Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

“Let’s not forget that it was they (the terrorists) that attacked us”

And let’s not forget that it was Geroge W. Bush (the President) that wasted resources, time, and energy, and international goodwill that could have been used to capture Osama bin Laden and dismantle al Qaeda, and chose instead to invade Iraq in a delusional crusade to find nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.

Remember those commercials with the original Bo Jackson? Well, Bo don’t know foreign policy.

It’s become my personal crusade now on this blog to challenge this constant repetition of the Big Lie that Bush let Osama wander free as a bird while he (Bush) shifted to concentrate only on Iraq. I posted a long diatribe against just that in the Kerry’s Imaginary Foreign Leaders below, so I guess I’m volunteering to be the broken record on this subject, but the only way I know to combat this is to challenge it each time it comes up. It’s such a preposterous idea, and in many ways it IS the centerpiece of the anti-Bush crusaders (apologies to our Muslim friends for using the word “crusaders, but whatever…), so it’s well worth contradicting.

So:

1. Specifically what forces and resources were diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq that were needed to hunt Osama? Can any of you repeating this charge answer? If so, then list them so they can be subjected to scrutiny. But if not, why do you continue repeating this charge?

2. And more importantly: if fighting Al Qaida is properly, as every Democrat including Kerry insists, a police action and not a military one, then how can you be logically consistent in maintaining that a MILITARY action in Iraq diverted resources needed to go after Bin Laden? Your position is that the military, except for perhaps a few elite special forces units and MPs, wasn’t needed at all! And therefore your position makes absolutely no sense, even according to your own premises.

Sounds like you’ve been listening to Dick Cheney a little too much.

Hussein had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, and that’s the official position of the Bush Administration. All of your examples are Al Qaeda terrorist attacks, but it’s not Afghanistan that Kerry’s up in arms about - it’s the Iraq war and the misleading way we were pulled into it.

You seem to be trying to be Ann Coulter with your harsh invective, but you’re failing the funny part. Try again later.

Welcome to watchblog J.R.! I couldn’t agree more.

Bo,

…Bush (the President) that wasted resources, time, and energy, and international goodwill that could have been used to capture Osama bin Laden and dismantle al Qaeda, and chose instead to invade Iraq in a delusional crusade to find nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.

Martin is 100% correct on this. This whole democratic mantra is delusional partisanship.

Let me put it in terms democrats and Green Party members can understand. If the objective is merely to breakup the franchise headquarters of Al Qaeda, we did that already. That’s not the whole object of the war on terror. Bin Laden is just one CEO, like say, Ken Lay of Enron. We’ve dismantled his headquarters but he’s still hiding behind his lawyers waiting for his day in court.

Bush is out to put them all out of business. What about Microsoft? What about RJ Reynolds? Think of Saddam Hussein as, oh I don’t know… Walmart! Now do you get it?

so the bombings happen on bush’s watch..and you praise his leadership….

and the attacks that happened on clinton’s watch…you berate his leadership…..

huh…..

Ok I’m going to say this without considering anything else that has been posted on this article.I will tell you as simply as possible what is most likely going on in the minds of the Spanish, and probably people in the rest of the world.

1.After 9/11, there was an immense amount of solidarity shown to America, there were very few people in the sane world who were not sympathetic, and there was great rage all over the world directed towards the perpetrators of that horrific crime.

2. Most conservatives and even some liberals supported the war in Afghanistan, though generally liberals were hoping that there would be another way to deal with Al-Qaeda, maybe this was not quite possible.

3.Then in a historic speech, President Bush, declared that his war would be extended and named an Axis of Evil. This was when alarm bells began to go off in most liberal minds. Here was America threatening to create another Vietnam, change world politics to suit its own agenda.

4.Once the president made it clear that Iraq would be the next potential target, people were really scared. They knew that Iraq had no links with Al Qaeda, and most people thought that the war would be about oil.

5.There was a deeper fear that a war against Iraq would would provide just what terrorists needed to convince more and more people in their countries that America was out to get them simply because they were Muslims.If this were to happen then the war would be seen more as a Christian Vs Islam war, and people who otherwise would not have supported Al Qaeda would be convinced to take up their cause.

6.Still people felt, that if there emerged enough evidence that Iraq posed a real threat to the world, that Saddam aided and abbetted terrorists, then they would also have to be dealt with.
No evidence emerged, we went to war, Saddam was ousted, Iraq is becoming a democracy.BUT THAT DID NOT CHANGE ANYTHING SINCE IRAQ WAS NEVER PROVEN TO BE A SOURCE OF TERRORISM.

7.So ofcourse ultimately in the long run the world may gain from Iraq being a democracy, its too early to tell what will happen. However the war on terror WRT iraq did nothing to the terrorists but provide them with a reason to up their ante, preach their cause that ‘the big, bad bullies from the US’ were at it again, were targetting them, were out to destroy Islam,and everything they held dear.

8.People’s worst fears were confirmed with the attack on Spain, that the war on Iraq ( not terror) had done nothing but worsened the situation and legitamised the cause of the terrorists in their own countries.Spaniards believe honestly and sincerely that had their govt not marched into the unjustified Iraq war, their country could have been spared this nightmare.

