are around two dozen different news agencies.
But hey, it’s not murder if Rummey calls the civilians nothing more than “collateral”, right?
Remo Williams –
That’s Amnesty International, which is both credible and can hardly be accused of being an administration mouthpiece.
Amazing, really, since this is the same group that called Gitmo the “gulag of our time”.
Or are they only credible when you need them to be?
Scipio-
I don’t know where you were three years ago, but thank God the White House keeps accurate transcripts. I found this one without even looking too hard (I was looking for the State of the Union address where Bush made his case for invading Iraq, but found this instead, and am offering it up instead because (A) it’s a minor speech and thus should be indicative of how the WMD lie made it in to just about every appearance he made while gearing up for the Iraq Attack, and (B) it’s late and I have work to finish before I can go home to my comfy bed. If that’s not enough for you, I’ll be sure to dig up more examples for you tomorrow. Let me know.)
The entire speech can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html . Added emphasis is mine.
“In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and INTIMIDATE THE CIVILIZED WORLD — and we will not allow it. (Applause.) This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations, and could supply them with the terrible means to STRIKE THIS COUNTRY — and America will not permit it. The danger posed by Saddam Hussein AND HIS WEAPONS cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. (Applause.)
THE SAFETY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DEPENDS ON ENDING THIS DIRECT AND GROWING THREAT.” -George W. Bush, Washington Hilton Hotel, Washington, D.C., Feb. 26 2003.
I would hope that the last line alone proves my point that Bush built his case for invading Iraq around the claim that they had WMDs. The fear of WMDs being used by Iraqis against America was (very clearly and directly, without any sort of doublespeak at all) THE number one reason being touted as to why we absolutely needed to invade.
(And FWIW, it’s not “armchair quarterbacking” when allied governments own up to the fact that they doctored or misrepresented their ‘evidence’ that Iraq had WMDs… that’s called “blowing the whistle.” Closely related, but distinctly two different things.)
Scipio- “Do I think President Bush declare[d] war on Iraq just to settle a grudge? No. Presidents are above this kind of pettiness (except for a well known break-in at the Watergate hotel).”
So Nixon was the ONLY President who proves to be the exception of the rule? Please! Anyone who has witnessed any election run in the past 30 years has seen plenty of ‘petty’ in all shapes and sizes (and from all sides) in the race for the White House.
Try the other one, it’s got bells on.
“In our civilization, and under our [R]epublican form of government, intelligence
is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from the cares of office.
— Ambrose Bierce, “The Devil’s Dictionary””
Remo- “If that isn’t worth fighting for, then why the Hëll did we do the American Civil War?
Lincoln could probably prevented the secession by saying, “Fine, keep the slaves. By and large, they’re not treated too badly.”
Millions of soldiers died for what was an issue of morality.”
Remo, in all seriousness, never make that statement to a Southerner; they will hand you your ášš, sinanju or no sinanju.
The American Civil War was fought for three reasons: the issue of slavery, the issue of state’s rights (and as much as you’d think they’re two seperate issues, regrettably they are not), and Lincoln’s insistence on keeping the Union whole rather than allow the Confederacy to secede. And by 1860, the seccession thing had been teetering at a boiling point for well over 20 years; Lincoln saying “keep the slaves” would have done nothing to prevent it.
The American Civil War was fought over many issues, of which slavery was easily the largest focal point for both sides. But saying the Civil War was a war fought solely over ‘morality’ is not entirely accurate and risks oversimplification… and war is, regrettably, never simple.
PAD, the title you used was also an anti-war song to Bush Sr. – written by a christian band, no less.
http://www.thelostdogs.com/lyrics/scenicroutes/bushleague.html
Maybe not video cameras. Still cameras are obviously allowed, as there was a photo on the Sheehan family webpage showing Bush giving Ms. Sheehan a kiss. It isn’t there now.
Still cameras don’t record people disrupting the staged event. As for the picture of Bush kissing her, since again I don’t know the context of her feelings of that moment, I’m not going to comment.
