114 comments on “My New all purpose response to Bushies”
Since none of this is true, I think he’s doing a great job.
If you don’t think any of that is true, then you’ll forgive me if I think you’re off your rocker.
Unless you think improving the US economy is, as Bush mentioned in his speech in India, to continue to ship jobs overseas, costing Americans jobs while Indians get paid pennies.
Or if you think we don’t need to find WMD in Iraq to show that, you know, Saddam actually had all those WMD that Bush & Co. claimed were aimed at America. (Remember, this war isn’t about democracy, it’s about WMD… try to not forget that.)
And anybody that thinks Bush has any regard for the Constitution obviously has no concept of what the Constitution stands for.
Craig, let’s not get too worked up. This is a time to celebrate. Having recieved a bona fide message from Bizzaro World, we’ve just proven the existence of life on other planets!
-Rex Hondo-
Posted by Peter David at March 4, 2006 01:31 AM
“Bush’s vision sounds a lot nicer than OBL’s Caliphate by any measure, so the “Bush is worse” argument just doesn’t hold up.”
Unless, of course, you ask the families or relatives of dead Iraqis, Afghans, or Pakistanis, killed by American bombs. They might feel a bit differently about it.
I’m just saying.
PAD
*************************
And in their grief the families or relatives of Germans killed by Allied bombs during WWII might have had difficulty seeing the worthiness of the Allied cause. By that logic, one could argue that F.D.R. was as bad as Hitler.
I also wouldn’t lump our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq together. Al Qaeda started this conflict with the despicable terrorist assaults on 9/11. The Taliban government running Afghanistan was harboring and sponsoring Al Qaeda; in fact, one could argue that Al Qaeda was the real power behind the Taliban. A military assault on Afghanistan was therefore logical and justified.
(By the way, I know the U.S. conflict with radical Islam predates 9/11. But 9/11 was the opening salvo in the current war, much in the same way that Axis aggression started WWII, even though that conflict had its roots in events long past.)
Our invasion of Iraq, on the other hand, was based on flawed premises: the assertion of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, which has never been adequately substantiated, and which seems to be refuted by statemtents made by Osama characterizing Saddam as an enemy; that Iraq had substantial stockpiles of WMDs, which were never found; and that the Iraqis would cheer us as liberators, which they did not.
I believe Dubya and the neocons cooked up a thesis that we needed to establish a beachhead of democracy in the Middle East and believed that Saddam’s regime would be the easiest to topple. That, combined with a Bush-family mad-on for Saddam, led the Dubya administration to cook up a rationale for war they knew the American people would swallow. I think Dubya and the Neocons (sounds like a new punk band!) figured once they pulled off an easy transformation in Iraq, we’d forgive their cute little deceptions.
I think Dubya should be impeached and removed from office for deceiving the American people about Iraq. And I believe historians should metaphorically spit on the Dubya legacy because of this and other appallingly bad decisions.
But I still believe that Dubya’s attempt (however misguided, poorly planned or abysmally executed) to bring democracy to the Middle East isn’t remotely as despicable as Osama’s agenda. Islamic radicalism in nations like Saudi Arabia and Egypt is a backlash against governments that oppress their people. Iran’s radical Islamic government was formed as a revolt against the corruption of the Shah. In theory, bringing the democracy to the Middle East could create an environment less hospitable to such radicalism. The problem is that such a task, if it’s even possible, requires a plan more complex and well thought-out than Dubya’s ham-handed invasion of Iraq.
On the other hand, I believe Osama and his ilk won’t be satisfied with anything less than the global hegemony of fundamentalist Islam. I believe that agenda includes the extermination of all that is Christian or Semitic, subjugation of women that would make the sexism in our culture look like a utopia by comparison and the eradication of freedom that makes the Patriot Act look tichy by comparison.
Again, I think Dubya has been an incompetent and dangerous president who should be removed from office and forever remembered as an example of how not to lead this nation. Nevertheless, I believe there is a categorical difference between Dubya’s arrogant incompetence and Osama’s evil. And I believe conflating the two simply provides a smokescreen behind which Dubya’s apologists can hide. I hate to see that, because I believe Dubya has been one of our all-time sleaziest, most corrupt and most incompetent presidents.
Posted by Bill Mulligan at March 3, 2006 07:19 PM
Luigi–your superior logic is no match for his primitive emotions! Surrender now!
******************
As someone who helped stir up the pot in this debate, I can only say that I like rabbits with pancakes on their heads. And monkeys doing anything. Rabbits with pancake-hats and monkeys are funny. 🙂
Do some of you folks bother to rise above ad hominem name-calling to rebut critisism of Bush or is that good enough?
Rex Hondo just calls my defense of Bush “Bizzaro”, without bothering to actually say why at all. This speaks well to my point that many Bush haters either have no idea why they don’t like him other than someone told them to, or they base that dislike over “conventional wisdom”, which is largely inaccurate or distorted.
Craig gives it the old college try, so I’ll respond to that.
“Unless you think improving the US economy is, as Bush mentioned in his speech in India, to continue to ship jobs overseas, costing Americans jobs while Indians get paid pennies.”
Jobs do not now, nor ever have they been “shipped” anywhere. A need is created in one market or is no longer needed in another. Overall, we have never employed as many people in the US as we do today, never. Washington State has the lowest unemployment since ’99 and Arkansas has the least unemployment in three decades, for example.
“Or if you think we don’t need to find WMD in Iraq to show that, you know, Saddam actually had all those WMD that Bush & Co. claimed were aimed at America. (Remember, this war isn’t about democracy, it’s about WMD… try to not forget that.)”
I recall very clearly the explaination given for going into Iraq when we did and the Democratic Party reaction within a few days, and I saw it coming. Initially the explaination was that Iraq had violated weapons inspection and the 1992 peace treaty over 400 times and refused to re-negotiate terms, despite several efforts.
I recall Saddam being given a choice to surrender himself, just himself and no invasion would occur, and he flatly refused.
Then I remember every leftist talking head on every channel repeating the mantra “WMD, WMD, WMD….” ad nauseum, perfectly aware that giant stockpiles are unneccessary and unlikely and always were. “A-ha” You say, “why did Bush say they existed?” Look back in the archives, he didn’t, although Hillary, Teddy and Howard all SAY he said it. For the record, we did find banned weapons can labs all over the place, just not a huge warehouse.
The point of the Iraq invasion was that every aggressor in the region was looking to the US’s unwillingness to enforce it’s own requirements and this put not only the US, but the entire region at risk of increased violence. Even Israel’s prime minister was heard saying “Don’t worry about the US, they’ll do whatever we say.”
After the invasion, Quadaffi admitted HE had a WMD program and shut it down, so if you want a victory, take it there.
“And anybody that thinks Bush has any regard for the Constitution obviously has no concept of what the Constitution stands for.”
Since this is ad homenim, I can’t even address it. Since I’ve read the complete Federalist, and routinely read the dicta of Supreme Court decisions, I’m gonna assume I’ve got a pretty good concept of what the Constitution stands for, and having said that, I have no idea where Craig gets the idea that Bush has no regard for it.
Here’s where America stands after 5 1/2 years of Bush, Despite the stock market crash of 2000, the greatest domestic attack since Pearl Harbor and the virtual destruction of New Orleans:
Interest rates are at the lowest in decades, employment at record highs, the stock market back up nearly where it was at the peak of the last boom, taxes low, yet revenue higher, social spending at record levels, education test scores improved, home ownership up, housing starts up, durable goods up, income up and not a single domestic terror attack in over four years. Iraq is unstable, but has it’s first fairly elected government in 700 years. As for New Orleans, Bush is not charge of wind, and I recall the weather service not knowing within 150 miles of where Katrina would hit and Ray Nagin refusing to allow the guard to enter Orleans for weeks afterward. Despite this, the ports and refineries are functioning fully again within a few months. Not a bad record at all.
Kevin Ryan
The good news is that if rdaical Islam had its way, they would not exterminate Christians or Jews, although they might slaughter many as part of the fighting, or as part of the victory celebration. But after that Christians and Jews would live as a protected second class citizens under an Islamic regime. The Christian and Jewish communities would be governed by their own religious leaders as far as internal aspects of their lives are concerned. It is also possible that this tolerance will be extended to Hindus and Budhists, but I’m not sure about pagans in General. Heretic Islamic sects like the Shia, Druze and Alawis will also enjoy limited tolerance.
Another bit of good news is that the plan calls first to take over Muslim countries, then liberate parts of the Muslim world conquered by infidels (Spain, Sicily), and only then conquest of the non muslim world. Although there is also the aspiration to increase Muslim strength in Europe by immigration and missionary work, and the idea that Muslims in Europe and the US should have the similar form of governments Islam offers Christians and Jews, i.e. a religious autonomy (millet).
Radical Islam can also have temporary, long term truces (Hudna) with the infidels, although never Peace.
“The point of the Iraq invasion was that every aggressor in the region was looking to the US’s unwillingness to enforce it’s own requirements and this put not only the US, but the entire region at risk of increased violence. Even Israel’s prime minister was heard saying “Don’t worry about the US, they’ll do whatever we say.””
Please keep Israel out of it. No Israeli Prime Minister ever said that, nor did Israel encourage the US to go to this war.The idea that Israel in any way controls the US is untrue and dangerous.
At the time Iraq was not a threat to anybody, unless we assume that it had WMD which it was going to hand to Al-Quaida.
The ideas that the US has the right to enforce (selectively) UN resolutions on its own, or to invade countries in order to form democracies, are the issues in dispute.
I remeber Collin Powel going to the UN saying there were WMD.
Posted by: Micha at March 4, 2006 09:01 AM
The good news is that if rdaical Islam had its way, they would not exterminate Christians or Jews, although they might slaughter many as part of the fighting, or as part of the victory celebration. But after that Christians and Jews would live as a protected second class citizens under an Islamic regime. The Christian and Jewish communities would be governed by their own religious leaders as far as internal aspects of their lives are concerned. It is also possible that this tolerance will be extended to Hindus and Budhists, but I’m not sure about pagans in General. Heretic Islamic sects like the Shia, Druze and Alawis will also enjoy limited tolerance.
Another bit of good news is that the plan calls first to take over Muslim countries, then liberate parts of the Muslim world conquered by infidels (Spain, Sicily), and only then conquest of the non muslim world. Although there is also the aspiration to increase Muslim strength in Europe by immigration and missionary work, and the idea that Muslims in Europe and the US should have the similar form of governments Islam offers Christians and Jews, i.e. a religious autonomy (millet).
Radical Islam can also have temporary, long term truces (Hudna) with the infidels, although never Peace.
**********************
Micha, please understand that the question I’m about to ask is just that — a question — not an attack. Can your direct me to any documentation that supports your characterization of what the Islamic fundamentalists would do were they to succeed? I’d be interested in learning more.
Assuming everything you’ve written is true, though, I wouldn’t call it “good news.” The human race tends toward excess. What you’ve described sounds like it could easily pave the way for an Islamic version of Hitler’s “final solution.”
Also, I wouldn’t give the Islamic fundamentalist too much credit for acting in accordance with their stated beliefs. The Koran warns that dámņáŧìøņ is the punishment for deliberately targeting civilians during wartime, and yet that hasn’t stopped the death-cultists from doing just that in the name of Allah.
And before anyone jumps on me, I know that the actions of the U.S. often fall far short of its ideals. But instead of looking only at our failures, look at some of our successes. The U.S. fought a civil war that resulted in the abolition of slavery within its borders. We have not ended racial inequities by any stretch of the imagination, but ending legalized segregation and organized attempts to accelerate the progress of non-whites via affirmative action were signficant steps in that direction. While many believe it’s never enough, we give huge amounts of monetary and other forms of aid to foreign countries. I defy anyone to point to anything radical Islam has done in a similar vein.
P.S. Micha, that last paragraph certainly wasn’t directed at you in any way. And thanks for sharing your thoughts. You’re an intelligent person and express yourself very well, and I’m enjoying the opportunity to learn from you.
Oh, how the Bushies love to trot out 4 years without a terrorist attack. And just how often were we having them BEFORE 9/11? It seems ridiculous to me to crow about “preventing” more of what was an isolated incident to begin with.
Now, where were these supposed labs that were found, again?
Also, anyone paying the slightest bit of attention knows that Iraq’s “first fairly elected government in 700 years” has a good chance of having their country burn down around them.
The divide between rich and poor widens, civil liberties are threatened more than ever, the educational system is as broken as ever, and while, yes, the Monkey-In-Chief is not in charge of the wind as you so “cleverly” point out, but he could have at least PRETENDED to give a šhìŧ within the first few days after Katrina hit.
I could go on, but it’s been a long night, and I’m sure others will have more comprehensive, and likely cogent, refutations of your Bush-blather while I get some shuteye.
-Rex Hondo-
The good news is that if radical Islam had its way, they would not exterminate Christians or Jews, although they might slaughter many as part of the fighting, or as part of the victory celebration. But after that Christians and Jews would live as a protected second class citizens under an Islamic regime.
Yeah, the good news is that we can live in dhimmitude, taxed for the right to practice any of two religions. Our gay and atheist posters will continue to post, though in all likelihood they will need a Ouigi Board to do it.
(I know you were not being serious, but I’m amazed how many people buy into the propaganda that Islam is tolerant of other religions. Maybe back in the 15th century, when compared to other 15th century practices. By today’s standards the Muslim countries are intolerant to a degree that is shocking. They not only treat other religions badly, they don’t do such a great job with the way they treat their own.)
Bush is worse than Osama in the same way the witch hunt on Clinton was worse than Stalin’s murders. At least neither Osama or Stalin pretended to be anything more than what they were.
And people think it’s the Bushies who deserve a rabbit with a pancake on its head response? Oy…
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 4, 2006 10:13 AM
Yeah, the good news is that we can live in dhimmitude, taxed for the right to practice any of two religions. Our gay and atheist posters will continue to post, though in all likelihood they will need a Ouigi Board to do it.
(I know you were not being serious, but I’m amazed how many people buy into the propaganda that Islam is tolerant of other religions. Maybe back in the 15th century, when compared to other 15th century practices. By today’s standards the Muslim countries are intolerant to a degree that is shocking. They not only treat other religions badly, they don’t do such a great job with the way they treat their own.)
********************
Yikes. Micha, if you were indeed being sarcastic and it went over my head, then I’d like to order a rabbit with a pancake, Belgian waffles and Eggs Benedict on its head. Just for me.
“This just in, Bill Myers has been led away in handcuffs for impersonating an intellect…”
Bill Myers – By that logic, one could argue that F.D.R. was as bad as Hitler.
Except, Hitler started WWII.
Bush started the Iraq War.
Now, this isn’t to draw a parallel between Hitler and Bush, just to show who’s to blame for all those innocent deaths by starting the dámņ wars to begin with.
Kevin Ryan – A need is created in one market or is no longer needed in another
That’s bs, and it completely flies in the fact of what outsourcing actually is.