9.DO NOT imagine even for a minute that the Spanish are surrendering to terrorism, do not believe that they would not whole heartedly support action against Al Qaeda, but they know as does the rest of the world that Al Qaeda does not get defeated by snuffling around in Iraq, why? Becase there were no terrorists there.

10.This situation that is now engulfing the world has remarkable parralels to the Israel-Palestine conflict, over 40 decades of violence, and nobody’s learned anything.YOU CANNOT DEFEAT TERRORISM THIS WAY. Hasn’t Israel taught people anything, all they’ve done is bomb, tank, and destroy Palestinian territory with every bit of American artillery they have. What has it got them? Absolutely nothing. Where has it got them? Absolutely nowhere.Suicide bombers, hijackers, armed terrorists spring up everyday like bad sequels in hollywood.

I fear this is the kind of world we are creating for our children an endless spate of attacks and counter attacks, constant fear, people will have to think twice about walking out of there homes, taking trains, boarding flights, drinking tap water.
You know there IS actually a reason why they say, you should learn from your mistakes. Unfortunately , they also say history repeats itself.

Martin, I’m sure you can do a Google search as well as anyone else, but here’s the info anyway. If you want specific unit names and troop numbers, you must be gathering intelligence for al-Qaeda.

According to Knight Ridder Newspapers, “U.S. intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because intelligence matters are classified, said that as much as half of the intelligence and special forces assets in Afghanistan and Pakistan were diverted to support the war in Iraq.”

The New York Times reported, “President Bush has approved a plan to intensify the effort to capture or kill Osama bin Laden… The move comes as a combination of better intelligence, improving weather and a refocusing of resources away from Iraq has reinvigorated the hunt along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.”

As for your second ‘point’, there’s no inconsistancy. It was the redeployment of the elite special forces and intelligence assets to Iraq that we’re talking about. Catching terrorists is primarily a law enforcement job. It involves talking to informants, inflitrating terrorist organizations, tracking money and communications, and gathering evidence. Ultimately, it involves arrests and convictions, and sometimes you need to call in the SWAT team. If terrorists are located outside the US, it involves working with that country’s law enforcement agents and possibly assisting with US special forces, as in Afghanistan.

You’re not thinking clearly if you believe catching terrorists is a purely military operation. Unless you think Spain would appreciate an invasion by the US 1st Armored Division to help round up some Moroccans.

Martin:

I notice that no one has taken you up on your challenge—-that being to show what resources were taken away from Afghanistan. There is, of course, the easy viewpoint that we MUST have taken moved resources in order to fight Iraq, but those easy viewpoints are often wrong. As an example, remember how easy it was to assume that Middle East extremists were responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing, only to be proven wrong.

Democrats focus ONLY on whatever negatives they can find. With regard to the economy, they focus on the lack of jobs——if jobs begin to recover, they will simply shift their focus of blame to another segment of the economy. Similarly, with regard to foreign policy, they focus on the issue of WMD’s, which were a part of the overall issue. (And I have previously said that Bush OVErplayed this issue, and I have faulted him for that)

Democrats miss how terrorism works, even as we see it in action. Spain has capitulated as a nation, having removed a government that acts against the terrorists, in the hopes that terrorists will simply leave them alone. And this WILL happen….for the time being. But, it is nonetheless a capitulation, in the same way that a witness, by not testifying, avoids the wrath of a criminal. But….someone else soon faces that wrath, as the criminal is now free to continue.

John Kerry, by avoiding the tough decisions, will be the witness without the courage to face his attacker. He will lead this country into a faulty sense of peace, which will exist only as long as we continue to capitulate to terror. And that, my friends, is no way to live.

Spain’s new Prime Minister, Jose-Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said, “my most immediate priority will be to fight terrorism.” That doesn’t sound like a man who has capitulated to terrorism.

How do you explain the millions of Spanish citizens who demonstrated against terrorism? That doesn’t sound like a country that has given in to terrorists.

The spanish people, far from giving up the fight against terrorists, have decided that Iraq isn’t the hot-bed of Islamic terrorism they were told it was. Rather sit around in Iraq propping up an unstable coalition government, they have decided to concentrate their efforts where they can do some good.

Martin and joebagodonuts… I’d like to hear your reaction to Lee’s citations. They were some of the same that I’ve found.

It’s not that it’s a mantra… it’s just that it is so demonstrably true.

“He wants America to apologize for responding to a terrorist attack that killed 3,000 innocent, defenseless people”

Please. Everyone supported the War in Afganistan. That war was justified. It’s the unilateral attack against Iraq, without international consensus and without justification that so many of our previous allies now loathe us for.

What you’re trying to do is tie Iraq and terrorism, but there is no such link. When Richard Perle tried to say that on Sunday on Fox News, not even their analysts would let him get away with it. If you are trying to make the same links, then you fall into the same category that most of the upper administration people fall into - people who will say anything, regardless of whether or not evidence supports it, if it is politically expedient.

“Yes Folks, can you believe it, the terrorists were attacking us even before Bush became president.”