Ok, so it isn’t the hypocrisy of offing one dictator while allowing others that bothers you–it’s the nature of warefare itself. That’s ok, it’s a lot more defendable than the position implied by
If by that you mean that I don’t think war should be our first, last, and only resort in response to dictators, then yes. It’s easy for pundits sitting in a comfortable studio to say, “send in the marines!” or, as Pat said, “take him out.” But war exacts such a terrible cost in human life that we should make sure that our reasons for going to war are legitimate and we have a reasonable chance that our intervention will make things better. So far, the Iraq war fails both tests.
Bush crafted the entire case for war around the presence of WMDs in Iraq? Where was I three years ago when this happened.
Obviously asleep.
I remember a cause for war being that Saddam Hussein repeatedly violated the UN resolutions against him.
And what were those resolutions pertaining to? Oh, yeah! WMDs.
I remember a cause for war being that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups as evidenced by the Iraqi intelligence service officer meeting with Al Qaeda in Prague and the presence of Abu Nidal in Baghdad.
The Prague meeting has never been confirmed and wasn’t part of the presentation Colin Powell made to the UN. It was all about WMDs.
I remember a cause being that Saddam Hussein refused to allow weapons inspectors into his country creating a very suspicious cloud over a possible banned weapons program.
1) He let the inspections back in and we invaded away. 2) What were the inspectors looking for? WMDs!
I remember a cause being that intelligence estimates stated that Saddam had an active WMD program and the French, Germans, Russians and British all signed off on that intelligence and believed it to be credible which is why they passed UN Resolution 1441 demanding unrestricted access by weapons inspectors to locate these banned weapons.
So, your argument that Bush’s justification for war wasn’t about WMDs is that, we believed that he had WMDs. Excuse me, but WTF?????
And that’s not even getting into how our “intelligence” was being “fixed around the issue.”
“It seems to me that the people who promoted the war in Iraq misled the public with regards to WMD and the connection to terrorism.”
Er, the connections to terrorism in general are not in dispute. The connections to Al Queda and Bin Laden are.
“Er, the connections to terrorism in general are not in dispute.”
In what way? Publicly, Hussein abhored terrorists. What source can you point to that links Iraq with supporting or harboring terrorists? And I mean actually protecting, not just having terrorists within their borders, since under that definition the US could be said to have connections to terrorism as well.
Iraq had one of the largest standing armies in the area. Why would they need to resort to terrorism?
Bobb-
Read this transcript of a wince-inducing debate on Iraqi terrorism between Christopher Hitchens and Ron Reagan. I didn’t know all of this when I read it, and so far I haven’t been able to disprove any of Hitchens’s claims. I doubt I’d care for Hitchens if we ever met, but he seems to be in the right on this point.
http://txfx.net/2005/07/11/hitchens-trounces-ron-reagan/
By the way, didn’t Cindy have to sign a release for her son to be in the military the first time he signed up because he was 17?
Didn’t he re-up for the second time after the combat begun?
I don’t think it takes an expert to tell her “he might be in combat that could result in death”, if he didn’t believe what he was doing would he re-up? Is it safe to say her son would disapprove of her actions like much of her family?
Is it safe to say her son would disapprove of her actions like much of her family?
Unless you have first hand knowledge of how he would feel, no it isn’t. Should people be aware that there’s a possibility they could be required to fight and even die if they join the military? Absolutely. Does that mean that their friends and relatives give up their right to question the wisdom of the elected leaders who send them into combat? No. Is it possibl that Casey Sheehan believed in fighting for the freedom of Americans but also had doubts about the wisdom of this particular war? Sure, but that’s every bit as speculative as saying, “he signed up, therefore he approved of the war up until the moment he died.”
Clay, thanks for the link, although that little chat hardly supports the idea that terrorism was supported, endorsed, tolerated, or used by Iraq. Just checking the write up on Wiki at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Nidal, there’s enough lack of information, or unsubstantiated facts, to suggest that Nidal wasn’t working with or for Iraq at the time, but hiding. It seems plausible to me that Nidal was hoping to cut a deal with Iraq, supplying weapons and such, and it seems that Hussein had something to do with Nidal’s death, in that Hussein was either going to have him arrested or killed. In any case, you can’t get around the fact that Nidal’s death was related to Iraqi/Hussein actions to have him at the least apprehended. And while that’s not exactly the same thing as saying Iraq opposed terrorism, it does contradict the idea that they supported terrorism. The claim Hitchens made that Nidal was operating out of government office…Wiki doesn’t have anything on that, but what is on Wiki seems to at least partially conflict with what Hitchens states.