What is the need to have Indians answering Dell’s tech support calls, instead of Americans?
It certainly isn’t because there are more Indians with Dell computers than Americans.
The first position I held with my current employers was eliminated, with the work outsourced.
Was it because I wasn’t good at my job? Was it because the job I did was no longer necessary?
No, it was because the company is cheap and they’d rather pay slave labor elsewhere.
So, to think that’s the “college try” is ignorance on your part, imo.
Then I remember every leftist talking head on every channel repeating the mantra “WMD, WMD, WMD….”
But apparently you’ve forgotten the fact that every rightie was pushing for this war.
You’ve forgotten Bush saying in the ’03 SotU address that Saddam was after uranium from Africa (which of course was bunk, and lead to Plame being outed), or Colin Powell giving a checklist of what WMD Saddam had (which, in case you misunderstand that, it means that Saddam supposedly had WMD AT THAT POINT, not in the past).
The point of the Iraq invasion
Was to cement Bush’s legacy, which it has done in a Bush obviously could never predict (what a surprise).
It was never about the great good.
employment at record highs,
Yet unemployment is at the same point is has been for years.
So, does anybody really know how many illegals are crossing the border? Or how many legal immigrants enter the country every day to live?
Employment at record highs means nothing if there are just as many people needing jobs.
income up
From the White House website: personal disposable income was up slightly from Nov to Dec, yet it was down slightly per capita; poverty was up; the median household income was (at least between 2002 and 2004) unchanged.
Speaking of poverty, I’m looking at a graph. It’s interesting to see how the number in poverty went from about 40 million to 32 million from 1993-2000, yet has increased back up to 37 million from 2000-2004.
Draw your own conclusions…
Not a bad record at all.
As Rex said, only if you’re in Bizzaro World and Bush can do no wrong.
Oh, and the housing market is ready for a bust, one that could quite possibly sent our entire economy into another recession. Yeah, it depends on who you ask whether the recession would actually occur, but it seems everybody agrees the bust is coming.
Wow, lots of early morning typos there.
Should be:
“Was to cement Bush’s legacy, which it has done in a way Bush obviously could never predict (what a surprise).”
“It was never about the greater good.”
Bill Myers –
By that logic, one could argue that F.D.R. was as bad as Hitler.
Except, Hitler started WWII.
Bush started the Iraq War.
Now, this isn’t to draw a parallel between Hitler and Bush, just to show who’s to blame for all those innocent deaths by starting the dámņ wars to begin with.
***********************
Please go back and read my prior post a little more thoroughly. I was drawing a distinction between the war in Afghanistan, which Al Qaeda started by attacking the U.S., and the Iraq war, which we initiated even though we were under no immediate threat from Iraq. I also spelled out the flawed premises behind the war in Iraq and stated my belief that Dubya should be removed from office for his misdeeds (it won’t happen, but it should).
Reiterating a point I already made doesn’t do much to refute my argument. You certainly haven’t addressed the core of my argument. Again, I defy any of the “Dubya is as bad or worse as bin Laden” crowd to show me anything — ANYTHING — that radical Islamists have done to advance the causes of minorities’ and womens’ rights, religious understanding or world peace. I believe Dubya went into Iraq sincerely hoping to establish a democracy. I also believe Dubya’s an idiot who had no business trying to do what he did. And I also believe he had corrupt ulterior motives. I nevertheless continue to believe Osama is far, far worse than Dubya, and no one as yet has produced an argument to persuade me otherwise.
I should clarify one thing about my prior post. By “corrupt ulterior motives,” I mean I suspect that Dubya thought, “Heck, I’m doin’ the right think here in eye-RACK. So ain’t nothin’ wrong with me and my buds makin’ some munny off’n it to.”
Corrupt? Immoral? You betcha. As bad as Osama and his Al Qaeda thugs wanting to eradicate all things modern and good? Not even close. I don’t see why drawing such a distinction makes so many people vertiginous.
I believe Dubya went into Iraq sincerely hoping to establish a democracy.
I don’t. This war wasn’t about democracy until Bush & Co realized that many of us were no longer buying into the “this war is about WMD”.
At this point, he’s praying the mess will clean itself up.
And pointing out whether radical Islamists have done anything useful doesn’t have anything to do with whether Bush is doing anything useful.
Bush is, at this point, is worse than bin Laden because Bush is the one that has pushed this world closer to another world war.
Did bin Laden stoke the flames? Not really. What he orchestrated on 9/11, as horrible as those events were, are nothing to what Bush’s war in Iraq has done and could cause down the road.
All that goodwill, thrown away by this Administration in their war on terror. A war that has so far only caused greater instability in the Middle East and more people to flock to the cause of terrorism.
And while we were picking on Iraq, Iran and North Korea have pushed their nuclear agendas while it looks like there’s little, if anything, we can do about it. And that’s a far greater threat to everybody than Iraq ever was.
PAD,
Ok, now I am angry. How did you get that picture of me? Are you hacking into my computer and stealing my pictues? Which one will you post next?
Your not so favorite “Bushie,”
Iowa Jim
Yikes. Micha, if you were indeed being sarcastic.
I was sarcastic in the sense that:
a. I don’t think radical Muslims are actually going to take over any large Muslim or Christian populations.
b. I don’t think being a second class citizen under Islamic rule is good news.
I hate it when Arab propaganda tells me how wonderful Jews had it under Islam.
I was not being sarcastic in the sense that I do not want to attribute to the Muslim radicals anything that is beyond what they deserve. I see no reason to attribute to them Nazi intentions, since I have no knowledge of them having such intentions. According to Muslim law Christians and Jews are Dhimmis, which is a second class but protected minority. In so far as radical Islam wants to establish Muslim rule, I assume that’s what they want, although I do not know if they have stated that this is their intention. I also do not dispute that they will slaughter many.
By the way, I do not know what the legal status of Jews or Christians in Iran. I also don’t think that the Hamas has any intention at present to limit the rights of Christians in the Palestinian authority. In the long run, who knows. One should also take into consideration unoffical bad treatment of minorities, or conflicts between sects. If you ask most Muslims in Iraq, Shia or Sunni, no matter how religious, they would probably tell you that all they want is peace and love between the two sects. But look how easy it was for each sect to close its ranks and for rioting to begin.
Islamic organizations are involved in charity work for Muslims.
“I believe Dubya went into Iraq sincerely hoping to establish a democracy.”
I think the real theory behind the invasion of Iraq was to establish a pro-american, american-like democracy.
Bush did not bring the world closer to a third world war. The war has already began in 9/11 if not earlier. Al-Quaida has began waging a terrorist war prior to Iraq. The Iraqi war may have diverted the US’s forces from the real fight against terrorism, it may have destroyed the good will towards the US and its leadership in the war on terror, it may have drawn more recruits to the cause of Al-Quida, but it did not start the war of radsical Islamists or Al-Quida against everybody who they perceive as acting against their Islamic agenda. 9/11 was not an isolated incident. I’m surprised the US was not hit again. Maybe Bush deserves the credit, maybe Al-Quida is not strong enough, maybe there is not enough motivation among local Muslims. But Iraq is only the icing on radical Muslims agenda, and their method is terrorism anywhere where Islam is under “attack” by infidels or by secular Muslim governments.
If the US were to remove all its forces from the middle-east; stop supporting in any way or having ties or selling weapons to secular Muslim governent, Israel, India, the Phillipines, and Russia; not pressure or interfere in anyway with Muslim governments or organizations (as in Iran); not try to corrupt Muslims by exporting western culture; and refrain from insulting the prophet, I am certain Al-Quida will be happy to offer a long term truce. That’s all they are realluy asking for. They don’t want to conquer the US or forcebly convert its population.
Micha, thank you for sharing your thoughtful and intelligent comments.
Forget all this politics talk and personal attacks.
Does anybody have a recipe for rabbit stew?
Micha,
I picked you to respond to because you engaged in no personal attacks nor ad hominem responses, however, when I stated that Israel in fact, was thumbing their noses at US foriegn policy prior to the Iraq war, I was stating fact, not opinion.
“On October 3, 2001, I.A.P. News reported that according to Israel Radio (in Hebrew) Kol Yisrael an acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres. Peres warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and “turn the US against us. “Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying “don’t worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America.”
I am not blaming Israel for starting the war, nor am I concluding that Israel controls US foriegn policy, I am saying that our foreign policy was regarded as toothless, even by allies.
Kevin Ryan
Micha – The war has already began in 9/11 if not earlier.
I think you’re confusing the efforts of one group, in this case Al Qaeda, versus what has become a very serious concern for the world at large.
Al Qaeda is not starting WW3, nor will they.
Iran’s efforts to get nuclear weapons have nothing to do with Al Qaeda, nor our hunting of Al Qaeda.
It has to do with our being totally and completely distracted by this stupid war in Iraq. This is why Bush has brought us closer to WW3 than Al Qaeda ever will, because our government loves to repeat history in all manner of stupid ways.
Kevin Ryan – I picked you to respond to because you engaged in no personal attacks nor ad hominem responses,
Well, if you don’t want to debate with reality and consider anything you say or Bush says to be absolute fact, then, by all means, avoid the rest of us.
At this point, I think heavy skepticism of those who still believe anything Bush says warranted.
Y’know, I just skip past all the political commentary and just read the posts about the rabbit with the pancake on its head.
I don’t know if that’s a good thing or a bad thing.
Anyway, that is one cute pancake-wearing bunny rabbit.
I have to agree with Adam: you guys argue politics; the rest of us will laugh at the bunny with the pancake on his head. Having said that, I think George would look equally funny with a pancake on his head, but his previous encounter with baked/breaded products have not been salutory. If he nearly killed himself with a pretzel, I suspect a pancake would qualify as a weapon of mass destruction.
Craig,
You refuted Bill by noting that Hitler started WWII and Bush started The Iraq War. Except Bush DID’NT start the Iraq War, Hussian did so by violating the 1992 cease fire over 400 times. Bush had little choice but to eventually respond, which Clinton should have done by 1997.
If you want someone to blame the death of innocent Iraqis on, blame Hussain, not Bush.
You state my assertion that jobs do not travel overseas but rather fluctuate based on economic condtions from region to region, was “BS”. An enlightened response of I’ve ever heard one.
You go on to say that it flies in the face of what outsourcing really is. Outsourcing is, in fact, precisely that, fluctuating jobs migrating based on economic conditions and based on need.
you pose the question of wether you lost your job because you weren’t good at it or perhaps it wasn’t nesscessary. You then answer your own question that it was because the company was “cheap” and wanted to pay slave labor. Well, like I said, economic conditions led to your job being less efficiatious in your area. You were no longer needed to do that job. Sorry it happened, but your job did not travel overseas, it disappeared here and a new one was created in a different location.
Craig, I have no doubt that every rightie was pushing for the Iraq War to occur as it needed to. In fact, prior to Bush actually engaging in it, many lefties pushed for it too, including both Clintons, John Kerry and many others. What bothered me was the retcon that Bush never said Iraq was about anything other than WMD, made by the left. Bush gave many reasons for going into Iraq, mainly that Iraq had violated the 1992 treaty by refusing weapons inspections.
I remember the SotU in 2003 quite well, actually. When Bush said that Hussian had tried to obtain African uranium, well, he had, and that isn’t a good thing. Colin Powell’s checklist of the WMD Saddam had was based on what Saddam told us he had, but wouldn’t allow us to see, again in violation of treaty.
Is pretty hard to say what Bush’s legacy is going to be as he’s still in office, and we had insurgency is Berlin until 1952, but I doubt anyone today would say that occupation there was a bad thing. It would however, appear that the greater good was served in going into Iraq since Lybia has disavowed WMD, as has Jordan, Syria and Egpyt. Following The Iraq war, Israel also returned the Gaza to Palestine, and has been in talks to offer them a contiguous soverign state.
Unemployment under Bush is at the same point is has been for years. However, since the population has increased, the number of jobs has also increased.
The median household income is, in fact, up under Bush as well. However reports to the contrary are based on constant dollars after inflation, which show that income as down, unless you remove cost of fuel primarily, in which case income is way, way up.
Poverty may in fact be up, however, the poverty line is also up. If you for instance, changed the poverty line to $35,000 per household, then fully half of all americans would be in poverty. This has been a red herring for years as poverty lifestyle has changed drastically from what it was when we began monitoring it. Today, many in poverty, or up to $21,000 per household, enjoy free medical care, subsidized food, rent, even cable televison and in 10% of cases, home ownership. Not bad for zero income tax liability.
I have no doubt that a real estate price correction will occur and we are seeing the beginnings now, especially hard hit will be the northeast, which has seen double digit increases for years with negative growth in population. Wether that results in recession remains to be seen.
I do draw my own conclusions, thank you very much, based on facts and a studied knowledge of public issues, rather than headlines or political rethoric. What I find distasteful is the namecalling that substitutes for rational discourse, such as saying one who disagrees with you lives on “Bizzaro World”.
Me am so hapy with Bush,
Kevin number #1
1) Bill, thanku for your kind words.
2) Adam and Joe, don’t you realize that that rabit is number for on the Al-Quida wanted list and has been developing WEMD for Al-Quida. Soon rabbits all over the world will have pancakes on their heads.
3) Craig, Al-Quida is not a single organization, and it is a much greater danger than Iran. We are talking about a network of loosly tied organization that are not associated with any country or national agenda willing to hit civilian and military targets in the US, Europe and Australia, as well as the in the Muslim world. That are willing to send planes into bulidings killing thousands. This is not your good old local, usually small scale terrorism. This is the serious danger. Much more serious than Iran. Al-Quida is waging a worldwide war against the enemies of Islam, Iran is a country trying to get a leverage card by getting nuclear weapons.
There are three connection between Iran’s nuclear efforts and Al-Quida. (1) That Iran will give Al-Quida access to nuclear material (possible but I don’t think it will happen). (2) That Al-Quida will take it on itself to retaliate against the US for pressuring Iran. (3) That the US will not be able to do something against Al-Quida (or terrorism in general) because of the fear that Iran will use nuclear weapons.
I’m not happy about the fact that the US got itself again into a Vietnam situation, but I on’t see how it has brought WW3 any closer.
4) Kevin, I have read somewhere about the false quotation you attribute to Sharon. Unfortunatly, I don’t remember where, so I can’t really proove to you that it is false. There are many such misquotations and quotations out of context when it comes to Israel, so it is hard to keep track. It’s possible I read it in http://www.mideastweb.org/index.html. Which is a cite that deals among other things in things like that. But I’m not sure. I tried to google a part of the quotation, found nothing in sites from Israel, and a bunch of what appears to be antisemitic sites on the regular google. Aside from the fact that I’ve read somewhere that the quotation is false, I can give some other reasons why it is likely false. (1) I live in Israel, and I have heard nothing about it in the Israeli media, and this is something that would have been reported. (2) Sharon is not stupid enough to say something like that, nor does he believe it. (3) The phrasing sounds completely wrong. It sounds like something an antisemie would write, not something an Israeli would say.