There is a right way and a wrong way to fight this war. As I’ve said here before, terrorism is a preemption issue, but it is also primarily an intelligence issue. Rather than destroying governments, we should be working more closely with them so they can provide native speakers, troops, analysis and intelligence to us about terrorists that may be operating in their area. Bombing Iraq’s infrastructure into a Haliburton-ready scrap heap only cemented anti-american hatred, and decreased international assistance in the war on terror.

“…sniveling liberals…”; “…ridiculous rhetoric of the whining liberals…”; “

Messenger not the message, eh? Please acquaint yourself with the titlebar on your browser, lest I start calling you Hysterical and Shrill (copyright 1994, Newt Gingrich).

I feel weird somehow for even responding to this.

The problem that I have with what Bush has done in the Middle East is that he deceidely chose to ignore the UN after they told him not to go into Iraq. I am of the opinion that if the US had showed the same patience that it showed after 9/11 in pursueing Osama Bin Laden with Saddam Hussein, we would not have had 389 people killed (http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx) after the end of major combat last May.

I also find it unbelievable that the Bush Administration has tried to deny that the major reason we went to war was the Weapons of Mass Destruction.

John Kerry is not saying that Saddam Hussein should have stayed in power. No one is claiming that this was, by any means, a good man. The problem is that the Bush Administration has alienated us from the rest of the world and in my opinion that does not serve our self interests. If we are going to subdue the growing terrorist threat, we will not accomplish it alone and we need to make our purpose clear in order to avoid the appearance of, as Pres. Bush called it a “Crusade”.

We need to help terrorist organizations see that we want everyone to have freedom of choice and choose their own destiny. Not that we are anti-Muslim, money greedy, or any of the other things they would claim we are.

In closing, I would like to say that President Bush has been making strides in his foreign policy. The latest example that comes to mind would be the Situtation in Haiti, which I thought he handled very well.

JR, great post. I agree totally. Terrorists have now seen they can change regimes in democratic countries like they did in Spain. By telling terrorists he is going to stop the war on terror, Kerry is pretty much inviting them to kill Americans. Kerry hopes a backlash will sweep him into power Spanish style. He is despicable. He should be investigated by the FBI about his meetings with foreign leaders who are meddling in the US elections. We are in a war. This guy Kerry’s actions and words are bordering on treason.

Just to break the debate a little, here is a little satire from MidEastWeb.org that I found pretty funny…… Outsourcing Regime Change

http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000225.htm#comments

I’m more than a little disturbed by the widespread blogging to the effect that the Spanish election results represent a great victory of al-Qaeda, that they show that European countries can successfully be blackmailed by terrorism, etc. It’s particularly grating to see such commentary from Americans who, collectively, had had much less experience with terrorism on their home soil than had Spaniards before 2001.

- Jacob Levy

Gaelen and Lee: If the case that Bush abandoned the hunt for Al Qaida rests on the comments of “anonymous intelligence officials,” who (at least from the quote Lee supplies) could very well be talking only about normal redeployments of intelligence resources after a war, then the case against Bush on this point is even weaker than I thought.

There was full-blown combat on several fronts going on in Afghanistan, remember, before the emphasis shifted to tracking rag-tag elements of Al Qaida and the Taliban through the mountains. I’d be surprised if the intelligent forces needed for this weren’t substantially less than half of what’s needed for fighting a full-blown war (which Afghanistan never really was, considering the weakness of the Taliban—-but that’s another story).

Part of the problem here is the way this debate goes on without reference to the actual capabilities of the US military and its intelligence services. For decades now, a key element of military planning has been preparedness for fighting with full logistical support two widely separated major conflicts.

Not only is the military capable of doing this, the war in Afghanistan had well before Iraq already transitioned to small-scale special forces and peace-keeping operations. This doesn’t mean that there weren’t lots of problems still in Afghanistan (I can already hear you saying this—-the warlords, resurgent elements of the Taliban appearing, etc, all perfectly valid points), but the idea that we needed several divisions of ground-forces, full air support and massive columns of armor rumbling around Pakistan and Afghanistan in search of one man together with a full compliment of intelligence resources backing them up is just plain fantasy.

Lee: The New York Times reported, “President Bush has approved a plan to intensify the effort to capture or kill Osama bin Laden… The move comes as a combination of better intelligence, improving weather and a refocusing of resources away from Iraq has reinvigorated the hunt along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.”

For starters, the phrase you highlight is an interpretation of events in the words of a reporter for the New York Times. Why not just a quote from Michael Moore and get it over with? But even if his interpretation is correct, it does not constitute proof that we weren’t trying to catch Bin Laden already using other means.

The shifting of resources from one theater to another does not mean that we don’t have the resources elswhere that we could also have chosen to deploy—-it represents a logistical decision, a shift of tactics in an ongoing effort. That the military, as part of the normal rotation of forces, chose to shift already activated units from Iraq to Afghanistan instead of calling up additional forces from elsewhere was not only expected but good military planning. Of course, for those who have already decided that the US military is some kind of Keystone cops operation and Bush is a backwards dunderhead who does nothing right ever, none of this will ever change minds. But hey, I’m trying.