Nidal, at least, seems to have not lived long enough to plan or enact any additional terrorist acts while in Iraq. If Iraq really is a haven for terrorists, Hussein was sending a fairly confused message when Nidal was killed during his apprehension.
Hitchens is an old leftist who for some strange reason, drank the Bush Kool-Aid and became a rabid supporter of the Iraq War. There really isn’t a hyperbolic claim to support the war that he hasn’t made in support of the war, whether it’s grounded in reality or not.
Also, he’s a severe anti-Catholic and anti-religion in general bigot. Something Republicans should keep in mind if you want to cite him for supporting your positions.
Bobb, you’ve got a good point about the questions raised by the circumstances of Nidal’s death. However, the Wikipedia article also claims that Nidal had been living in a villa owned by the Mukhabarat, who were Saddam’s most trusted agents. It seems likely to me that Hussein was plotting with Nidal on one hand and against him on the other- that seems to be the way he dealt with everybody.
I also have been unable to verify or disprove the claim about Nidal working for the Iraqi government. If you or anyone else can find anything, could you please provide a link?
Den-
As a Democratic Catholic, I’m certainly aware of where my ideologies diverge from those of Hitchens. I’d certainly never invite him to dinner, but I am interested in the nature of his claims regarding Abu Nidal’s relation to Hussein. If his claims have merit, then I’m willing to consider the evidence without dismissing him on an ad hominem basis.
Well, Clay, I’m not aware of any specific reference that refutes it, except that it was one of the many things that the 9/11 Commission looked at before concluding that there was no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein was behind.
Now, it is possible he was conspiring with Nidal for other things, but we’ll probably never know the truth of that for sure.
From what I gathered, it seems that Nidal was pretty desperate when he went to Iraq. And there’s some evidence that he may have initially snuck in. And whether he thought Iraq would be a haven for him, or present some financial opportunities in terms of the weapons trade, he was only there a short time before he died…whether by suicide, or during an Iraqi assassination attempt.
Hitchens refers to a couple other events that I’m nat familiar enough with to look up more on, but it seems that he rested his Iraq terrorism connection strongly on Nidal, and that connection seems to lead one to conclude, if anything, that Iraq opposed such terrorists.
While I can’t make any concrete conclusions, I do think that there’s more to the Nidal/Hussein connection that meets the eye. When Saddam wanted to kill someone, he did it quickly and decisively (the asassination of his expatriate sons-in-law is a rather gruesome example). The fact that Nidal lived in Iraq for nearly two years (with at least one of them completely in the open)and was granted residence on government property is, I think, pretty stronge circumstatial evidence to a Nidal/Hussein connection.
Den, I agree with you one on at least one point- the issue of Saddam’s involvement with 9/11 and his ties to terrorism in general are two separate issues.
“Iraq had one of the largest standing armies in the area. Why would they need to resort to terrorism?”
That is hardly a defense against the idea that he would have indulged and funded terrorist activities. The only tie to Al Queda is a one off meeting. And I am searching…but I cannot find any quotes from Saddam denouncing terrorism or anything to suggest he abhorred it. Well, aside from the fact that Bobb said it.
But here is one sample. I’ve also not seen it disproven thus far.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm
Or are Palestinian suicide bombers not terrorists?
Be all that as it may, and I certainly don’t dispute the possibility that Hussein had contact in some way with known terrorists, it doesn’t change that the warcry for invading Iraq was “let’s go get those general terrorist supporting evildoers.” Although there was some general talk about terrorism, it was the connection between terrorists and WMDs, and the potential that Iraq might be a source of WMDs for terrorists to use against the US, home or abroad. We all know how the connection to WMDs turned out. Even if the other half of the threat equation plays out, would that alone have been enough to justify an invasion? I would say no, and I think that’s what we’re seeing today. People are finally beginning to talk about how we were snookered into supporting this war. And now that we’re asking for accountability, suddenly it’s all about supporting the troops.
I’m tellin ya, people, the only way We the People are ever going to take our country back from bad leaders, Left OR Right, is to vote ’em all out of office.
“But here is one sample. I’ve also not seen it disproven thus far.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm
Or are Palestinian suicide bombers not terrorists?”