Beyond that, the idea that Israel would somehow view an invasion of Iraq as a reason to suddenly be concerned about American pressure, or that the invasion of Iraq somehow scared Israel into withdrawing from Gaza is absurd. Is the US going to invade Israel?
You said: “when I stated that Israel in fact, was thumbing their noses at US foriegn policy prior to the Iraq war, I was stating fact, not opinion.”
Actually, Israeli leaders have always been taking US pressure and interests into consideration, and trying to avoid or divert or satisfy such pressure when it occurs. For this reason it does things that will satisfy the US (like accepting the roadmap and such). However, Israeli leaders also know that they can get away with much because the US will only follow through with its pressure to a point. We have (unfortunatly) been doing it for 40 years, way before Saddam. And we’re still doing it. The only effect of Iraq is that there was some concern that Bush will try to appease the Arab world and his European allies by putting more pressure on Israel. It is possible that one of Sharon’s reasons to disengage from Gaza was that by taking this limited move he would appear to the Americans to be making an effort towards peace that will get the US off his back. Sharon was alaways very conscious of the need to take American pressure seriously. In any case, Israel has not offered the Palestinian a continguous state at this stage (the previous prime minister did it in 2000, but then lost the elections to Sharon after fighting broke out). Whatever the current (or next) government is planning to offer the Palestinians, or the areas it is planning to withdraw from have little to do with Iraq.
I have never heard of a continued insurgency in Berlin in 1952. It seems very unlikely. But I am no expert of this time period.
Hmmm.
I like pancakes. I like bunnies.
I like people that debate without name-calling, and who can have a difference of opinion and still be civil. Well done. Kudos.
Mostly, I like bunnies.
Bush had little choice but to eventually respond
Little choice? Right…
Bush was itching for a fight, and it’s costing us dearly.
Remember how this war would pay for itself? Remember how it would be a cakewalk?
Mission accomplished, any one?
The fact that Saddam was contained, and had no WMD should be proof enough that this war was unwarranted, and it has only served to destabilize the entire region further.
He was no threat to any one but his own people. And Bush would’ve never sold his war on that alone.
many lefties pushed for it too,
And many lefties need to be voted out of office.
At least some of them had the balls to say they were wrong. Oh, but wait, that’s merely flip flopping on the issue… you apparently can never admit you were actually wrong about something.
Thankfully, some righties have had the balls to say they were wrong too.
When Bush said that Hussian had tried to obtain African uranium, well, he had
Again, you’re ignoring reality, because the man who actually researched the African uranium story (you know, the guy married to Valerie Plame), said it was bunk. Yet Bush used it anyways, lying to the entire world in the process, and when Wilson responded, the Administration outed his wife.
But you keep on believing whatever Bush tells you.
What I find distasteful is the namecalling that substitutes for rational discourse, such as saying one who disagrees with you lives on “Bizzaro World”.
Merely conclusions based on the conversations at hand. It’s not my fault you don’t like it, but if it makes you feel any better, Bush is right out there with you.
Me am so hapy with Bush,
Then I genuinely pity you, and I can only hope you (nor any one else) will never suffer from Bush’s numerous inadequacies and blunders.
“Bush had little choice but to eventually respond, which Clinton should have done by 1997.”
Had Clinton attempted a unilateral, unprovoked ground war on Iraq without a coalition, it wouldn’t have happened. Congress would have kneecapped the attempt and the public would have been howling that it was an attempt to draw attention away from (fill in the blank)gate.
PAD
Had Clinton attempted a unilateral, unprovoked ground war on Iraq without a coalition, it wouldn’t have happened.
I agree. In fact, I said as much on another forum just the other day, and the same would have applied to Gore, had he won the presidency.
The funny difference being, however, that Clinton probably could’ve gotten that coalition, but I *still* don’t think it would’ve been approved by Congress.
And for the record, when the President of the United States, says that outsourcing jobs to India is a good thing for our country, well, I have little choice but to think that Bush really doesn’t give a dámņ about this country or the people living in it.
“On October 3, 2001, I.A.P. News reported that according to Israel Radio (in Hebrew) Kol Yisrael an acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres. Peres warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and “turn the US against us. “Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying “don’t worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America.”
Anybody else wonder what IAP stands for? It’s the Islamic Association for Palestine, a pro-Hamas group.
Now the fact that this quote came from the Islamic Association for Palestine and evidently nowhere else doesn’t prove that it isn’t real. But I thought you might want to know the facts.
Nationally-syndicated columnist Georgie Anne Geyer included the quote in a column (with the bøffø yocks inducing title “Now Isn’t the Time for Bush League Moves” Supposedly the statement was made on Kol Yisrael radio. When asked, Kol Yosrael had no record of any such statement and, needless to say, neither did anyone else.
Geyer first admitted that she got the claim form IAP then, when that started looking flimsy, changed her story to it being from two Israelis. Anonymous ones, natch.
At any rate, the Chicago Tribune ran the following- Editor’s note: Georgie Anne Geyer’s May 10 column included a quote from Ariel Sharon, ‘I control America.’ This quote was widely reported in the Palestinian press but cannot be confirmed in independent sources. Geyer and Universal Press Syndicate regret not having attributed the quote more specifically.
You can find this quote all over the web, generally on the far left and far right sites, anyone who has an axe to grind with Jews, Israel or both. It’s bogus.
Again, you’re ignoring reality, because the man who actually researched the African uranium story (you know, the guy married to Valerie Plame), said it was bunk. Yet Bush used it anyways, lying to the entire world in the process, and when Wilson responded, the Administration outed his wife.
A few facts–first, Wilson was not sent to investigate whether or not Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Africa. He was sent to Niger, to investigate one such supposed incident.
Africa–continent. Niger–country.
From Wikipedia: In late February of 2002, Wilson had been sent to Niger on behalf of the CIA to investigate the possibility that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy enriched uranium yellowcake. Wilson concluded then that there “was nothing to the story”.
But he also reported that, although former Nigerien prime minister Ibrahim Assane Mayaki was unaware of any pending sales contract with Iraq, an Iraqi delegation had approached him in June 1999, expressing an interest in “expanding commercial relations.” Mayaki believed this may have meant that they wanted to purchase yellowcake uranium, one of Niger’s few exports. Mayaki claimed he refused to discuss any trade issues at all due to active UN sanctions on Iraq, and so steered the conversation in another direction. [5] Wilson’s critics claim that this evidence provides further confirmation that Iraq may have been trying to purchase uranium in Africa, and that he failed to include this information in his op-ed.
It’s totally incorrect to say that Wilson disproved that Iraq sought uranium from Africa and Wilson has never claimed that. Wilson does believe that he was unable to find any evidence of such an attempt in Niger in 2002. The Butler report from Britain backs this up but also claims that Iraq sought out Uranium sales in 1999. The CIA believed that Wilson actually found evidence to back this claim.
Much of the entire Wilson/Plame story is based on assumptions that are not yet proven. Hopefully the Libby trial will bring some of this out. As far as I know the facts as I’ve presented them above are not disputed–if so let me know.
Micha,
The sources I found indicate that the Sharon quote was real, but you miss the point. I referenced the quote to indicate that the point that even ALLIES were feeling our foreign policy was all talk, no action, and the middle east is an action place, where neighboring nations WILL attack each other, not just posture. Empty gestures are seen as just that.
That you did not hear the quote at the time doesn’t surprise me. All sorts of things go on in the US, and even in VT that escape me for a time. I have to point out that you don’t really know wether Sharon beleives it or not, but I agree it appears it was an excited utterance.
I’m sure the quote was made in hebrew, not in english, and the translation may be slightly different, but that in and of itself does not mean it originated from an anti-semitic source.
I never said the invasion of Iraq scared Israel ethier. It rather impressed both foes and friends alike that the US would be willing to back up what it said, with force if nescessary.
The Roadmap for Peace was never a serious overture for peace as it did not offer a Palestinian State, but offered the world’s largest concentration camp, with Israeli checkpoints throughout. It comes as no surprise that it was rejected. I’m fully aware that Israel has not offered a contiguous state, however, word is, the US has, but it is currently having difficulty with the recent election of Hamas.
The insurgency in Berlin following World War II may not have been as widespread as in Iraq currently, but neither has Iraq experienced the devastation suffered by Germany, where Berlin was virutally destroyed. But, I assure you, the Nazis did not simply accept that it over as a uniform idea. Small groups resisted both the americans and russians.
Craig,
The “cakewalk”, an offensive term in itself, was the invasion, which was over quickly within a short time.
I’ve demonstrated again and again that the region IS more stable, citing Lybia’s WMD shutdown, Jordan and Syria’s refutation of terror, and most certainly Israel HAD to be aware that the US’s commitment to follow thru spoke well of their commitment to Isreal’s long-term security.
Not to mention that the fact that we had a military launching pad in Iraq away from the control of the Saudi parliment for a change. Not many people are aware that prior to going into Iraq, Saudi Arabia was our major military presence in the Middle East. The problem with that is that the Saudi King, Fahd, had been in a coma for some years, and an internal fight had been brewing between two of his sons, Abdullah and Sultan for the throne. Abdullah has been relying on the West for support, and Sultan has been courting the Wahabbi and Al Queda. The resulting factionalism in the Saudi Parlament could have resulted in deadlock should our troops have been needed in the case of Saudi civil war.
So, Craig, if you have a case that the region is less stable, could you make it please? Try to avoid statements like “dude, if you can’t just see it….” or more namecalling.
Durned right, lefties who “voted for it, then voted against it” are flip-flopping. You are allowed to change your mind, but to make conflicting statements for political convieniece is opportunistic at best, disengenuous at worst.
The guy who “researched” the African uranium, Joe Wilson, as it turns out, was a staffer on the Gore campaign, and a long-time Democratic party operative, and had never had a single postive thing to say about Bush ever, big shock when his “research” turns up that “Bush Lied!”
Turns out, there’s no question Saddam had attempted to buy African Yellowcake, but hadn’t recently. Also turns out that the “research” project Joe Wilson claimed the government sent him on, was paid for by his wife, out of her employer’s funds.
Oh yeah, and since Valerie Wilson was not a covert agent when Scooter Libby discussed her with Robert Novak, so there was no “outing” for someone who wasn’t in.
Oh, and Craig, if you didn’t get the joke, “Me am so hapy with Bush” should be an OBVIOUS reference to Bizzaro.
Oh yes, and to PAD,
I understand an invasion of Iraq would have been difficult for Clinton in 1997, it took 9/11 for the American people to realize something had to be done about international terrorism and Middle Eastern instability. Bush took the opportunity and ran with it.
In any event PAD, I so appriciate that you keep this forum open to opposing viewpoints.
Kevin Ryan
Oh yeah, and since Valerie Wilson was not a covert agent when Scooter Libby discussed her with Robert Novak, so there was no “outing” for someone who wasn’t in.
That has NOT been established. It’s still an open question. The fact that Libby is being charged only with perjury may mean that she was not covert or it may just be that there was not enough evidence to prove that he knew it.
Kevin–what are your sources for the Sharon “quote”? I’ve found nothing to support it and several that pretty well debunk it.
I also don’t think you can safely imply with any certainty that Wilson fudged the facts to turn it into a “Bush lied” result. His mission was limited and his research was, by his own admission, also limited. His conclusions, as I understand them, was that he could find no conclusive evidence of Iran seeking Uranium.
Now any statement that he “proved” that there was no attempt to buy uranium would be an obvious overstatement but so would be the claim that he came to the conclusion he did out of animus toward Bush. At the very least consider this–had he been able to prove such sales he would have uncovered one of the most important pieces of intelligence this century, quite a feather in his cap. I doubt he would have passed up on that opportunity. Consider also that any attempt to downplay a genuine attempt on Iraq’s part to buy uranium would be insanely treasonous. Wilson may not be the hero some have made him out to be but he has in no way earned that kind of suspicion.
“I understand an invasion of Iraq would have been difficult for Clinton in 1997, it took 9/11 for the American people to realize something had to be done about international terrorism and Middle Eastern instability. Bush took the opportunity and ran with it.”
Yes, he did. He took the opportunity to snooker a shellshocked country into believing that a non-threat was in fact a threat, citing bogus evidence, speaking the language of fear, sending thousands of soldiers to their deaths, all to implement a get-Saddam scenario that had been in exsitence for close to ten years before he took office. He and his core supporters ignored and/or shouted down military advisors who tried to make clear what an invasion would really entail, embroiled this country in a quagmire, and will go down in history as one of the worst presidents of all time if not THE worst.
He ran with it, all right. He ran with it off a cliff and took the country and thousands of young lives with him.
PAD
Bill Mulligan – Africa–continent. Niger–country.
Niger = country in Africa, the country he was sent to.
Wilson does believe that he was unable to find any evidence of such an attempt in Niger in 2002.
Then wouldn’t it have been prudent on the part of Bush during his SotU address to not try and pass this off as absolute fact, if it wasn’t?
But then, the entire run up to this war was based on just this sort of ‘evidence’.
The “cakewalk”, an offensive term in itself,
Umm, right, sure.
Just in case you missed it, this war was sold to us, the voting public, as being short, inexpensive, and sweet.
It was none of the above. It was not the cakewalk that the Bush Administration expected it to be.
Maybe you shold stop finding my words offensive, and concentrate on the offensive actions of Bush, Cheney, and others.
I’ve demonstrated again and again that the region IS more stable
And I belive I’ve demonstrated how it isn’t.
Turkey is afraid of the Kurdish refugees in their country wanting to breakaway with the rest of the Kurds in Iraq.
The Shiites are getting the support of Iran, and they’re on the verge of genocide & civil war against the Shiites.
Iran has stepped up the rhetoric.
Pakistan is on the verge of Musharraf being thrown out in a coup by extremists.
And unless I’m mistaken, there have been more terrorist attacks in various Middle Eastern nations in the last couple of years than there were before we invaded Iraq. Which, of course, comes in response to the fact that some of these governments are supposedly also our allies.
You are allowed to change your mind, but to make conflicting statements for political convieniece is opportunistic at best, disengenuous at worst.
Then you don’t pay enough attention to your own beloved President, as he is the biggest flip-flopper of them all.
Niger = country in Africa, the country he was sent to.
Yes…so the best that Wilson could do is find evidence for or against uranium sales in Niger. Whether he did so depends on who you talk to.
The evidence for or against Iraq seeking uranium in Africa–which was the original issue you’ll recall–is another thing entirely.
If I were a betting man I would not bet against it being the case that Saddam tried to get material for WMD. The mistake made by almost everyone prior to the war was thinking that he had been more successful than he evidentially was.