J.R., look in the archives on this board, and find me the terrorist sympathizers. And I don’t mean the people you deem to be supporters of policies you disagree with, but people who explicitly express sympathy for the terrorist and wish them well.

I think you’ll find very few entries, if any at all. Why? Because conservatives are not the only people with long memories, and an instinct for self-preservation. Democrats and Independents are as concerned about this nation’s safety as any Republican.

Unfortunately, many Republicans have failed to distinguish between dissent and disloyalty, between patriotism and nationalism, between supporting America’s historically important interests, and supporting those of its temporary leaders. In short, your people have confused the defending of Bush Policy and Rhetoric with an effective defense of this nation.

I am a firm believer in the human ability to screw things up royally. I believe this as a Christian, and as a student of science, history, and other disciplines. People’s theories of how the world works are always made with incomplete knowledge, and are at best incompletely correct.

Bush strikes me as the sort of fellow who greatly overvalues his own person perspective on the world. To him, if he thinks it’s right, it couldn’t be any other way. But it can be, it has been, and it will be. Bush’s adherence to his internal view of the world may be preferable for some to more critical, self-doubting attitudes, but it’s damaging our foreign and domestic policy quite seriously.

Bush was so intent on going after Saddam, that he not only misread the evidence, he had others create a separate Pentagon office to make sure he only got the kind of intelligence that would support his cause. None of those naysayers pointing out the weakness of his data,coming to different conclusions about the threat posed by Iraq, just people whom he agreed with, who had the same black and white view of foreign policy.

He imagined Iraq as another Good War, the allies rolling in to the cheers of the liberated. That simply was not to be.

The American troops expected support from the crowds. They didn’t expect to be fired at from them. They expected token resistance, and mass defections. They got fierce resistance, and mass dissolution of the army. This was particularly troublesome for the neo-cons who were hoping to employ the armies in the rebuilding process.

We expected to find WMDs, and evidence of terrorist cooperation. Nothing. We expected the regime would simply hand over control of the Bureacracy. Instead, it collapsed, leaving the law and order in the hands of the U.S. Military. We didn’t have enough people to do that job. Rumsfeld and the others had taken the position that we only needed the troop numbers we sent in, and openly disparaged those who did not share their views. The military commanders thought otherwise, advising, on the basis of past experience, that hundreds of thousands more troops would be necessary, in light of the needs of an occupying force.

Rumsfeld and the rest had to have their way, though, and because of that, the stability of Iraq has been in question ever since, and the terrorist have been capable of striking targets almost at will.

On almost every important issue, regarding the motivation and administration of the war, Bush’s people and the Neo-Cons have been in error. Okay, so people make mistakes, right?

Problem is, they don’t acknowledge it, don’t learn from it. They dogmatically stick to their guns, and as admirable as their stubborn willfulness may be, lives are on the line, and the effective choice and execution of our battles against terrorism are more than just academic or political matters. American blood is being shed, and to all appearances, Bush’s direction in the War on Terror has put more, not less Americans in harms way.

I’m not a pacifist. I’m a very pro-military. Kerry seems to follow the same pattern. Just take a look at his voting record.
Afghanistan
Iraq
Defense Budget 98
Defense Budget 99
Defense Budget 03
Homeland Security Department Foundation

The cuts he made in intelligence spending were less than one percent of the total budget, and mostly concerned an illegal slush fund. Other cuts made were consistent with the post-cold war belt tightening and a formerly skeptical attitude he had taken to big dollar military programs.

As a veteran protesting the war, he had a reputation for being moderate, for opposing the more radical people in the organization. In fact, some thought him too moderate. As for charges that he’s chummy with Hanoi Jane, they do little to explain why such a Fonda partisan would officially disinvite her to rallies he led.

The infamous photograph was taken with a telephoto lens, which compresses the appearance of distance. An untrained eye might assume that he was close to her, but in reality he must have been four or five rows back, not to mention in a completely different section of the crowd.

All in all, Kerry seems like he knows his stuff. He’s on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, for one thing, and serves on two of the subcommittees, including the one that deals with European affairs. He speaks five languages, and is a member of the pro-free trade Davos group.

All in all, I think your worries are more due to political considerations rather than practical ones. He is willing to go to war, he is willing to fight terrorists, and he has far more expertise than Bush has as far as dealing with foreign policy.

The infamous photograph was taken with a telephoto lens, which compresses the appearance of distance. An untrained eye might assume that he was close to her, but in reality he must have been four or five rows back, not to mention in a completely different section of the crowd.

Actually, if you’re talking about the one I read about, it’s a fake. They found the source photos - they were photoshopped together to make Kerry look like he was standing with Fonda.

more on the Photoshopped photo

By all accounts, you have operatives of the Clark campaign to thank for those photos (as well as the intern non-event).

We should all accept Stephen’s invitation to look at Kerry’s voting record—the wars he supports and then votes to defund. The Patriot Act he supports, along with No-Child-Left-Behind and Bush’s tax-cuts—all of which he now rails against on the campaign trail.