It’s hard to say this isn’t a support of an organization that uses terroristic methods. But what about the US funded Bin Laden “resistance” of Soviet forces in Afghanistan? Did not they, too, use terrorist methods in combating the invading Soviets? Would this not also be seen as an action that supports terrorism?
Point being, the US needs to be very careful, seeing as how we’re lobbing around some pretty large rocks, and one of these days someone’s going to notice that at least part of our house is made of glass.
“but I cannot find any quotes from Saddam denouncing terrorism or anything to suggest he abhorred it. Well, aside from the fact that Bobb said it.”
And if I said it, it must be true..er, well, maybe not. I may be thinking of the time I heard my buddy, SAM, denounce it, or somesuch. Actually, I was thinking more about the lack of connection between Hussein and Bin Laden, possibly reading more into Hussein’s rejection of Bin Laden than I should have.
Bobb, there’s some things we can agree on. I certainly wouldn’t argue (from what I know at this point) that the president didn’t do an awful job of justifying this war to the public. I do think that we would have had to use force against Hussein one way or the other eventually, but building up a mountain of global ill-will and rushing off without a good battle plan- all the while being dishonest with the American public- is certainly no way to get the job done.
yeah, Saddam gave money to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. no one was saying he was a good guy.
it’s not exactly a smoking gun of terrorist collaboration though. in april of 2002, Saudi state tv ran a telethon that raised over $100 million for Palestinian “martyrs.” i believe we have several other allies in the region who support Palestinian terrorism. it is, sadly, not an uncommon thing.
so, i’ll give you that it’s a link to terrorism. but i don’t think it’s the sort of direct link that indicates any threat to the U.S.
On of the problems I have with taking the focus on the getting bin Laden and other people who were behind 9/11 and expanding to war on terrorism in general is how do you define the scope of the mission then? If we’re at war against terrorists in general, then shouldn’t we bomb Syria, Libya, Sudan and our “friends” Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? Should we send troops into the West Bank? Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology like communism or radical Islam, so why limit the scope? Let’s bomb Belfast. Plenty of terrorists still hiding out there. There are leftist guerrillas using terrorist tactics all over South America, send in the marines!
How do we know when we’ve defeated “terrorism”? When nobody in the world practices it?
Den: “How do we know when we’ve defeated “terrorism”? When nobody in the world practices it?”
A friend of mine (who’s working toward a PhD in religious studies) makes a very good case for how Jesus would be defined as a ‘terrorist’ under the current administration’s rather broad anti-terrorism mandate. I’ve got to try and find the link to it… it’s quite an eye opener.
Didn’t he re-up for the second time after the combat begun?
There’s alot more to this that simplying saying that somebody re-upped.
For one, alot of these guys are left with no choice.
From all accounts, when you sign up for service, you’re not signing up for 2 or 4 years, it’s usually 8 total, with 4 of that being “active”.
That’s where the term ‘back door draft’ comes from, from those soldiers who were basically pressed back into active duty after not resigning for a second tour after their first four years were up.
Now, for the moment, I’ll leave out the stuff like whether these guys knew they were signing on for 8 instead of 4, and comments (from soldiers) that these guys are being threatened with “Resign or we’ll send you Iraq”.
it is, sadly, not an uncommon thing.
Agreed. The problem stems from the fact that those in support of the war will use the example of Iraq doing this, while excluding the fact that our “allies” did the same dámņ thing.
‘Resign’ means to quit. ‘Re-sign’ might equal ‘re-up’.
Didn’t he re-up for the second time after the combat begun?
He may have also done so believing it was right at the time , because it wasn’t yet as common knowledge as it is now that bush, et al, were lying their collective áššëš off to go to war. Who knows? Certainly none of us.
Bobb, there’s some things we can agree on. I certainly wouldn’t argue (from what I know at this point) that the president didn’t do an awful job of justifying this war to the public. I do think that we would have had to use force against Hussein one way or the other eventually, but building up a mountain of global ill-will and rushing off without a good battle plan- all the while being dishonest with the American public- is certainly no way to get the job done.
*sigh*
There are all too many people who think that this IS the way to get “the job done.”
Thom: “Er, the connections to terrorism in general are not in dispute.”