Btw, the use of the word ‘cakewalk’ to describe an invasion of Iraq was in fact used:
“I believe demolishing Hussein’s military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons:
(1) It was a cakewalk last time;
(2) they’ve become much weaker;
(3) we’ve become much stronger; and
(4) now we’re playing for keeps”
Ken Adelman, former U.N. ambassador, in an Op-Ed for the Washington Post, Feb. 13, 2002
This one, along with comments from Richard Perle (who, like Adelman, is a close advisor and friend to Rumsfeld), Bush, Cheney and the rest of ’em just show how wrong they were about everything.
The only one who got it right?
“It will take at least 150,000 US troops in country, over a period of at least 10 years, to effect regime change in Iraq.”
– General Eric Shinseki, US Army Chief of Staff, Testimony before Congress, February 2003
The response from the Bush Administration?
“In my opinion, General Shinseki doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”
– Paul D. Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
I guess the General did know after all.
The evidence for or against Iraq seeking uranium in Africa–which was the original issue you’ll recall–is another thing entirely.
Seeing as how no other African nation has ever been mentioned, anywhere, on this particular issue (whether or not Saddam tried to get uranium), I’d think it’s pretty safe to say that when Kevin mentioned Africa, he was referring to Niger.
Kevin wrote:
“The sources I found indicate that the Sharon quote was real, but you miss the point. I referenced the quote to indicate that the point that even ALLIES were feeling our foreign policy was all talk, no action, and the middle east is an action place, where neighboring nations WILL attack each other, not just posture. Empty gestures are seen as just that.
That you did not hear the quote at the time doesn’t surprise me. All sorts of things go on in the US, and even in VT that escape me for a time. I have to point out that you don’t really know wether Sharon beleives it or not, but I agree it appears it was an excited utterance.
I’m sure the quote was made in hebrew, not in english, and the translation may be slightly different, but that in and of itself does not mean it originated from an anti-semitic source.
I never said the invasion of Iraq scared Israel ethier. It rather impressed both foes and friends alike that the US would be willing to back up what it said, with force if nescessary.
The Roadmap for Peace was never a serious overture for peace as it did not offer a Palestinian State, but offered the world’s largest concentration camp, with Israeli checkpoints throughout. It comes as no surprise that it was rejected. I’m fully aware that Israel has not offered a contiguous state, however, word is, the US has, but it is currently having difficulty with the recent election of Hamas.
The insurgency in Berlin following World War II may not have been as widespread as in Iraq currently, but neither has Iraq experienced the devastation suffered by Germany, where Berlin was virutally destroyed. But, I assure you, the Nazis did not simply accept that it over as a uniform idea. Small groups resisted both the americans and russians.”
———–
Bill, thanks for finding the information about that false quote. Yes, that is also what I’ve read, the information you provide can also be found in google. Quotes like that are a common thing in the Israel Palestinian conflict from enemies of Israel and sometimes from friends. People would believe anything about Israel and Jews.
Kevin, Bill, I think has shown that the quote is bogus. I also know this quote is bogus the same way most normal Americans would know that a quote saying that Bush said that he hates Islam, or that the US is planning to convert the Middle East to Christianity, is false. It doesn’t sound right, it sounds like anti-american propaganda by people who would believe anything about it. The quote you bring sounds like something someone antisemitic would come up with. You should also realize that Israel is a small country with few media outlets but very hectic news. It is not VT and Sharon is not the junior senator from somewhere. Had Sharon said something like that everybody would have heard about it and talked about it for days. Statements of lesser consequence have been argued about for days.
You should also know that at the time I was part of the organization Peace Now, so I was even more aware than now.
I believe I have demonstrated that invading Iraq has not affected Israel in the way you think. The Middle Eat, you should know, is actually a place of much talk and posturing and little action. The attack has caused Arab countries to make mostly empty or limited gestures about democracy and terror. Israel makes limited gestures about peace, although not because it is impressed by American actions, but, among other things, because there was concern that the US will increase its pressure in order to satisfy the Arab world that it is being fair.
The invasion of Iraq has definitely not made the middle east more stable. Aside ferom Lybia things are much less stable for most Arab regimes. The level of popular discontent is growing, Jordan never supported terrorism (but Jordanians do), and Syria’s attitude towards terrorism remains the same regardless of whatever empty statements they make.
I don’t like the roadmap, but you completely misrepresent it. The reference to a concentration camp is also an unfortunate by-product of rhetoric in this conflict. The roadmap is an American plan which offers the Palestinians a state in temporary borders as part of rending the violence and returning to negotiations. Sharon accepted it because he assumed correctly that the Palestinians will not fulfill the requirements of dismantling terrorist organizations, and that he could alternatly satisfy or ignore demands to remove settlements, so that the next step will never occur. The Palestinian president didn’t like it because he was correctly afraid that temporary can become long term. However he said he supported it to satisfy the Americans too, and was hoping that if he can get the Hamas to reduce terrorism without dismatling them this will make the Americans push Israel to make more concessions and to start negotiating. In any case, the roadmap is the American plan. And Israel, at the moment, has not made offers to the plaestinian of contiguous or non-contiguous states, because it can justify not making such offers by the continued Palestinian terrorism. It may withdraw unilateraly.
If you could provide a wikipedia article or something showing that there was insurgency in Germany after WWII, it would be nice. This is a historical claim I have never heard before. It should be noted that there is a difference between insurgency and some Germans who have not laid arrms or cooperated fully with the occupying forces. Insurgency implies more.
Posted by Bill Mulligan at March 5, 2006 01:02 AM
Niger = country in Africa, the country he was sent to.
Yes…so the best that Wilson could do is find evidence for or against uranium sales in Niger. Whether he did so depends on who you talk to.
The evidence for or against Iraq seeking uranium in Africa–which was the original issue you’ll recall–is another thing entirely.
If I were a betting man I would not bet against it being the case that Saddam tried to get material for WMD. The mistake made by almost everyone prior to the war was thinking that he had been more successful than he evidentially was.
******************
Bill, I’m afraid I have to disagree with you here. While I don’t have the specifics in front of me at the moment, in the months leading up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq complaints surfaced from members of the CIA about pressure they were getting from the Bush administration to spin their reports and findings to bolster the case for WMDs. So I wouldn’t say the mistake was made by “almost everyone.” Had Bush been willing to let the available evidence guide his conclusions, rather than selecting evidence to fit his preconceptions, we might not be in the mess we’re in right now.
Having said that, I also wanted to mention how much I enjoy debates like this. Yes, Internet debates always attract trolls. But they also attract intelligent and knowledgeable people from whom I can learn. Bill, you’ve stood out in this regard. I disagree with your ideology passionately but I still find myself learning from you. Thanks to you and Micha for standing head and shoulders above the crowd. You’ve both cited facts I can verify for myself to help me draw my own conclusions and elevated this debate. Thank you both.
Seeing as how no other African nation has ever been mentioned, anywhere, on this particular issue (whether or not Saddam tried to get uranium)
That is incorrect. The Butler report, among others, found evidence that The Republic of the Congo was also involved.
If you could provide a wikipedia article or something showing that there was insurgency in Germany after WWII, it would be nice. This is a historical claim I have never heard before.
I think I mentioned this before, many months ago. The Werwolfs were a Nazi plan for an insurgency to fight in the Allied controlled parts of Germany near the end of the war. Because of Hitler’s inability to recognize reality, it was ineffective as a military force and as a terrorist organization it had only limited success. Ironically, its biggest success was in convincing the allies that there was a genuine danger and they acted accordingly–the occupation was probably harsher than it would have otherwise been (the Russians in particular used the Werwold threat to run roughshod).
I don’t think there is much to be learned from the Werwolfs vis a vis Iraq, other than the idea that if you want to diminish a post war insurgency you need to kill as many people in the actual war as possible. The swiftness and relative lack of casualties by the American forces in Iraq made it more likely that a viable insurgency could be formed (not that the alternative has much appeal).
I’m still amazed nobody has ever used the Werwolfs in a movie. Just replace them with actual werewolves. It writes itself.
>I think I mentioned this before, many months ago.
I think you did, or at least somebody did. It is as incorrect now as it was back then. Even the wikipedia article says: “Werwolf was principally a war stratagem of the Nazi government. It withered by the month after German surrender; the German people were tired of war.” There’s nothing else in the wikipedia article to show there was any insurgeny after WWII, either.
Thanks Bill Mulligan for the information, both on werwolf and the false quotation. Thanks Bill Myers also.
I think this is the relevant part for our discussion in the wikipedia article:
Recently the history of Werwolf has been employed in arguments about the American-led occupation of Iraq [1] [2] [3]. Some aspects of Werwolf which are relevant to this discussion are:
1. Werwolf was principally a war stratagem of the Nazi government. It withered by the month after German surrender; the German people were tired of war.
2. As a war effort, Werwolf was truncated by the stratagem of accepting Western defeat to avoid occupation by Russians.
3. Werwolf had a mythological reputation which was deliberately fostered by Nazi propaganda. Its psychological presence exceeded confirmed incidents, especially after surrender.
4. Nonetheless, Werwolf was far weaker than many other historically significant guerrilla insurgencies, for example, those in Vietnam and Iraq.
Bill, I agree that the CIA did have evidence that many of the WMD claims were not as solid as many supposed (“many” including the head of the CIA, who said the evidence for WMD was a “slam dunk”) but there were very few voices that I recall who didn’t think there would be SOMETHING. Hëll, one of the arguments against invading was that US troops would take heavy losses when Saddam let loose with the poison gas.
It’s strange too, because there was so much evidence that Saddam thought he had those weapons…I remember one analyst speculating that he had been hoodwinked by his sons, one of whom was in charge of such things. The kid, so the thinking went, pocketed all the money that was going toward WMD development and showed his dad warehouses full of crates. “Yep, pops, there’s the cannisters of Sarin gas!” he told him.
That would actually be funny, in a historically tragic kind of way.
Anyway, thank you for the kind words. You’ve made some great points yourself and your courtesy toward those you are in disagreement with is indicative of someone who has real confidence in their arguments (and was probably raised right!)
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 4, 2006 12:31 PM
And pointing out whether radical Islamists have done anything useful doesn’t have anything to do with whether Bush is doing anything useful.
**********************
Actually, I believe it does. I believe there is an inherent difference between a misguided toppling a brutal tyrannical regime and an unprovoked attack on civilian targets. George W. Bush is in my view unwise and corrupt. But Osama bin Laden is evil. I believe it is useful and important to draw a distinction between the two.
And as to PAD’s assertion that George W. Bush may have been our worst president, I think it’s useful to cast aside emotion and put our current president into historical context. Richard Nixon was an incredibly corrupt president who stomped on civil liberties by spying on U.S. citizens who he perceived to be political enemies, and deepened our involvement in a costly war that was being fought for dubious reasons. I don’t think George W. Bush’s incompetence and corruption are unprecendented, simply that the high-stakes nature of the global war on terror have cast a harsher spotlight on his shortcomings than other presidents have had to face.
Again, that’s not to say I support George W. Bush. I think he is repugnant. I simply think we have had other equally repugnant presidents.
Posted by: Micha at March 4, 2006 01:29 PM
Islamic organizations are involved in charity work for Muslims.
****************************
I realize my emotions were driving some of my rhetoric earlier. I should make it clear that I draw a distinction between the Islamic world in general and the Islamic fundamentalist movement. And I draw yet a further distinction between Islamic fundamentalists in general and terrorists in particular. Although I think the latter distinction is somewhat blurry, as there are Islamic fundamentalists who are not involved in terrorist activities who nevertheless cheer them on.
I’m not sure which Islamic organizations you’re referring to or the exact nature of their charity work. I’ll simply say that I think one would be hard-pressed to say that radical Islam, with its violent intolerance of that which is different, is on the balance a positive force in the world.
It’s possible that America, on the balance, is not a positive force either. But I would argue that even the worst of our presidents, such as George W. Bush, have still done more good in the world than terrorist leaders such as Osama bin Laden.
I wish I could see the Iraq war in the black/white terms that so many other people do. But Iraq was in violation of U.N. resolutions and as Bill Mulligan pointed out, the U.S. was not alone in believing Iraq to be a potential threat. I still think it was an appallingly stupid choice to invade Iraq, but nevertheless I believe that choice stands out in stark contrast to Al Qaeda’s decision to send civilian crashing into civilian structures.
I’m aware that a lot of people have died in Iraq as the result of our invasion. I’m aware that the world is probably a more dangerous place than it was prior to said invasion. But as I recall, prior to our invasion George W. Bush gave the Iraqis a clear warning of what was to come. He offered Iraqi soldiers a chance to surrender.
Did Al Qaeda do that? No. Theirs was a surprise attack. One of their targets — the World Trade Center — was defenseless.
I’m also aware that some of the Iraqis we took as prisoners were mistreated and even tortured. Nevertheless, I have yet hear evidence of U.S. soliders beheading an Iraqi prisoner. We’ve seen plenty of that on the part of radical Islamic insurgents in Iraq.
I believe our greatest sin in Iraq was our stubborn refusal to plan for the aftermath of our invasion. I don’t believe George W. Bush’s hubris is forgivable, given what a grand scale it has. But I still draw a distinction between that and the sheer evil of Osama bin Laden.
I don’t believe George W. Bush wanted as many to people to die as have in Iraq. I believe Osama was hoping for as many deaths as possible. That’s the difference between arrogant incompetence and sheer evil.
I’d have to put Wilson in there as well. I usually don’t think it’s right to judge someone by the standards of today but Wilson was a virulent racist even by the standards of the time. He instituted Jim Crow segregation in the federal government after Teddy Roosevelt had refused to do so and suppressed free speech to an alarming degree during World War I. It’s not that Wilson is necessarily the worst ever (though he may be one of the least likable) but it’s only been recently that the proper re-evaluation of his presidency began.
Interestingly, 2 of the worst (Wilson and Grant) have the rare honor of being on currency.
Bill Mulligan – That is incorrect. The Butler report, among others, found evidence that The Republic of the Congo was also involved.
Then that is the first I’ve heard of it.
Hëll, one of the arguments against invading was that US troops would take heavy losses when Saddam let loose with the poison gas.
Well, I’m one of those poor suckers who believed that that would happen – this whole country was tricked by evidence that was either incompletely, manipulated, or outright false. Bush also preyed on our fears (which, again, shouldn’t surprise anybody now; see: Dubai port deal).
Yet, Bush maintained for a couple of years that the WMD would be found and his war justified.
So I would hope it’s understandable why I and others argue against this war so greatly, when there were no WMD found or used against our troops.
Bill Myers – I believe it is useful and important to draw a distinction between the two.
Probably so, but Bush certainly is leaning toward the Dark Side with his disregard for the law, warmongering, and outright attempts to destroy the checks and balances of our branches of government, among other things.
That said, many people probably view Bush as evil already, because he has directly affected their lives (such as in Iraq), where bin Laden has not. Which is a fair claim, imo, because others are allowed their own perspectives and opinions as well. And that isn’t to say that they view Bush as evil because they view bin Laden as a good guy; I’m sure both are equally hated in some parts of the world.