There is a little something there for everybody, no matter what you believe in. He can speak out of both sides of his mouth in five languages! No matter what side of any issue you’re on, Kerry’s on it too!

If the bombing in Spain turns out to be linked to Al-Qaeda, then what did that have to do with Spain being in Iraq?

Al-Qaeda has nothing to do with Iraq, right?

We should all accept Stephen’s invitation to look at Kerry’s voting record—the wars he supports and then votes to defund.

You know, it’s funny… his flip-flop on the Iraq war coincides curiously well with the “revelations” that Bush misrepresented the case for going to war in the first place.

There is a little something there for everybody, no matter what you believe in. He can speak out of both sides of his mouth in five languages! No matter what side of any issue you’re on, Kerry’s on it too!

You really, really, really should check out The Daily Show’s segment doing an interview between Gov. Bush and Pres. Bush. Talk about being on both sides of an issue! There’a a partial transcript here, or you can watch the whole segment here. A must see!

Ricky: “By telling terrorists he is going to stop the war on terror, Kerry is pretty much inviting them to kill Americans.”

Excuse me? Kerry has never said that he would stop the war on terrorism. Unbelievable.

Shawn: “Al-Qaeda has nothing to do with Iraq, right?”

It didn’t before the invasion. I have no doubt that it does now. Imagine, having Americans delivered to your doorstep! No more pesky travelling halfway around the globe to kill our citizens. Not to mention the prevailing sentiment in the area that the war on terror is really a war on Islam. This is just one more example of Bush’s actions actually harming our security goals.

I am greatly enjoying reading the Republican
side posts these days because of the blatant desperation that drives them.

Acting:

as if the war wasn’t a gigantic mess,

as if the economy weren’t still tanking -
oh, but wait until those tax cuts start
stimulating the economy,

as if the phrase ‘jobless recovery’ wasn’t
inherently idiotic,

as if Bush handled foreign policy in
a sensible manner instead of burning bridges
at top speed (and all to invade Iraq, that
number one threat to world peace),

as if talk of a conspiracy around 9-11
was actually among the most important
issues driving resistance to Bush (see
above for the rather more important issues),

as if bringing up Bill Clinton makes
any sense whatsoever,

as if regular, non-right-wing people somehow
remember the Clinton years as ‘bad,’

as if the word ‘liberal’ still packs a scare,

as if it were still September 2001, November 1994, or November 1980. In order: it isn’t,
it isn’t, and You Wish.

* * * * * *

Oh, and your big card - the President has
already brought it out:

As if attempting to hang Kerry on his vote
to authorize Bush to go to war made any sense
in a country that is chockfull of The War-Supporting Fools of 2003 who have Reconsidered Their Positions in 2004. Kerry is their poster boy. They’re no more uncomfortable with him for
changing his mind than they are of themselves.

* * * * * *

Yes, it’s nice. But then Republican rhetoric
does tend to pretend to outsider ‘they’re all
against us’ status, even after years of control, and even though your boys always have more money than God to campaign with.

I’m looking forward to your rhetoric becoming consistent with your actual relationship to power.

I know it won’t be the rhetoric that
changes.

Luv, Vic

Gaelen makes the point for me.

al-Qaeda is in Iraq now.

Which to me is a great strategy by Bush. Better they be in Iraq fighting against our military, than be in the US blowing up civilians.

What happened in Spain though only shows (in a roundabout way) that what Bush is doing is working. Terrorists do not want Bush in office. If he has bumbled it so much, then why are they trying so hard to see that he goes away?

shawn said:
“What happened in Spain though only shows (in a roundabout way) that what Bush is doing is working. Terrorists do not want Bush in office. If he has bumbled it so much, then why are they trying so hard to see that he goes away?”

what in the heck are you saying shawn? how, even in a roundabout way, does what happened in spain show anything about what bush is doing?

Oh Martin… It’s a sad day when conservatives start to equate the New York Times with Michael Moore. Next you’ll be branding FOX News as an appendage of the left-wing, liberal, elitist media because it reports facts that contradict your pre-conceived notions.

If I had the kind of detailed military and intelligence information you’re asking for, I certainly wouldn’t be making it public. Your persistance in asking for more specific information is making me suspicious.

I’m kidding, of course. I’m sure you’re a very patriotic American who just hasn’t bothered to do a google search on (unit “redeployed to iraq”).

Actually, I’m surprised that you’re poo-pooing unnamed sources from the New York Times. I thought that’s where conservatives got all their ‘scoops’ on Democrats. Or do you just trust the NYT when it backs up your world-view?

I don’t recall anyone here claiming that the “US military is some kind of Keystone cops operation,” and I think you owe us an apology for suggesting it. We happen to care a lot about our men and women in the service, and are ticked off because we feel they aren’t getting the support they deserve from their Commander in Chief.

In any case, you seem to know as much about military and intelligence assets in Afghanistan as I do. Why don’t you put up your sources that say the Iraq war wasn’t responsible for any reduction in the number of special forces and intelligence assets in Afghanistan? Reveal your sources and let the ‘court of public opinion’ decide.