Bobb: In what way? Publicly, Hussein abhored terrorists.
He may have whørëd them, but he clearly didn’t abhor them. He gave financial support to the families of terrorists, as long as the terrorists took a few Israelis with them. CBS quoted a Baath party spokesman saying, in reference to Saddam making these donations, “The President considers this small gift to the families as just a symbol of support for those who have reached the highest degree of martyrdom.” As the American invasion loomed, he expanded the payments from terrorists’ families to the survivors of everyone killed in connection with the Palestinian insurrection, but I think it would be a mistake to interpret that as Saddam’s disavowal of terrorism. More like, Saddam buying sympathy.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/14/world/main543981.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm
He gave financial support to the families of terrorists, as long as the terrorists took a few Israelis with them.
So, here’s the million dollar question:
Why is it that we only give a dámņ about Palestenian terrorists when they are paid off by Saddam, rather than the fact that they’ve been fûçkìņg with Israel for the last few decades?
Try and wrap your sensibilities and priorities around that one, because Bush doesn’t seem to give a dámņ about Israel.
“Why is it that we only give a dámņ about Palestenian terrorists when they are paid off by Saddam, rather than the fact that they’ve been fûçkìņg with Israel for the last few decades?”
“Try and wrap your sensibilities and priorities around that one, because Bush doesn’t seem to give a dámņ about Israel.”
Well, that’s a new one. Most of those on the left seem to think that Bush is way too supportive of Israel. Some even portray him as a puppet dancing on Israel’s strings.
Among those who are big israel supporters, the assessment seems different:
WASHINGTON May 17 — Don Shein disagrees with President Bush on the environment. He disagrees with Bush on stem-cell research. And he disagrees with Bush on abortion.
But he’s voting for Bush anyway.
For Shein, a financial adviser from Baltimore, the 2004 presidential election is about only one thing: Israel. The loyal Democrat said he has been impressed by Bush’s support for the Jewish state and even donated $500 to Bush’s re-election campaign, despite his opposition to the president on many domestic issues.
“My sense is that Bush would stand up for Israel when no Democrat would,” Shein said Sunday at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee annual policy conference.
Bush is something of a messiah to those attending the conference in Washington, many of whom traditionally vote Democratic. They are willing to overlook what they don’t like about the president because of what they do like.
The very mention of Bush’s name or the sight of his image on video screens prompted thunderous rounds of applause and standing ovations at the Washington Convention Center.
Most recently, Bush’s unprecedented support for Israeli claims in the West Bank and his rejection of any “right of return” to Israel for Palestinian refugees has made him a darling of many AIPAC members.
He gave financial support to the families of terrorists, as long as the terrorists took a few Israelis with them. CBS quoted a Baath party spokesman saying, in reference to Saddam making these donations, “The President considers this small gift to the families as just a symbol of support for those who have reached the highest degree of martyrdom.” As the American invasion loomed, he expanded the payments from terrorists’ families to the survivors of everyone killed in connection with the Palestinian insurrection, but I think it would be a mistake to interpret that as Saddam’s disavowal of terrorism. More like, Saddam buying sympathy.
Well, yes, it WAS buying sympathy, quite cynically. I also think it’d be a mistake to make it more than that.
Of course, when the New York Times deliberately misquotes people like Condi Rice in order to create a slam at Israel where none exists it’s easy to see where people might get the idea that Bush isn’t a supporter.
http://jpundit.typepad.com/jci/2005/08/condoleezza_ric.html for the gory details. Shameful behavior from a once great paper.
Well, yes, it WAS buying sympathy, quite cynically. I also think it’d be a mistake to make it more than that.
Well yes, but he started his sympathy purchase initiative by giving money to the families of suicide bombers, not the Ronald McDonald Houses. I think it would be a bigger mistake to make too LITTLE of that. Besides, the initial statement was that Saddam abhorred terrorists. Hard to square with public financial support, don’t you agree?
Okay, one by one.
Den- Other parts of the treaties that Saddam violated included the no-fly zones, re-arming his military and mis-using humanitarian aid. WMD’s were only part of that.
BrakYeller- I’m a Texan. Anybody who wants to take a swing at me is welcome to try. Emphasis on the word try.
And yes, I’m aware that there were deeper issues involved in the Civil War. Just as there were deeper issues in World War Two. Or any conflict for that matter.