• 
Since none of this is true, I think he’s doing a great job.
If you don’t think any of that is true, then you’ll forgive me if I think you’re off your rocker.
Unless you think improving the US economy is, as Bush mentioned in his speech in India, to continue to ship jobs overseas, costing Americans jobs while Indians get paid pennies.
Or if you think we don’t need to find WMD in Iraq to show that, you know, Saddam actually had all those WMD that Bush & Co. claimed were aimed at America. (Remember, this war isn’t about democracy, it’s about WMD… try to not forget that.)
And anybody that thinks Bush has any regard for the Constitution obviously has no concept of what the Constitution stands for.
Craig, let’s not get too worked up. This is a time to celebrate. Having recieved a bona fide message from Bizzaro World, we’ve just proven the existence of life on other planets!
-Rex Hondo-
Posted by Peter David at March 4, 2006 01:31 AM
“Bush’s vision sounds a lot nicer than OBL’s Caliphate by any measure, so the “Bush is worse” argument just doesn’t hold up.”
Unless, of course, you ask the families or relatives of dead Iraqis, Afghans, or Pakistanis, killed by American bombs. They might feel a bit differently about it.
I’m just saying.
PAD
*************************
And in their grief the families or relatives of Germans killed by Allied bombs during WWII might have had difficulty seeing the worthiness of the Allied cause. By that logic, one could argue that F.D.R. was as bad as Hitler.
I also wouldn’t lump our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq together. Al Qaeda started this conflict with the despicable terrorist assaults on 9/11. The Taliban government running Afghanistan was harboring and sponsoring Al Qaeda; in fact, one could argue that Al Qaeda was the real power behind the Taliban. A military assault on Afghanistan was therefore logical and justified.
(By the way, I know the U.S. conflict with radical Islam predates 9/11. But 9/11 was the opening salvo in the current war, much in the same way that Axis aggression started WWII, even though that conflict had its roots in events long past.)
Our invasion of Iraq, on the other hand, was based on flawed premises: the assertion of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, which has never been adequately substantiated, and which seems to be refuted by statemtents made by Osama characterizing Saddam as an enemy; that Iraq had substantial stockpiles of WMDs, which were never found; and that the Iraqis would cheer us as liberators, which they did not.
I believe Dubya and the neocons cooked up a thesis that we needed to establish a beachhead of democracy in the Middle East and believed that Saddam’s regime would be the easiest to topple. That, combined with a Bush-family mad-on for Saddam, led the Dubya administration to cook up a rationale for war they knew the American people would swallow. I think Dubya and the Neocons (sounds like a new punk band!) figured once they pulled off an easy transformation in Iraq, we’d forgive their cute little deceptions.
I think Dubya should be impeached and removed from office for deceiving the American people about Iraq. And I believe historians should metaphorically spit on the Dubya legacy because of this and other appallingly bad decisions.
But I still believe that Dubya’s attempt (however misguided, poorly planned or abysmally executed) to bring democracy to the Middle East isn’t remotely as despicable as Osama’s agenda. Islamic radicalism in nations like Saudi Arabia and Egypt is a backlash against governments that oppress their people. Iran’s radical Islamic government was formed as a revolt against the corruption of the Shah. In theory, bringing the democracy to the Middle East could create an environment less hospitable to such radicalism. The problem is that such a task, if it’s even possible, requires a plan more complex and well thought-out than Dubya’s ham-handed invasion of Iraq.
On the other hand, I believe Osama and his ilk won’t be satisfied with anything less than the global hegemony of fundamentalist Islam. I believe that agenda includes the extermination of all that is Christian or Semitic, subjugation of women that would make the sexism in our culture look like a utopia by comparison and the eradication of freedom that makes the Patriot Act look tichy by comparison.
Again, I think Dubya has been an incompetent and dangerous president who should be removed from office and forever remembered as an example of how not to lead this nation. Nevertheless, I believe there is a categorical difference between Dubya’s arrogant incompetence and Osama’s evil. And I believe conflating the two simply provides a smokescreen behind which Dubya’s apologists can hide. I hate to see that, because I believe Dubya has been one of our all-time sleaziest, most corrupt and most incompetent presidents.
Posted by Bill Mulligan at March 3, 2006 07:19 PM
Luigi–your superior logic is no match for his primitive emotions! Surrender now!
******************
As someone who helped stir up the pot in this debate, I can only say that I like rabbits with pancakes on their heads. And monkeys doing anything. Rabbits with pancake-hats and monkeys are funny. 🙂
Do some of you folks bother to rise above ad hominem name-calling to rebut critisism of Bush or is that good enough?
Rex Hondo just calls my defense of Bush “Bizzaro”, without bothering to actually say why at all. This speaks well to my point that many Bush haters either have no idea why they don’t like him other than someone told them to, or they base that dislike over “conventional wisdom”, which is largely inaccurate or distorted.
Craig gives it the old college try, so I’ll respond to that.
“Unless you think improving the US economy is, as Bush mentioned in his speech in India, to continue to ship jobs overseas, costing Americans jobs while Indians get paid pennies.”
Jobs do not now, nor ever have they been “shipped” anywhere. A need is created in one market or is no longer needed in another. Overall, we have never employed as many people in the US as we do today, never. Washington State has the lowest unemployment since ’99 and Arkansas has the least unemployment in three decades, for example.
“Or if you think we don’t need to find WMD in Iraq to show that, you know, Saddam actually had all those WMD that Bush & Co. claimed were aimed at America. (Remember, this war isn’t about democracy, it’s about WMD… try to not forget that.)”
I recall very clearly the explaination given for going into Iraq when we did and the Democratic Party reaction within a few days, and I saw it coming. Initially the explaination was that Iraq had violated weapons inspection and the 1992 peace treaty over 400 times and refused to re-negotiate terms, despite several efforts.
I recall Saddam being given a choice to surrender himself, just himself and no invasion would occur, and he flatly refused.
Then I remember every leftist talking head on every channel repeating the mantra “WMD, WMD, WMD….” ad nauseum, perfectly aware that giant stockpiles are unneccessary and unlikely and always were. “A-ha” You say, “why did Bush say they existed?” Look back in the archives, he didn’t, although Hillary, Teddy and Howard all SAY he said it. For the record, we did find banned weapons can labs all over the place, just not a huge warehouse.
The point of the Iraq invasion was that every aggressor in the region was looking to the US’s unwillingness to enforce it’s own requirements and this put not only the US, but the entire region at risk of increased violence. Even Israel’s prime minister was heard saying “Don’t worry about the US, they’ll do whatever we say.”
After the invasion, Quadaffi admitted HE had a WMD program and shut it down, so if you want a victory, take it there.
“And anybody that thinks Bush has any regard for the Constitution obviously has no concept of what the Constitution stands for.”
Since this is ad homenim, I can’t even address it. Since I’ve read the complete Federalist, and routinely read the dicta of Supreme Court decisions, I’m gonna assume I’ve got a pretty good concept of what the Constitution stands for, and having said that, I have no idea where Craig gets the idea that Bush has no regard for it.
Here’s where America stands after 5 1/2 years of Bush, Despite the stock market crash of 2000, the greatest domestic attack since Pearl Harbor and the virtual destruction of New Orleans:
Interest rates are at the lowest in decades, employment at record highs, the stock market back up nearly where it was at the peak of the last boom, taxes low, yet revenue higher, social spending at record levels, education test scores improved, home ownership up, housing starts up, durable goods up, income up and not a single domestic terror attack in over four years. Iraq is unstable, but has it’s first fairly elected government in 700 years. As for New Orleans, Bush is not charge of wind, and I recall the weather service not knowing within 150 miles of where Katrina would hit and Ray Nagin refusing to allow the guard to enter Orleans for weeks afterward. Despite this, the ports and refineries are functioning fully again within a few months. Not a bad record at all.
Kevin Ryan
The good news is that if rdaical Islam had its way, they would not exterminate Christians or Jews, although they might slaughter many as part of the fighting, or as part of the victory celebration. But after that Christians and Jews would live as a protected second class citizens under an Islamic regime. The Christian and Jewish communities would be governed by their own religious leaders as far as internal aspects of their lives are concerned. It is also possible that this tolerance will be extended to Hindus and Budhists, but I’m not sure about pagans in General. Heretic Islamic sects like the Shia, Druze and Alawis will also enjoy limited tolerance.
Another bit of good news is that the plan calls first to take over Muslim countries, then liberate parts of the Muslim world conquered by infidels (Spain, Sicily), and only then conquest of the non muslim world. Although there is also the aspiration to increase Muslim strength in Europe by immigration and missionary work, and the idea that Muslims in Europe and the US should have the similar form of governments Islam offers Christians and Jews, i.e. a religious autonomy (millet).
Radical Islam can also have temporary, long term truces (Hudna) with the infidels, although never Peace.
“The point of the Iraq invasion was that every aggressor in the region was looking to the US’s unwillingness to enforce it’s own requirements and this put not only the US, but the entire region at risk of increased violence. Even Israel’s prime minister was heard saying “Don’t worry about the US, they’ll do whatever we say.””
Please keep Israel out of it. No Israeli Prime Minister ever said that, nor did Israel encourage the US to go to this war.The idea that Israel in any way controls the US is untrue and dangerous.
At the time Iraq was not a threat to anybody, unless we assume that it had WMD which it was going to hand to Al-Quaida.
The ideas that the US has the right to enforce (selectively) UN resolutions on its own, or to invade countries in order to form democracies, are the issues in dispute.
I remeber Collin Powel going to the UN saying there were WMD.
Posted by: Micha at March 4, 2006 09:01 AM
The good news is that if rdaical Islam had its way, they would not exterminate Christians or Jews, although they might slaughter many as part of the fighting, or as part of the victory celebration. But after that Christians and Jews would live as a protected second class citizens under an Islamic regime. The Christian and Jewish communities would be governed by their own religious leaders as far as internal aspects of their lives are concerned. It is also possible that this tolerance will be extended to Hindus and Budhists, but I’m not sure about pagans in General. Heretic Islamic sects like the Shia, Druze and Alawis will also enjoy limited tolerance.
Another bit of good news is that the plan calls first to take over Muslim countries, then liberate parts of the Muslim world conquered by infidels (Spain, Sicily), and only then conquest of the non muslim world. Although there is also the aspiration to increase Muslim strength in Europe by immigration and missionary work, and the idea that Muslims in Europe and the US should have the similar form of governments Islam offers Christians and Jews, i.e. a religious autonomy (millet).
Radical Islam can also have temporary, long term truces (Hudna) with the infidels, although never Peace.
**********************
Micha, please understand that the question I’m about to ask is just that — a question — not an attack. Can your direct me to any documentation that supports your characterization of what the Islamic fundamentalists would do were they to succeed? I’d be interested in learning more.
Assuming everything you’ve written is true, though, I wouldn’t call it “good news.” The human race tends toward excess. What you’ve described sounds like it could easily pave the way for an Islamic version of Hitler’s “final solution.”
Also, I wouldn’t give the Islamic fundamentalist too much credit for acting in accordance with their stated beliefs. The Koran warns that dámņáŧìøņ is the punishment for deliberately targeting civilians during wartime, and yet that hasn’t stopped the death-cultists from doing just that in the name of Allah.
And before anyone jumps on me, I know that the actions of the U.S. often fall far short of its ideals. But instead of looking only at our failures, look at some of our successes. The U.S. fought a civil war that resulted in the abolition of slavery within its borders. We have not ended racial inequities by any stretch of the imagination, but ending legalized segregation and organized attempts to accelerate the progress of non-whites via affirmative action were signficant steps in that direction. While many believe it’s never enough, we give huge amounts of monetary and other forms of aid to foreign countries. I defy anyone to point to anything radical Islam has done in a similar vein.
P.S. Micha, that last paragraph certainly wasn’t directed at you in any way. And thanks for sharing your thoughts. You’re an intelligent person and express yourself very well, and I’m enjoying the opportunity to learn from you.
Oh, how the Bushies love to trot out 4 years without a terrorist attack. And just how often were we having them BEFORE 9/11? It seems ridiculous to me to crow about “preventing” more of what was an isolated incident to begin with.
As for the alleged WMDs…
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/
Now, where were these supposed labs that were found, again?
Also, anyone paying the slightest bit of attention knows that Iraq’s “first fairly elected government in 700 years” has a good chance of having their country burn down around them.
The divide between rich and poor widens, civil liberties are threatened more than ever, the educational system is as broken as ever, and while, yes, the Monkey-In-Chief is not in charge of the wind as you so “cleverly” point out, but he could have at least PRETENDED to give a šhìŧ within the first few days after Katrina hit.
I could go on, but it’s been a long night, and I’m sure others will have more comprehensive, and likely cogent, refutations of your Bush-blather while I get some shuteye.
-Rex Hondo-
The good news is that if radical Islam had its way, they would not exterminate Christians or Jews, although they might slaughter many as part of the fighting, or as part of the victory celebration. But after that Christians and Jews would live as a protected second class citizens under an Islamic regime.
Yeah, the good news is that we can live in dhimmitude, taxed for the right to practice any of two religions. Our gay and atheist posters will continue to post, though in all likelihood they will need a Ouigi Board to do it.
(I know you were not being serious, but I’m amazed how many people buy into the propaganda that Islam is tolerant of other religions. Maybe back in the 15th century, when compared to other 15th century practices. By today’s standards the Muslim countries are intolerant to a degree that is shocking. They not only treat other religions badly, they don’t do such a great job with the way they treat their own.)
Bush is worse than Osama in the same way the witch hunt on Clinton was worse than Stalin’s murders. At least neither Osama or Stalin pretended to be anything more than what they were.
And people think it’s the Bushies who deserve a rabbit with a pancake on its head response? Oy…
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 4, 2006 10:13 AM
Yeah, the good news is that we can live in dhimmitude, taxed for the right to practice any of two religions. Our gay and atheist posters will continue to post, though in all likelihood they will need a Ouigi Board to do it.
(I know you were not being serious, but I’m amazed how many people buy into the propaganda that Islam is tolerant of other religions. Maybe back in the 15th century, when compared to other 15th century practices. By today’s standards the Muslim countries are intolerant to a degree that is shocking. They not only treat other religions badly, they don’t do such a great job with the way they treat their own.)
********************
Yikes. Micha, if you were indeed being sarcastic and it went over my head, then I’d like to order a rabbit with a pancake, Belgian waffles and Eggs Benedict on its head. Just for me.
“This just in, Bill Myers has been led away in handcuffs for impersonating an intellect…”
Bill Myers –
By that logic, one could argue that F.D.R. was as bad as Hitler.
Except, Hitler started WWII.
Bush started the Iraq War.
Now, this isn’t to draw a parallel between Hitler and Bush, just to show who’s to blame for all those innocent deaths by starting the dámņ wars to begin with.
Kevin Ryan –
A need is created in one market or is no longer needed in another
That’s bs, and it completely flies in the fact of what outsourcing actually is.