Shawn: “Better they be in Iraq fighting against our military, than be in the US blowing up civilians.”

Actually, the attack Spain shows that premise to be untrue. As you’ll recall from “How to be a Terrorist 101”, terrorists operate in disjointed cells, capable of working at near optimum efficiency without central control. Terrorist organizations are now targeting Iraq as a possibility in their lists of targets - something Saddam was able to control suprisingly well, actually. That does not, however, necessarily decrease the odds of an attack on US soil, given the huge increase in willing terrorist recruits that our unjustified war has created.

The war in Iraq certainly had its benefits, cheifly among them being the capture of Mr. Hussein. I would call that obvious. Equally obvious is that the war in Iraq has decreased our national security - through the alienation of allies needed to wage the war on terrorism, the divertion of resources from worthwhile pursuits, the increased anti-americanism throughout the world, and the negative effect that the run up to war had on our economy (with this last point being acknowledged by Bush himself). I cannot see another reasonable conclusion.

OK, point by point, Vic, because I can’t let you get away with saying those things without having someone respond.

1.)Giant mess, yup, new constitution, new Iraqi poll shows IRAQI popular support for the liberation and that over 70% say that they will be better off in one year. Things couldn’t be going worse.

2.)Tax cuts were bad for the economy, obviously, I mean we only had record growth in the 4th quarter.

3.)The phrase jobless recovery is idiotic, and Democrats say it. Not Bush. Also, lets play a trivia game. Which decade had a better unemployment rate than the current 5.6%, the 70s, 80s, or 90s?

If you said the 70s or 80s, you have no idea what you talking about because obviously unemployment was so low during the 90s boom. But you know what? If you said the 90s you would still be wrong. Its a trick question you see, because our current unemployment rate is lower than the average from the 90s, 80s and 70s.

4.)Complete overstatement, to begin with, we did not burn bridges. Your statement implies that we have cut off diplomatic relations or something, that is not true, France and Germany just disagreed with us on Iraq. We decided that we were tired of the U.N. doing nothing but say the Iraq had WMDs, so we did something about it.

5.)I don’t know why this was posted, I have never heard that position taken by anybody.

6.)-7.) We will just ignore these because there is no point to them or are they relevant to a discussion

8.)When I hear Liberal, I don’t think scary, I think foolish. Saying that a huge government bureaucracy can spend my money better than me? Thats not scary, its just foolish. Looking at other socialist countries, countries who can’t even compare with the economic power (or unemployment rates or health care quality) of America, and saying that we should be more like them isn’t scary, its foolish.

9.)Not quite sure what you are trying to say here but just to let you know…9/11 is shaping the future of our country. It will be the event in history that teachers will make their students memorize because it changed the direction of the world. If you think that we shouldn’t react to this event, well I think you are on your own.

And then the big finale!!!! With Asterisks!!!!
*******************
Kerry’s stance on the war is truly puzzling. It is definitely not what I would want in a Commander-in-Chief. Kerry voted for the authorization of the Iraq War, not a bad thing (in my eyes). He has said that Iraq posed a threat, had WMDs (along with Blix and the UN)…but now he believes that the Bush team mislead America. If Bush misled America than so did Kerry. Therefore, any criticism from him is contradictory.

That alone would make a lot of people mad, but not me, I realize that politicians are politicians and that Republicans and Democrats will fight for whatever advantage they can get.

What truly angers me is his vote against funding the war he helped to start! But wait!!! There is an explanation, he was protesting the Bush tax cuts. He said today that he voted for the bill earlier when it was going to be paid by those evil rich people’s taxes, but not when it was going to be paid by the deficit. Obviously, denying body armor to our troops is a perfectly reasonable way to protest tax cuts. That is absolutely disgusting.

*******************

Now its time for the cheap shot at the Republicans collecting more donations than Democrats. Well, you know what they say, it sucks being popular.

As for the comment about the Republicans saying there the outsider, well its better than 800 million dollar man Kerry saving the poor and working class.

The reason why Republicans don’t change their rhetoric is because they believe in what they are fighting for. I’m sure the Democrat’s rhetoric will change because they will change there minds to anything if they think it will get them elected.

That Iraq poll is interesting, Tom. Thanks for bringing that up.

48% of Arabs feel they were humiliated by the attack, as opposed to only 33% who feel they were liberated. That’s only going to lead to some hard feelings toward the US.

60% of Arabs oppose the presence of coalition forces and 51% of all Iraqis oppose their presence. A referendum to democratically boot out US forces right now would likely pass.

Of 10 local issues, only on security (54%) do a majority of Iraqis feel they are better off now than before the war. Oddly enough, ‘regaining public security’ is rated as 1st, 2nd, or 3rd priority by 85% of Iraqis. They feel more secure now, but want more? I guess that’s reasonable.

Only 21% say they want an Islamic state, but 70% of Iraqis say they trust religious leaders opposed to only 39% who trust the Iraqi Governing Council and 28% who trust the CPA.

The poll says 47% of Iraqis want a ‘single strong Iraqi leader’, compared to only 28% who say they want a democracy. Let’s hope they get a Lee Kwan Yew rather than another Saddam Hussein.