But, when they enlisted to serve in World War Two, most people didn’t consider about how unjust the Treaty of Versailles was towards Germany. They just knew that Hitler was a evil dictator.
Wars, to the common guy in the street, hinge upon an issue of morality. That’s also why the Vietnam was so protested against.
And, Lincoln could have prevented the Civil War by placating the Secessionists. He wouldn’t have prevented it, but if he had buried his political head in the sand, Lincoln could have kept anything from happening on his watch. After all, his political predecessors had been doing the same thing for decades.
Craig J.- I chose Amnesty International BEACAUSE they don’t like Bush. If your opposition agrees with you on something, then you know you’ve got the truth. Still, if that’s not enough, both CNN and the U.N. website have the same info.
Also, I checked out the link. They don’t descern between people killed by U.S. forces and people killed by Iraqi opposition. I know that you’ll say that they’re on Bush’s head because he started the war, but I can’t agree.
The “insurgents”, for example, are terrorists, pure and simple. There is no cause, anywhere, that justifies deliberately targeting civilians like small children. Anybody vicious enough to do that would have ended up a murderer somewhere down the line.
Jerry C.- Two things.
Your argument seems to boil down to “The place is snakepit. The people hate us. The place will always be a snakepit and they will always hate us. It isn’t worth it.”
I can’t argue with that. Hundreds of thousands of people written off like a footnote in history can’t really be argued with. All I can say is that I hope you don’t believe in karma.
Second, when I ask for proof, don’t tell me to read the fûçkìņg news. Give me proof.
I don’t agree with Craig J. and his proof, but I responded with a logical rebuttal, based on his source. And, when he disagreed with my source, I provided two alternatives.
Don’t wave your hand and say, “It’s out there somewhere.” Prove it. Anything less is intellectual sloth.
Bill Mulligan –
Most of those on the left seem to think that Bush is way too supportive of Israel.
Compared to Clinton, Bush has all but ignored Israel, imo.
Indeed, by creating a war in Iraq where none was necessary, he’s probably done more to hurt Israel than help.
Bill Mulligan –
Some even portray him as a puppet dancing on Israel’s strings.
Well, yes, this goes back to the idiodic “Jews control America” conspiracy theory that so many nut cases ascribe to.
Remo Williams –
Second, when I ask for proof, don’t tell me to read the fûçkìņg news. Give me proof.
Well, I guess this article will be useless to you, since, you know, you don’t like news that doesn’t agree with you any more than Bush does.
A CNN article from 12/12/2003 says the following:
“The Associated Press conducted a major investigation of Iraq’s wartime civilian casualties, documenting the deaths of 3,240 civilians between March 20 and April 20 (of 2003). That investigation, conducted in May and June, surveyed about half of Iraq’s hospitals, and reported that the real number of civilian deaths was sure to be much higher.”
Remember, this is nearly 2.5 years ago and more than 3,000 dead. Want to take a guess as to how many have died since? How many would have lived if not for our invasion, regardless of who pulled the trigger?
And the article ends with the following, *very* important point:
“The U.S. military doesn’t count civilian casualties from its wars.”
Yes, we don’t count them because they’re collateral, or perish the thought that Bush feel responsibility for the deaths of so many innocents.
Hard to square with public financial support, don’t you agree?
Nope. I work in fundraising, remember? Quite a few figures in this country give to people they could care less about or even despise, because a) it’s politically expedient or b) they want to buy goodwill. And that’s in a country where it’s NOT a life or death matter to get support from certain quarters.
You’re making far too much of this.
Compared to Clinton, Bush has all but ignored Israel, imo.
Indeed, by creating a war in Iraq where none was necessary, he’s probably done more to hurt Israel than help.
Although I don’t subscribe to the moonbat theory
that this war is being fought because it serves Israel’s ineterests, it probably is true that it serves Israel’s interests. Iraq is the last country to have actually shot missles into Israel (During the first Gulf War–Ironically, Israel was practically the only country NOT invading Iraq at the time).
I’d like to find something regarding the feelings of the Israeli public toward the Iraq war but all I find are left wing sites ranting about how jewish neocons are fighting the war on Israels behalf and a little of that crap goes a long way.