What is the need to have Indians answering Dell’s tech support calls, instead of Americans?
It certainly isn’t because there are more Indians with Dell computers than Americans.
The first position I held with my current employers was eliminated, with the work outsourced.
Was it because I wasn’t good at my job? Was it because the job I did was no longer necessary?
No, it was because the company is cheap and they’d rather pay slave labor elsewhere.
So, to think that’s the “college try” is ignorance on your part, imo.
Then I remember every leftist talking head on every channel repeating the mantra “WMD, WMD, WMD….”
But apparently you’ve forgotten the fact that every rightie was pushing for this war.
You’ve forgotten Bush saying in the ’03 SotU address that Saddam was after uranium from Africa (which of course was bunk, and lead to Plame being outed), or Colin Powell giving a checklist of what WMD Saddam had (which, in case you misunderstand that, it means that Saddam supposedly had WMD AT THAT POINT, not in the past).
The point of the Iraq invasion
Was to cement Bush’s legacy, which it has done in a Bush obviously could never predict (what a surprise).
It was never about the great good.
employment at record highs,
Yet unemployment is at the same point is has been for years.
So, does anybody really know how many illegals are crossing the border? Or how many legal immigrants enter the country every day to live?
Employment at record highs means nothing if there are just as many people needing jobs.
income up
From the White House website: personal disposable income was up slightly from Nov to Dec, yet it was down slightly per capita; poverty was up; the median household income was (at least between 2002 and 2004) unchanged.
Speaking of poverty, I’m looking at a graph. It’s interesting to see how the number in poverty went from about 40 million to 32 million from 1993-2000, yet has increased back up to 37 million from 2000-2004.
Draw your own conclusions…
Not a bad record at all.
As Rex said, only if you’re in Bizzaro World and Bush can do no wrong.
Oh, and the housing market is ready for a bust, one that could quite possibly sent our entire economy into another recession. Yeah, it depends on who you ask whether the recession would actually occur, but it seems everybody agrees the bust is coming.
Wow, lots of early morning typos there.
Should be:
“Was to cement Bush’s legacy, which it has done in a way Bush obviously could never predict (what a surprise).”
“It was never about the greater good.”
Bill Myers –
By that logic, one could argue that F.D.R. was as bad as Hitler.
Except, Hitler started WWII.
Bush started the Iraq War.
Now, this isn’t to draw a parallel between Hitler and Bush, just to show who’s to blame for all those innocent deaths by starting the dámņ wars to begin with.
***********************
Please go back and read my prior post a little more thoroughly. I was drawing a distinction between the war in Afghanistan, which Al Qaeda started by attacking the U.S., and the Iraq war, which we initiated even though we were under no immediate threat from Iraq. I also spelled out the flawed premises behind the war in Iraq and stated my belief that Dubya should be removed from office for his misdeeds (it won’t happen, but it should).
Reiterating a point I already made doesn’t do much to refute my argument. You certainly haven’t addressed the core of my argument. Again, I defy any of the “Dubya is as bad or worse as bin Laden” crowd to show me anything — ANYTHING — that radical Islamists have done to advance the causes of minorities’ and womens’ rights, religious understanding or world peace. I believe Dubya went into Iraq sincerely hoping to establish a democracy. I also believe Dubya’s an idiot who had no business trying to do what he did. And I also believe he had corrupt ulterior motives. I nevertheless continue to believe Osama is far, far worse than Dubya, and no one as yet has produced an argument to persuade me otherwise.
I should clarify one thing about my prior post. By “corrupt ulterior motives,” I mean I suspect that Dubya thought, “Heck, I’m doin’ the right think here in eye-RACK. So ain’t nothin’ wrong with me and my buds makin’ some munny off’n it to.”
Corrupt? Immoral? You betcha. As bad as Osama and his Al Qaeda thugs wanting to eradicate all things modern and good? Not even close. I don’t see why drawing such a distinction makes so many people vertiginous.
I believe Dubya went into Iraq sincerely hoping to establish a democracy.
I don’t. This war wasn’t about democracy until Bush & Co realized that many of us were no longer buying into the “this war is about WMD”.
At this point, he’s praying the mess will clean itself up.
And pointing out whether radical Islamists have done anything useful doesn’t have anything to do with whether Bush is doing anything useful.
Bush is, at this point, is worse than bin Laden because Bush is the one that has pushed this world closer to another world war.
Did bin Laden stoke the flames? Not really. What he orchestrated on 9/11, as horrible as those events were, are nothing to what Bush’s war in Iraq has done and could cause down the road.
All that goodwill, thrown away by this Administration in their war on terror. A war that has so far only caused greater instability in the Middle East and more people to flock to the cause of terrorism.
And while we were picking on Iraq, Iran and North Korea have pushed their nuclear agendas while it looks like there’s little, if anything, we can do about it. And that’s a far greater threat to everybody than Iraq ever was.
PAD,
Ok, now I am angry. How did you get that picture of me? Are you hacking into my computer and stealing my pictues? Which one will you post next?
Your not so favorite “Bushie,”
Iowa Jim
Yikes. Micha, if you were indeed being sarcastic.
I was sarcastic in the sense that:
a. I don’t think radical Muslims are actually going to take over any large Muslim or Christian populations.
b. I don’t think being a second class citizen under Islamic rule is good news.
I hate it when Arab propaganda tells me how wonderful Jews had it under Islam.
I was not being sarcastic in the sense that I do not want to attribute to the Muslim radicals anything that is beyond what they deserve. I see no reason to attribute to them Nazi intentions, since I have no knowledge of them having such intentions. According to Muslim law Christians and Jews are Dhimmis, which is a second class but protected minority. In so far as radical Islam wants to establish Muslim rule, I assume that’s what they want, although I do not know if they have stated that this is their intention. I also do not dispute that they will slaughter many.
By the way, I do not know what the legal status of Jews or Christians in Iran. I also don’t think that the Hamas has any intention at present to limit the rights of Christians in the Palestinian authority. In the long run, who knows. One should also take into consideration unoffical bad treatment of minorities, or conflicts between sects. If you ask most Muslims in Iraq, Shia or Sunni, no matter how religious, they would probably tell you that all they want is peace and love between the two sects. But look how easy it was for each sect to close its ranks and for rioting to begin.
Islamic organizations are involved in charity work for Muslims.
“I believe Dubya went into Iraq sincerely hoping to establish a democracy.”
I think the real theory behind the invasion of Iraq was to establish a pro-american, american-like democracy.
Bush did not bring the world closer to a third world war. The war has already began in 9/11 if not earlier. Al-Quaida has began waging a terrorist war prior to Iraq. The Iraqi war may have diverted the US’s forces from the real fight against terrorism, it may have destroyed the good will towards the US and its leadership in the war on terror, it may have drawn more recruits to the cause of Al-Quida, but it did not start the war of radsical Islamists or Al-Quida against everybody who they perceive as acting against their Islamic agenda. 9/11 was not an isolated incident. I’m surprised the US was not hit again. Maybe Bush deserves the credit, maybe Al-Quida is not strong enough, maybe there is not enough motivation among local Muslims. But Iraq is only the icing on radical Muslims agenda, and their method is terrorism anywhere where Islam is under “attack” by infidels or by secular Muslim governments.
If the US were to remove all its forces from the middle-east; stop supporting in any way or having ties or selling weapons to secular Muslim governent, Israel, India, the Phillipines, and Russia; not pressure or interfere in anyway with Muslim governments or organizations (as in Iran); not try to corrupt Muslims by exporting western culture; and refrain from insulting the prophet, I am certain Al-Quida will be happy to offer a long term truce. That’s all they are realluy asking for. They don’t want to conquer the US or forcebly convert its population.
Micha, thank you for sharing your thoughtful and intelligent comments.
Forget all this politics talk and personal attacks.
Does anybody have a recipe for rabbit stew?
Micha,
I picked you to respond to because you engaged in no personal attacks nor ad hominem responses, however, when I stated that Israel in fact, was thumbing their noses at US foriegn policy prior to the Iraq war, I was stating fact, not opinion.
“On October 3, 2001, I.A.P. News reported that according to Israel Radio (in Hebrew) Kol Yisrael an acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres. Peres warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and “turn the US against us. “Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying “don’t worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America.”
I am not blaming Israel for starting the war, nor am I concluding that Israel controls US foriegn policy, I am saying that our foreign policy was regarded as toothless, even by allies.
Kevin Ryan
Micha –
The war has already began in 9/11 if not earlier.
I think you’re confusing the efforts of one group, in this case Al Qaeda, versus what has become a very serious concern for the world at large.
Al Qaeda is not starting WW3, nor will they.
Iran’s efforts to get nuclear weapons have nothing to do with Al Qaeda, nor our hunting of Al Qaeda.
It has to do with our being totally and completely distracted by this stupid war in Iraq. This is why Bush has brought us closer to WW3 than Al Qaeda ever will, because our government loves to repeat history in all manner of stupid ways.
Kevin Ryan –
I picked you to respond to because you engaged in no personal attacks nor ad hominem responses,
Well, if you don’t want to debate with reality and consider anything you say or Bush says to be absolute fact, then, by all means, avoid the rest of us.
At this point, I think heavy skepticism of those who still believe anything Bush says warranted.
Y’know, I just skip past all the political commentary and just read the posts about the rabbit with the pancake on its head.
I don’t know if that’s a good thing or a bad thing.
Anyway, that is one cute pancake-wearing bunny rabbit.
I have to agree with Adam: you guys argue politics; the rest of us will laugh at the bunny with the pancake on his head. Having said that, I think George would look equally funny with a pancake on his head, but his previous encounter with baked/breaded products have not been salutory. If he nearly killed himself with a pretzel, I suspect a pancake would qualify as a weapon of mass destruction.
Craig,
You refuted Bill by noting that Hitler started WWII and Bush started The Iraq War. Except Bush DID’NT start the Iraq War, Hussian did so by violating the 1992 cease fire over 400 times. Bush had little choice but to eventually respond, which Clinton should have done by 1997.
If you want someone to blame the death of innocent Iraqis on, blame Hussain, not Bush.
You state my assertion that jobs do not travel overseas but rather fluctuate based on economic condtions from region to region, was “BS”. An enlightened response of I’ve ever heard one.
You go on to say that it flies in the face of what outsourcing really is. Outsourcing is, in fact, precisely that, fluctuating jobs migrating based on economic conditions and based on need.
you pose the question of wether you lost your job because you weren’t good at it or perhaps it wasn’t nesscessary. You then answer your own question that it was because the company was “cheap” and wanted to pay slave labor. Well, like I said, economic conditions led to your job being less efficiatious in your area. You were no longer needed to do that job. Sorry it happened, but your job did not travel overseas, it disappeared here and a new one was created in a different location.
Craig, I have no doubt that every rightie was pushing for the Iraq War to occur as it needed to. In fact, prior to Bush actually engaging in it, many lefties pushed for it too, including both Clintons, John Kerry and many others. What bothered me was the retcon that Bush never said Iraq was about anything other than WMD, made by the left. Bush gave many reasons for going into Iraq, mainly that Iraq had violated the 1992 treaty by refusing weapons inspections.
I remember the SotU in 2003 quite well, actually. When Bush said that Hussian had tried to obtain African uranium, well, he had, and that isn’t a good thing. Colin Powell’s checklist of the WMD Saddam had was based on what Saddam told us he had, but wouldn’t allow us to see, again in violation of treaty.
Is pretty hard to say what Bush’s legacy is going to be as he’s still in office, and we had insurgency is Berlin until 1952, but I doubt anyone today would say that occupation there was a bad thing. It would however, appear that the greater good was served in going into Iraq since Lybia has disavowed WMD, as has Jordan, Syria and Egpyt. Following The Iraq war, Israel also returned the Gaza to Palestine, and has been in talks to offer them a contiguous soverign state.
Unemployment under Bush is at the same point is has been for years. However, since the population has increased, the number of jobs has also increased.
The median household income is, in fact, up under Bush as well. However reports to the contrary are based on constant dollars after inflation, which show that income as down, unless you remove cost of fuel primarily, in which case income is way, way up.
Poverty may in fact be up, however, the poverty line is also up. If you for instance, changed the poverty line to $35,000 per household, then fully half of all americans would be in poverty. This has been a red herring for years as poverty lifestyle has changed drastically from what it was when we began monitoring it. Today, many in poverty, or up to $21,000 per household, enjoy free medical care, subsidized food, rent, even cable televison and in 10% of cases, home ownership. Not bad for zero income tax liability.
I have no doubt that a real estate price correction will occur and we are seeing the beginnings now, especially hard hit will be the northeast, which has seen double digit increases for years with negative growth in population. Wether that results in recession remains to be seen.
I do draw my own conclusions, thank you very much, based on facts and a studied knowledge of public issues, rather than headlines or political rethoric. What I find distasteful is the namecalling that substitutes for rational discourse, such as saying one who disagrees with you lives on “Bizzaro World”.
Me am so hapy with Bush,
Kevin number #1
1) Bill, thanku for your kind words.
2) Adam and Joe, don’t you realize that that rabit is number for on the Al-Quida wanted list and has been developing WEMD for Al-Quida. Soon rabbits all over the world will have pancakes on their heads.
3) Craig, Al-Quida is not a single organization, and it is a much greater danger than Iran. We are talking about a network of loosly tied organization that are not associated with any country or national agenda willing to hit civilian and military targets in the US, Europe and Australia, as well as the in the Muslim world. That are willing to send planes into bulidings killing thousands. This is not your good old local, usually small scale terrorism. This is the serious danger. Much more serious than Iran. Al-Quida is waging a worldwide war against the enemies of Islam, Iran is a country trying to get a leverage card by getting nuclear weapons.
There are three connection between Iran’s nuclear efforts and Al-Quida. (1) That Iran will give Al-Quida access to nuclear material (possible but I don’t think it will happen). (2) That Al-Quida will take it on itself to retaliate against the US for pressuring Iran. (3) That the US will not be able to do something against Al-Quida (or terrorism in general) because of the fear that Iran will use nuclear weapons.
I’m not happy about the fact that the US got itself again into a Vietnam situation, but I on’t see how it has brought WW3 any closer.
4) Kevin, I have read somewhere about the false quotation you attribute to Sharon. Unfortunatly, I don’t remember where, so I can’t really proove to you that it is false. There are many such misquotations and quotations out of context when it comes to Israel, so it is hard to keep track. It’s possible I read it in http://www.mideastweb.org/index.html. Which is a cite that deals among other things in things like that. But I’m not sure. I tried to google a part of the quotation, found nothing in sites from Israel, and a bunch of what appears to be antisemitic sites on the regular google. Aside from the fact that I’ve read somewhere that the quotation is false, I can give some other reasons why it is likely false. (1) I live in Israel, and I have heard nothing about it in the Israeli media, and this is something that would have been reported. (2) Sharon is not stupid enough to say something like that, nor does he believe it. (3) The phrasing sounds completely wrong. It sounds like something an antisemie would write, not something an Israeli would say.