Being a cynic, I would immediately discount all of the results dealing with events in one year’s time. I suspect that as soon as Bush pulls Bremer out (about 5-20 years too soon, in my opinion), the Iraqis will democratically kick out US troops and begin a descent into generations of civil strife and all their hopes for the near future will be moot.

I hope I’m pleasantly surprised, but the lack of a tradition of liberal, constitutional democracy and the antipathy between the Shiites and Sunnis, and the Kurd’s desire for an independent Kurdistan don’t leave me with a happy feeling.

Ideally, a US administration would stay in place for many years, or at least until Iraq has a tradition of peaceful transfer of power, a strong, uncorrupt judiciary, a stable economy, and an uncorrupt legislature. It worked for us in the Philippines (mostly), and later in Japan and Germany.

Handing over power so quickly to an un-elected Iraqi government with an ‘interim’ constitution to meet a political deadline condemns the Iraqi people to an uncertain future and civil war. It makes the Bush administration look like they’re trying to wash their hands of the whole incident so they can claim “mission accomplished” in time for the November elections.

Chew on your candidates qualifications and wavering. The following resume is a factual account of George Bush’s qualifications. If you are too blind to see the plain truth, you are doomed for failure in being decieved into voicing your thoughts as baseless. This resume was constructed in Australia.

Here it is…

George Bush
Unemployed Student

Mark Latham has famously described George W Bush as “the most incompetent and dangerous president in living memory.” While the following resume would seem to support this stance, only a student with left-wing tendencies would have the time to put it together:

13 January 2004

RESUME - GEORGE W. BUSH
EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE

LAW ENFORCEMENT:

I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver’s license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been
“lost” and is not available.

MILITARY:

I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.

COLLEGE:

I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a cheerleader.

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:

I ran for U.S. Congress and lost. I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn’t find any oil in Texas. The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock. I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money. With the help of my father and our right-wing friends in the oil industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor of Texas.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS:

I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union.

During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America. I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.

I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history.

With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father’s appointments to the Supreme Court, I became president after losing by over 500,000 votes.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:

I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.

I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.

I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.

I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.

I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.

I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.

I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.

In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.

I’m proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history. My “poorest millionaire,” Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.

I set the record for most campaign fundraising trips by a U.S. President.

I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.

My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. History, Enron. My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.

I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history.

I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.

I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.

I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in U.S. history.

I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government.

I’ve broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.

I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.—this is true.

I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.—actually what happened is the World Court is changing into the International Criminal Court—because the US wants to be a part of the court, but not
be open to having the US have charges brought up against them, they have temporarily ceased negotiating with the countries involved in and taking part in the establishment of the ICC. So, in other words, the US wants to be able to establish the laws within the ICC, practice those laws within the ICC, but not have those laws applied to our country.

I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. “prisoners of war” detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.—Guantanomo Bay.

I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).

I set the record for fewest number of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.

I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period.

After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.

I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most disliked country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world
history.

I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.

I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, preemptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community.

I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families - in wartime.

In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq, then blamed the lies on our British friends.

I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.

I am supporting development of a nuclear “Tactical Bunker Buster,” WMD.

I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein to justice.

RECORDS AND REFERENCES:

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father’s library, sealed and unavailable for public view.

All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

——————————————————————————-

If Bush misled America than so did Kerry. Therefore, any criticism from him is contradictory.

This makes the bizarre assumption that a senator has the same access to raw intelligence that the president and his appointees has. Kerry was shown biases and flawed intelligence that there was a legitimate threat because that’s what Bush wanted him to see! Senators only see intelligence through the White House’s filter.

LawnBoy: Why do you feel that JFK didn’t have access to the raw intelligence that the President and his appointees had? Isn’t he on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? I believe they were briefed extensively prior to the war resolution vote (and which he voted to allow the President to commit troops to war).

I mean let’s re-wind the clock back a year and a half. The whole world was in unamimous condemnation of Iraq for its weapons of mass destruction (1441). Iraq was given a deadline to comply. Blix reported back to the security council that Iraq had not complied by its submittal. And we should have given them more time and continued the policy of containment?

Again I point to this artilce written just before the war. For once we are trying to fix the problem that is terrorism. Hate Bush all you want. You’ve got 2008 sewed up anyway. But let this administration finish the job so that the world, not just the U.S., benefits.

http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/020303.html

The infamous photograph was taken with a telephoto lens, which compresses the appearance of distance. An untrained eye might assume that he was close to her, but in reality he must have been four or five rows back, not to mention in a completely different section of the crowd.
Actually, if you’re talking about the one I read about, it’s a fake. They found the source photos - they were photoshopped together to make Kerry look like he was standing with Fonda.

The one I’m speaking about isn’t the crowd shot, it’s the one with Fonda in the foreground, and Kerry in the background of the shot.

Boy, that so-called resume is so riddled with outright errors that I’m not even going to bother going through it (I have failed to bring Saddam Hussein to justice?). I wonder if this cut and past e-mailese stuff would be better circulated privately?