Although I don’t subscribe to the moonbat theory
that this war is being fought because it serves Israel’s ineterests, it probably is true that it serves Israel’s interests.
I fail to see how that’s the case – the one thing Israel has a problem with is terrorists.
What has the war in Iraq done? Generate more terrorists.
Craig,
Brutal as it may sound, but civilians get hurt during wars. Especially during the bombing.
This is not unique to the Iraqi War. Check out the London Blitz, the Firebombing of Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Talk about civilian casualties.
Second, post-invasion, the vast majority of deaths are from the terrorists/insurgents. Check out the incident report section of that Iraq Body Count site. As noted earlier, when some scumbag beheads a woman or detonates a carbomb near a bunch of kids, I don’t blame the U.S.
Brutal as it may sound, but civilians get hurt during wars.
Well, when it’s a war we shouldn’t have had in the first place, it’s murder.
Remo: “…when they enlisted to serve in World War Two, most people didn’t consider about how unjust the Treaty of Versailles was towards Germany. They just knew that Hitler was a evil dictator.”
Okay, so what if FDR had told all the enlistees, “You’re going over there to ensure the Treaty of Versailles is maintained! Because abrogation of the Treaty represents a direct threat to the safety of the United States!”, but then changed his tune once all the troops landed on Normandy Beach to “turns out this Treaty of Versailles isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on! But it’s okay, because we needed to take out Hitler, Mussolini, and the Emperor of Japan, because they’re all really bad people!”? Don’t you think all the enlistees would feel tricked, or used? Do you think they would retain the right to say “wait a second, I’m here for the wrong reasons! I want out!”?
Because that’s essentially what happened with Bush II in Iraq.
“Wars, to the common guy in the street, hinge upon an issue of morality. That’s also why Vietnam was so protested against.”
So why should this war, with all the parallels to Vietnam (the lack of exit plan, the undermanning of the peacekeeping effort, the lack of a clear and unifying reason as to why we’re there to begin with, etc.), be any different? Was Ho Chi Minh less of threat to America’s safety than Saddam Hussain, so therefore it’s righteous to protest being in Vietnam but immoral to protest being in Iraq? How is the Vietnam conflict more or less moral than the one in Iraq?
I ask you to refine your distinctions between the two.
I fail to see how that’s the case – the one thing Israel has a problem with is terrorists.
What has the war in Iraq done? Generate more terrorists.
Actually, the one thing Israel has a problem with is that it is surrounded by countries that have tried, on several occasions, to wipe it off the map. The Israeli army is not there to fight car bombers. The problem is that they are outnumbered and possibly outgunned. That Israel has not been destroyed is a testament to the fact that the superior fighting prowess of the Israeli army and the general incompetance and corruption of the Arab Nations. And a bit of luck. None of which are guaranteed to last forever; the Yom Kippur War was a close thing, at least in the beginning.
THAT’S the one problem Israel has, if you want to limit it to one.
Now as to the Iraq War, since it began Israel has seen it’s single most aggressive neighbor (the one last seen flying SCUD missiles at Tel Aviv) defanged, Libya dismantle its WMD, Saudi Arabia finally begin to crackdown on AL Queda, and Lebanon boot out the Syrians.
And the number of suicide bombers has dropped in Israel, pretty much the opposite of what you would expect if, indeed, the result of the war was to “Generate more terrorists”.
It’s arguable whether or not all of these events are directly tied into the war but the case can certainly be made.
Okay, so what if FDR had told all the enlistees, “You’re going over there to ensure the Treaty of Versailles is maintained! Because abrogation of the Treaty represents a direct threat to the safety of the United States!”, but then changed his tune once all the troops landed on Normandy Beach to “turns out this Treaty of Versailles isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on! But it’s okay, because we needed to take out Hitler, Mussolini, and the Emperor of Japan, because they’re all really bad people!”? Don’t you think all the enlistees would feel tricked, or used? Do you think they would retain the right to say “wait a second, I’m here for the wrong reasons! I want out!”
So why are those fighting in Iraq re-enlisting at a higher rate than usual? The army is having trouble getting new enlistees but actually made its target for the last few months–thanks mostly to excellent re-enlistment rates, especially from those in the field of battle.
One might also wonder about the fact that those in the active military voted overwhelmingly for Bush.