Beyond that, the idea that Israel would somehow view an invasion of Iraq as a reason to suddenly be concerned about American pressure, or that the invasion of Iraq somehow scared Israel into withdrawing from Gaza is absurd. Is the US going to invade Israel?
You said: “when I stated that Israel in fact, was thumbing their noses at US foriegn policy prior to the Iraq war, I was stating fact, not opinion.”
Actually, Israeli leaders have always been taking US pressure and interests into consideration, and trying to avoid or divert or satisfy such pressure when it occurs. For this reason it does things that will satisfy the US (like accepting the roadmap and such). However, Israeli leaders also know that they can get away with much because the US will only follow through with its pressure to a point. We have (unfortunatly) been doing it for 40 years, way before Saddam. And we’re still doing it. The only effect of Iraq is that there was some concern that Bush will try to appease the Arab world and his European allies by putting more pressure on Israel. It is possible that one of Sharon’s reasons to disengage from Gaza was that by taking this limited move he would appear to the Americans to be making an effort towards peace that will get the US off his back. Sharon was alaways very conscious of the need to take American pressure seriously. In any case, Israel has not offered the Palestinian a continguous state at this stage (the previous prime minister did it in 2000, but then lost the elections to Sharon after fighting broke out). Whatever the current (or next) government is planning to offer the Palestinians, or the areas it is planning to withdraw from have little to do with Iraq.
I have never heard of a continued insurgency in Berlin in 1952. It seems very unlikely. But I am no expert of this time period.
Hmmm.
I like pancakes. I like bunnies.
I like people that debate without name-calling, and who can have a difference of opinion and still be civil. Well done. Kudos.
Mostly, I like bunnies.
Bush had little choice but to eventually respond
Little choice? Right…
Bush was itching for a fight, and it’s costing us dearly.
Remember how this war would pay for itself? Remember how it would be a cakewalk?
Mission accomplished, any one?
The fact that Saddam was contained, and had no WMD should be proof enough that this war was unwarranted, and it has only served to destabilize the entire region further.
He was no threat to any one but his own people. And Bush would’ve never sold his war on that alone.
many lefties pushed for it too,
And many lefties need to be voted out of office.
At least some of them had the balls to say they were wrong. Oh, but wait, that’s merely flip flopping on the issue… you apparently can never admit you were actually wrong about something.
Thankfully, some righties have had the balls to say they were wrong too.
When Bush said that Hussian had tried to obtain African uranium, well, he had
Again, you’re ignoring reality, because the man who actually researched the African uranium story (you know, the guy married to Valerie Plame), said it was bunk. Yet Bush used it anyways, lying to the entire world in the process, and when Wilson responded, the Administration outed his wife.
But you keep on believing whatever Bush tells you.
What I find distasteful is the namecalling that substitutes for rational discourse, such as saying one who disagrees with you lives on “Bizzaro World”.
Merely conclusions based on the conversations at hand. It’s not my fault you don’t like it, but if it makes you feel any better, Bush is right out there with you.
Me am so hapy with Bush,
Then I genuinely pity you, and I can only hope you (nor any one else) will never suffer from Bush’s numerous inadequacies and blunders.
“Bush had little choice but to eventually respond, which Clinton should have done by 1997.”
Had Clinton attempted a unilateral, unprovoked ground war on Iraq without a coalition, it wouldn’t have happened. Congress would have kneecapped the attempt and the public would have been howling that it was an attempt to draw attention away from (fill in the blank)gate.
PAD
Had Clinton attempted a unilateral, unprovoked ground war on Iraq without a coalition, it wouldn’t have happened.
I agree. In fact, I said as much on another forum just the other day, and the same would have applied to Gore, had he won the presidency.
The funny difference being, however, that Clinton probably could’ve gotten that coalition, but I *still* don’t think it would’ve been approved by Congress.
And for the record, when the President of the United States, says that outsourcing jobs to India is a good thing for our country, well, I have little choice but to think that Bush really doesn’t give a dámņ about this country or the people living in it.
“On October 3, 2001, I.A.P. News reported that according to Israel Radio (in Hebrew) Kol Yisrael an acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres. Peres warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and “turn the US against us. “Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying “don’t worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America.”
Anybody else wonder what IAP stands for? It’s the Islamic Association for Palestine, a pro-Hamas group.
Now the fact that this quote came from the Islamic Association for Palestine and evidently nowhere else doesn’t prove that it isn’t real. But I thought you might want to know the facts.
Nationally-syndicated columnist Georgie Anne Geyer included the quote in a column (with the bøffø yocks inducing title “Now Isn’t the Time for Bush League Moves” Supposedly the statement was made on Kol Yisrael radio. When asked, Kol Yosrael had no record of any such statement and, needless to say, neither did anyone else.
Geyer first admitted that she got the claim form IAP then, when that started looking flimsy, changed her story to it being from two Israelis. Anonymous ones, natch.
At any rate, the Chicago Tribune ran the following- Editor’s note: Georgie Anne Geyer’s May 10 column included a quote from Ariel Sharon, ‘I control America.’ This quote was widely reported in the Palestinian press but cannot be confirmed in independent sources. Geyer and Universal Press Syndicate regret not having attributed the quote more specifically.
You can find this quote all over the web, generally on the far left and far right sites, anyone who has an axe to grind with Jews, Israel or both. It’s bogus.
Again, you’re ignoring reality, because the man who actually researched the African uranium story (you know, the guy married to Valerie Plame), said it was bunk. Yet Bush used it anyways, lying to the entire world in the process, and when Wilson responded, the Administration outed his wife.
A few facts–first, Wilson was not sent to investigate whether or not Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Africa. He was sent to Niger, to investigate one such supposed incident.
Africa–continent. Niger–country.
From Wikipedia: In late February of 2002, Wilson had been sent to Niger on behalf of the CIA to investigate the possibility that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy enriched uranium yellowcake. Wilson concluded then that there “was nothing to the story”.
But he also reported that, although former Nigerien prime minister Ibrahim Assane Mayaki was unaware of any pending sales contract with Iraq, an Iraqi delegation had approached him in June 1999, expressing an interest in “expanding commercial relations.” Mayaki believed this may have meant that they wanted to purchase yellowcake uranium, one of Niger’s few exports. Mayaki claimed he refused to discuss any trade issues at all due to active UN sanctions on Iraq, and so steered the conversation in another direction. [5] Wilson’s critics claim that this evidence provides further confirmation that Iraq may have been trying to purchase uranium in Africa, and that he failed to include this information in his op-ed.
It’s totally incorrect to say that Wilson disproved that Iraq sought uranium from Africa and Wilson has never claimed that. Wilson does believe that he was unable to find any evidence of such an attempt in Niger in 2002. The Butler report from Britain backs this up but also claims that Iraq sought out Uranium sales in 1999. The CIA believed that Wilson actually found evidence to back this claim.
Much of the entire Wilson/Plame story is based on assumptions that are not yet proven. Hopefully the Libby trial will bring some of this out. As far as I know the facts as I’ve presented them above are not disputed–if so let me know.
Micha,
The sources I found indicate that the Sharon quote was real, but you miss the point. I referenced the quote to indicate that the point that even ALLIES were feeling our foreign policy was all talk, no action, and the middle east is an action place, where neighboring nations WILL attack each other, not just posture. Empty gestures are seen as just that.
That you did not hear the quote at the time doesn’t surprise me. All sorts of things go on in the US, and even in VT that escape me for a time. I have to point out that you don’t really know wether Sharon beleives it or not, but I agree it appears it was an excited utterance.
I’m sure the quote was made in hebrew, not in english, and the translation may be slightly different, but that in and of itself does not mean it originated from an anti-semitic source.
I never said the invasion of Iraq scared Israel ethier. It rather impressed both foes and friends alike that the US would be willing to back up what it said, with force if nescessary.
The Roadmap for Peace was never a serious overture for peace as it did not offer a Palestinian State, but offered the world’s largest concentration camp, with Israeli checkpoints throughout. It comes as no surprise that it was rejected. I’m fully aware that Israel has not offered a contiguous state, however, word is, the US has, but it is currently having difficulty with the recent election of Hamas.
The insurgency in Berlin following World War II may not have been as widespread as in Iraq currently, but neither has Iraq experienced the devastation suffered by Germany, where Berlin was virutally destroyed. But, I assure you, the Nazis did not simply accept that it over as a uniform idea. Small groups resisted both the americans and russians.
Craig,
The “cakewalk”, an offensive term in itself, was the invasion, which was over quickly within a short time.
I’ve demonstrated again and again that the region IS more stable, citing Lybia’s WMD shutdown, Jordan and Syria’s refutation of terror, and most certainly Israel HAD to be aware that the US’s commitment to follow thru spoke well of their commitment to Isreal’s long-term security.
Not to mention that the fact that we had a military launching pad in Iraq away from the control of the Saudi parliment for a change. Not many people are aware that prior to going into Iraq, Saudi Arabia was our major military presence in the Middle East. The problem with that is that the Saudi King, Fahd, had been in a coma for some years, and an internal fight had been brewing between two of his sons, Abdullah and Sultan for the throne. Abdullah has been relying on the West for support, and Sultan has been courting the Wahabbi and Al Queda. The resulting factionalism in the Saudi Parlament could have resulted in deadlock should our troops have been needed in the case of Saudi civil war.
So, Craig, if you have a case that the region is less stable, could you make it please? Try to avoid statements like “dude, if you can’t just see it….” or more namecalling.
Durned right, lefties who “voted for it, then voted against it” are flip-flopping. You are allowed to change your mind, but to make conflicting statements for political convieniece is opportunistic at best, disengenuous at worst.
The guy who “researched” the African uranium, Joe Wilson, as it turns out, was a staffer on the Gore campaign, and a long-time Democratic party operative, and had never had a single postive thing to say about Bush ever, big shock when his “research” turns up that “Bush Lied!”
Turns out, there’s no question Saddam had attempted to buy African Yellowcake, but hadn’t recently. Also turns out that the “research” project Joe Wilson claimed the government sent him on, was paid for by his wife, out of her employer’s funds.
Oh yeah, and since Valerie Wilson was not a covert agent when Scooter Libby discussed her with Robert Novak, so there was no “outing” for someone who wasn’t in.
Oh, and Craig, if you didn’t get the joke, “Me am so hapy with Bush” should be an OBVIOUS reference to Bizzaro.
Oh yes, and to PAD,
I understand an invasion of Iraq would have been difficult for Clinton in 1997, it took 9/11 for the American people to realize something had to be done about international terrorism and Middle Eastern instability. Bush took the opportunity and ran with it.
In any event PAD, I so appriciate that you keep this forum open to opposing viewpoints.
Kevin Ryan
Oh yeah, and since Valerie Wilson was not a covert agent when Scooter Libby discussed her with Robert Novak, so there was no “outing” for someone who wasn’t in.
That has NOT been established. It’s still an open question. The fact that Libby is being charged only with perjury may mean that she was not covert or it may just be that there was not enough evidence to prove that he knew it.
Kevin–what are your sources for the Sharon “quote”? I’ve found nothing to support it and several that pretty well debunk it.
I also don’t think you can safely imply with any certainty that Wilson fudged the facts to turn it into a “Bush lied” result. His mission was limited and his research was, by his own admission, also limited. His conclusions, as I understand them, was that he could find no conclusive evidence of Iran seeking Uranium.
Now any statement that he “proved” that there was no attempt to buy uranium would be an obvious overstatement but so would be the claim that he came to the conclusion he did out of animus toward Bush. At the very least consider this–had he been able to prove such sales he would have uncovered one of the most important pieces of intelligence this century, quite a feather in his cap. I doubt he would have passed up on that opportunity. Consider also that any attempt to downplay a genuine attempt on Iraq’s part to buy uranium would be insanely treasonous. Wilson may not be the hero some have made him out to be but he has in no way earned that kind of suspicion.
“I understand an invasion of Iraq would have been difficult for Clinton in 1997, it took 9/11 for the American people to realize something had to be done about international terrorism and Middle Eastern instability. Bush took the opportunity and ran with it.”
Yes, he did. He took the opportunity to snooker a shellshocked country into believing that a non-threat was in fact a threat, citing bogus evidence, speaking the language of fear, sending thousands of soldiers to their deaths, all to implement a get-Saddam scenario that had been in exsitence for close to ten years before he took office. He and his core supporters ignored and/or shouted down military advisors who tried to make clear what an invasion would really entail, embroiled this country in a quagmire, and will go down in history as one of the worst presidents of all time if not THE worst.
He ran with it, all right. He ran with it off a cliff and took the country and thousands of young lives with him.
PAD
Bill Mulligan –
Africa–continent. Niger–country.
Niger = country in Africa, the country he was sent to.
Wilson does believe that he was unable to find any evidence of such an attempt in Niger in 2002.
Then wouldn’t it have been prudent on the part of Bush during his SotU address to not try and pass this off as absolute fact, if it wasn’t?
But then, the entire run up to this war was based on just this sort of ‘evidence’.
The “cakewalk”, an offensive term in itself,
Umm, right, sure.
Just in case you missed it, this war was sold to us, the voting public, as being short, inexpensive, and sweet.
It was none of the above. It was not the cakewalk that the Bush Administration expected it to be.
Maybe you shold stop finding my words offensive, and concentrate on the offensive actions of Bush, Cheney, and others.
I’ve demonstrated again and again that the region IS more stable
And I belive I’ve demonstrated how it isn’t.
Turkey is afraid of the Kurdish refugees in their country wanting to breakaway with the rest of the Kurds in Iraq.
The Shiites are getting the support of Iran, and they’re on the verge of genocide & civil war against the Shiites.
Iran has stepped up the rhetoric.
Pakistan is on the verge of Musharraf being thrown out in a coup by extremists.
And unless I’m mistaken, there have been more terrorist attacks in various Middle Eastern nations in the last couple of years than there were before we invaded Iraq. Which, of course, comes in response to the fact that some of these governments are supposedly also our allies.
You are allowed to change your mind, but to make conflicting statements for political convieniece is opportunistic at best, disengenuous at worst.
Then you don’t pay enough attention to your own beloved President, as he is the biggest flip-flopper of them all.
Niger = country in Africa, the country he was sent to.
Yes…so the best that Wilson could do is find evidence for or against uranium sales in Niger. Whether he did so depends on who you talk to.
The evidence for or against Iraq seeking uranium in Africa–which was the original issue you’ll recall–is another thing entirely.
If I were a betting man I would not bet against it being the case that Saddam tried to get material for WMD. The mistake made by almost everyone prior to the war was thinking that he had been more successful than he evidentially was.
Btw, the use of the word ‘cakewalk’ to describe an invasion of Iraq was in fact used:
“I believe demolishing Hussein’s military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons:
(1) It was a cakewalk last time;
(2) they’ve become much weaker;
(3) we’ve become much stronger; and
(4) now we’re playing for keeps”
Ken Adelman, former U.N. ambassador, in an Op-Ed for the Washington Post, Feb. 13, 2002
This one, along with comments from Richard Perle (who, like Adelman, is a close advisor and friend to Rumsfeld), Bush, Cheney and the rest of ’em just show how wrong they were about everything.
The only one who got it right?
“It will take at least 150,000 US troops in country, over a period of at least 10 years, to effect regime change in Iraq.”
– General Eric Shinseki, US Army Chief of Staff, Testimony before Congress, February 2003
The response from the Bush Administration?
“In my opinion, General Shinseki doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”
– Paul D. Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
I guess the General did know after all.
The evidence for or against Iraq seeking uranium in Africa–which was the original issue you’ll recall–is another thing entirely.
Seeing as how no other African nation has ever been mentioned, anywhere, on this particular issue (whether or not Saddam tried to get uranium), I’d think it’s pretty safe to say that when Kevin mentioned Africa, he was referring to Niger.
Kevin wrote:
“The sources I found indicate that the Sharon quote was real, but you miss the point. I referenced the quote to indicate that the point that even ALLIES were feeling our foreign policy was all talk, no action, and the middle east is an action place, where neighboring nations WILL attack each other, not just posture. Empty gestures are seen as just that.
That you did not hear the quote at the time doesn’t surprise me. All sorts of things go on in the US, and even in VT that escape me for a time. I have to point out that you don’t really know wether Sharon beleives it or not, but I agree it appears it was an excited utterance.
I’m sure the quote was made in hebrew, not in english, and the translation may be slightly different, but that in and of itself does not mean it originated from an anti-semitic source.
I never said the invasion of Iraq scared Israel ethier. It rather impressed both foes and friends alike that the US would be willing to back up what it said, with force if nescessary.
The Roadmap for Peace was never a serious overture for peace as it did not offer a Palestinian State, but offered the world’s largest concentration camp, with Israeli checkpoints throughout. It comes as no surprise that it was rejected. I’m fully aware that Israel has not offered a contiguous state, however, word is, the US has, but it is currently having difficulty with the recent election of Hamas.
The insurgency in Berlin following World War II may not have been as widespread as in Iraq currently, but neither has Iraq experienced the devastation suffered by Germany, where Berlin was virutally destroyed. But, I assure you, the Nazis did not simply accept that it over as a uniform idea. Small groups resisted both the americans and russians.”
———–
Bill, thanks for finding the information about that false quote. Yes, that is also what I’ve read, the information you provide can also be found in google. Quotes like that are a common thing in the Israel Palestinian conflict from enemies of Israel and sometimes from friends. People would believe anything about Israel and Jews.
Kevin, Bill, I think has shown that the quote is bogus. I also know this quote is bogus the same way most normal Americans would know that a quote saying that Bush said that he hates Islam, or that the US is planning to convert the Middle East to Christianity, is false. It doesn’t sound right, it sounds like anti-american propaganda by people who would believe anything about it. The quote you bring sounds like something someone antisemitic would come up with. You should also realize that Israel is a small country with few media outlets but very hectic news. It is not VT and Sharon is not the junior senator from somewhere. Had Sharon said something like that everybody would have heard about it and talked about it for days. Statements of lesser consequence have been argued about for days.
You should also know that at the time I was part of the organization Peace Now, so I was even more aware than now.
I believe I have demonstrated that invading Iraq has not affected Israel in the way you think. The Middle Eat, you should know, is actually a place of much talk and posturing and little action. The attack has caused Arab countries to make mostly empty or limited gestures about democracy and terror. Israel makes limited gestures about peace, although not because it is impressed by American actions, but, among other things, because there was concern that the US will increase its pressure in order to satisfy the Arab world that it is being fair.
The invasion of Iraq has definitely not made the middle east more stable. Aside ferom Lybia things are much less stable for most Arab regimes. The level of popular discontent is growing, Jordan never supported terrorism (but Jordanians do), and Syria’s attitude towards terrorism remains the same regardless of whatever empty statements they make.
I don’t like the roadmap, but you completely misrepresent it. The reference to a concentration camp is also an unfortunate by-product of rhetoric in this conflict. The roadmap is an American plan which offers the Palestinians a state in temporary borders as part of rending the violence and returning to negotiations. Sharon accepted it because he assumed correctly that the Palestinians will not fulfill the requirements of dismantling terrorist organizations, and that he could alternatly satisfy or ignore demands to remove settlements, so that the next step will never occur. The Palestinian president didn’t like it because he was correctly afraid that temporary can become long term. However he said he supported it to satisfy the Americans too, and was hoping that if he can get the Hamas to reduce terrorism without dismatling them this will make the Americans push Israel to make more concessions and to start negotiating. In any case, the roadmap is the American plan. And Israel, at the moment, has not made offers to the plaestinian of contiguous or non-contiguous states, because it can justify not making such offers by the continued Palestinian terrorism. It may withdraw unilateraly.
If you could provide a wikipedia article or something showing that there was insurgency in Germany after WWII, it would be nice. This is a historical claim I have never heard before. It should be noted that there is a difference between insurgency and some Germans who have not laid arrms or cooperated fully with the occupying forces. Insurgency implies more.
Posted by Bill Mulligan at March 5, 2006 01:02 AM
Niger = country in Africa, the country he was sent to.
Yes…so the best that Wilson could do is find evidence for or against uranium sales in Niger. Whether he did so depends on who you talk to.
The evidence for or against Iraq seeking uranium in Africa–which was the original issue you’ll recall–is another thing entirely.
If I were a betting man I would not bet against it being the case that Saddam tried to get material for WMD. The mistake made by almost everyone prior to the war was thinking that he had been more successful than he evidentially was.
******************
Bill, I’m afraid I have to disagree with you here. While I don’t have the specifics in front of me at the moment, in the months leading up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq complaints surfaced from members of the CIA about pressure they were getting from the Bush administration to spin their reports and findings to bolster the case for WMDs. So I wouldn’t say the mistake was made by “almost everyone.” Had Bush been willing to let the available evidence guide his conclusions, rather than selecting evidence to fit his preconceptions, we might not be in the mess we’re in right now.
Having said that, I also wanted to mention how much I enjoy debates like this. Yes, Internet debates always attract trolls. But they also attract intelligent and knowledgeable people from whom I can learn. Bill, you’ve stood out in this regard. I disagree with your ideology passionately but I still find myself learning from you. Thanks to you and Micha for standing head and shoulders above the crowd. You’ve both cited facts I can verify for myself to help me draw my own conclusions and elevated this debate. Thank you both.
Seeing as how no other African nation has ever been mentioned, anywhere, on this particular issue (whether or not Saddam tried to get uranium)
That is incorrect. The Butler report, among others, found evidence that The Republic of the Congo was also involved.
If you could provide a wikipedia article or something showing that there was insurgency in Germany after WWII, it would be nice. This is a historical claim I have never heard before.
try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf
I think I mentioned this before, many months ago. The Werwolfs were a Nazi plan for an insurgency to fight in the Allied controlled parts of Germany near the end of the war. Because of Hitler’s inability to recognize reality, it was ineffective as a military force and as a terrorist organization it had only limited success. Ironically, its biggest success was in convincing the allies that there was a genuine danger and they acted accordingly–the occupation was probably harsher than it would have otherwise been (the Russians in particular used the Werwold threat to run roughshod).
I don’t think there is much to be learned from the Werwolfs vis a vis Iraq, other than the idea that if you want to diminish a post war insurgency you need to kill as many people in the actual war as possible. The swiftness and relative lack of casualties by the American forces in Iraq made it more likely that a viable insurgency could be formed (not that the alternative has much appeal).
I’m still amazed nobody has ever used the Werwolfs in a movie. Just replace them with actual werewolves. It writes itself.
>I think I mentioned this before, many months ago.
I think you did, or at least somebody did. It is as incorrect now as it was back then. Even the wikipedia article says: “Werwolf was principally a war stratagem of the Nazi government. It withered by the month after German surrender; the German people were tired of war.” There’s nothing else in the wikipedia article to show there was any insurgeny after WWII, either.
Thanks Bill Mulligan for the information, both on werwolf and the false quotation. Thanks Bill Myers also.
I think this is the relevant part for our discussion in the wikipedia article:
Recently the history of Werwolf has been employed in arguments about the American-led occupation of Iraq [1] [2] [3]. Some aspects of Werwolf which are relevant to this discussion are:
1. Werwolf was principally a war stratagem of the Nazi government. It withered by the month after German surrender; the German people were tired of war.
2. As a war effort, Werwolf was truncated by the stratagem of accepting Western defeat to avoid occupation by Russians.
3. Werwolf had a mythological reputation which was deliberately fostered by Nazi propaganda. Its psychological presence exceeded confirmed incidents, especially after surrender.
4. Nonetheless, Werwolf was far weaker than many other historically significant guerrilla insurgencies, for example, those in Vietnam and Iraq.
Bill, I agree that the CIA did have evidence that many of the WMD claims were not as solid as many supposed (“many” including the head of the CIA, who said the evidence for WMD was a “slam dunk”) but there were very few voices that I recall who didn’t think there would be SOMETHING. Hëll, one of the arguments against invading was that US troops would take heavy losses when Saddam let loose with the poison gas.
It’s strange too, because there was so much evidence that Saddam thought he had those weapons…I remember one analyst speculating that he had been hoodwinked by his sons, one of whom was in charge of such things. The kid, so the thinking went, pocketed all the money that was going toward WMD development and showed his dad warehouses full of crates. “Yep, pops, there’s the cannisters of Sarin gas!” he told him.
That would actually be funny, in a historically tragic kind of way.
Anyway, thank you for the kind words. You’ve made some great points yourself and your courtesy toward those you are in disagreement with is indicative of someone who has real confidence in their arguments (and was probably raised right!)
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 4, 2006 12:31 PM
And pointing out whether radical Islamists have done anything useful doesn’t have anything to do with whether Bush is doing anything useful.
**********************
Actually, I believe it does. I believe there is an inherent difference between a misguided toppling a brutal tyrannical regime and an unprovoked attack on civilian targets. George W. Bush is in my view unwise and corrupt. But Osama bin Laden is evil. I believe it is useful and important to draw a distinction between the two.
And as to PAD’s assertion that George W. Bush may have been our worst president, I think it’s useful to cast aside emotion and put our current president into historical context. Richard Nixon was an incredibly corrupt president who stomped on civil liberties by spying on U.S. citizens who he perceived to be political enemies, and deepened our involvement in a costly war that was being fought for dubious reasons. I don’t think George W. Bush’s incompetence and corruption are unprecendented, simply that the high-stakes nature of the global war on terror have cast a harsher spotlight on his shortcomings than other presidents have had to face.
Again, that’s not to say I support George W. Bush. I think he is repugnant. I simply think we have had other equally repugnant presidents.
Posted by: Micha at March 4, 2006 01:29 PM
Islamic organizations are involved in charity work for Muslims.
****************************
I realize my emotions were driving some of my rhetoric earlier. I should make it clear that I draw a distinction between the Islamic world in general and the Islamic fundamentalist movement. And I draw yet a further distinction between Islamic fundamentalists in general and terrorists in particular. Although I think the latter distinction is somewhat blurry, as there are Islamic fundamentalists who are not involved in terrorist activities who nevertheless cheer them on.
I’m not sure which Islamic organizations you’re referring to or the exact nature of their charity work. I’ll simply say that I think one would be hard-pressed to say that radical Islam, with its violent intolerance of that which is different, is on the balance a positive force in the world.
It’s possible that America, on the balance, is not a positive force either. But I would argue that even the worst of our presidents, such as George W. Bush, have still done more good in the world than terrorist leaders such as Osama bin Laden.
I wish I could see the Iraq war in the black/white terms that so many other people do. But Iraq was in violation of U.N. resolutions and as Bill Mulligan pointed out, the U.S. was not alone in believing Iraq to be a potential threat. I still think it was an appallingly stupid choice to invade Iraq, but nevertheless I believe that choice stands out in stark contrast to Al Qaeda’s decision to send civilian crashing into civilian structures.
I’m aware that a lot of people have died in Iraq as the result of our invasion. I’m aware that the world is probably a more dangerous place than it was prior to said invasion. But as I recall, prior to our invasion George W. Bush gave the Iraqis a clear warning of what was to come. He offered Iraqi soldiers a chance to surrender.
Did Al Qaeda do that? No. Theirs was a surprise attack. One of their targets — the World Trade Center — was defenseless.
I’m also aware that some of the Iraqis we took as prisoners were mistreated and even tortured. Nevertheless, I have yet hear evidence of U.S. soliders beheading an Iraqi prisoner. We’ve seen plenty of that on the part of radical Islamic insurgents in Iraq.
I believe our greatest sin in Iraq was our stubborn refusal to plan for the aftermath of our invasion. I don’t believe George W. Bush’s hubris is forgivable, given what a grand scale it has. But I still draw a distinction between that and the sheer evil of Osama bin Laden.
I don’t believe George W. Bush wanted as many to people to die as have in Iraq. I believe Osama was hoping for as many deaths as possible. That’s the difference between arrogant incompetence and sheer evil.
I’d have to put Wilson in there as well. I usually don’t think it’s right to judge someone by the standards of today but Wilson was a virulent racist even by the standards of the time. He instituted Jim Crow segregation in the federal government after Teddy Roosevelt had refused to do so and suppressed free speech to an alarming degree during World War I. It’s not that Wilson is necessarily the worst ever (though he may be one of the least likable) but it’s only been recently that the proper re-evaluation of his presidency began.
Interestingly, 2 of the worst (Wilson and Grant) have the rare honor of being on currency.
Bill Mulligan –
That is incorrect. The Butler report, among others, found evidence that The Republic of the Congo was also involved.
Then that is the first I’ve heard of it.
Hëll, one of the arguments against invading was that US troops would take heavy losses when Saddam let loose with the poison gas.
Well, I’m one of those poor suckers who believed that that would happen – this whole country was tricked by evidence that was either incompletely, manipulated, or outright false. Bush also preyed on our fears (which, again, shouldn’t surprise anybody now; see: Dubai port deal).
Yet, Bush maintained for a couple of years that the WMD would be found and his war justified.
So I would hope it’s understandable why I and others argue against this war so greatly, when there were no WMD found or used against our troops.
Bill Myers –
I believe it is useful and important to draw a distinction between the two.
Probably so, but Bush certainly is leaning toward the Dark Side with his disregard for the law, warmongering, and outright attempts to destroy the checks and balances of our branches of government, among other things.
That said, many people probably view Bush as evil already, because he has directly affected their lives (such as in Iraq), where bin Laden has not. Which is a fair claim, imo, because others are allowed their own perspectives and opinions as well. And that isn’t to say that they view Bush as evil because they view bin Laden as a good guy; I’m sure both are equally hated in some parts of the world.