George,

Who briefs senators on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? Isn’t it the White House, the Military, and other departments that take orders from the White House? We’ve seen plenty of evidence from the Office of Special Plans, etc, that the White House cherry-picked information before briefings so that only the information most favorable to their position was heard.

How would Kerry have received intelligence except through parts of the Executive Branch?

LawnBoy. But now you are broadening the conspiracy to the entire Administration including the lifers at CIA and State. No way that happens in leaksville U.S.A. (Washington D.C.).

And you have to also say that Colin Powell lied to the U.N. after his self performed review of the intelligence. I don’t buy that one either. I don’t know Powell (well I read his book), but I do trust what he said on the subject more so than any of his critics. The man is honorable.

In sum I just do not believe the “Bush lied” argument. As Martin has pointed out it is very Freshman logic to paint such a vast conspiracy as the acts of one person (Bush), and the low probability that such a conspiracy would work would have been enough deterrent to try it anyway.

More plausible is that Saddam had this trap (hiding the WMD) set up just in case the U.S. actually invaded. I mean it really is his best defense after he re-emerges from hiding to show the world it was really the infidel aggressors that made up all of these lies to steal oil from the Arabs. And remember Saddam’s only goal was to survive as he had always done in the past. To me that makes much more sense and better fits into the context of the last twelve years than some kind of neo-con conspiracy. But I guess it doesn’t sell as many papers or create as many web-site hits.

Lee, I hope you’re enjoying our little debate and I’m glad you responded to my remarks. I am not a terrorist, so put your mind at ease on that point.

So forward: My reference to Micheal Moore in discussing the journalistic standards of Jason Blair’s former employer has nothing to do with the substance of my remarks. I regret having made it now because it’s provided an easy way to change the subject. The problem I way trying to highlight is that when you say Bush abandoned the hunt for Al Qaida, the only evidence you can come up with is a handful of quotes from a couple anonymous sources, quotes which can be interpreted in a number of ways, and an aside which borders on editorializing written by an unnamed reporter and buried in a single paragraph in the New York Times. I’ve googled this to death, and I find plenty of partisan opinions but no actual evidence to support a very serious charge.

You wrote, “In any case, you seem to know as much about military and intelligence assets in Afghanistan as I do. Why don’t you put up your sources that say the Iraq war wasn’t responsible for any reduction in the number of special forces and intelligence assets in Afghanistan? Reveal your sources and let the ‘court of public opinion’ decide.”

This is precisely the problem: on whom should the burden of proof lie when making grave charges of mismanagement of the armed forces? Those who admit that that they don’t know much about the military and intelligence assets in Afghanistan are not only in no position to say that those assets are inadequate, they’re in no position to go a step further and say those assests they know nothing about are inadequate
because of reasons they can only half-way articulate (having to do with Iraq). This is an example of that old debating trick of asking “When did you stop beating your wife?”

We don’t need to know nor does it matter exactly which units are in Afghanistan or Iraq now, but I do know from experience a little about how military deployments work. Already activated units are shuffled betweeen theaters of operation BEFORE new units are called up—this is standard procedure and doesn’t mean that you don’t have vast additional resources available elsewhere if military commanders decide they’re needed.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, which I’m still waiting for, this appears to be exactly what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq—routine logistical shiftings instead of bringing in additional forces from Europe, or, I don’t know, Fort Benning.

I know that just uncritically repeating that the US military couldn’t possibly hunt for Al Qaida at the same time they fought in Iraq is convenient for those who want to discredit Bush and elect John Kerry—in fact that’s the only reason for repeating this particular and totally unsubstantiated falsehood. If the other side would either just admit this or come up with at least some scrap of credible proof—in short, allow at least a modicum of fair play to govern a debate of the issues—I’ll promise to be skeptical as well about baseless charges and smears directed toward Kerry that are undoubtedly coming down the pike.

George,

Comparing Powell’s testimony to the facts now known, it’s hard not to come to the conclusion that what he said is not true. Whether it’s because he deceived us or was deceived, the facts don’t fit.

I’m impressed by your logic. You can ignore the facts the Bush Administration fudged because you don’t think they would have tried a conspiracy. It’s as though 4 must equal 5 because it would be too much work for someone to lie about it. Don’t bother with the facts, just claim anyone pointing out the facts is a conspiracy theorist.

The facts have been laid out many times, and people formerly from the White House and Pentagon have talked about the way that politics drove the intelligence.

This side debate came about when someone claimed Kerry deceived America because he thought the war was justified based on the evidence he saw. I’ve defended Kerry on the grounds he saw only filtered evidence, and the only response is to accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist.

One more thing: It may actually be the case that there are inadequate forces in either or both Iraq and Afghanistan—this isn’t my point. Some military commanders deny this, others say it’s true, but arm-chair quarterbacking is a fine American tradition I wouldn’t want to deprive us of. In either case, it would be a problem of not using forces that are availabe and not of the needs of one conflict draining the other.

Martin wrote:
“Bush abandoned the hunt for Al Qaida, the only evidence you can come up with is a handful of quotes from a couple anonymous sources”

You know what else one doesnt find, on google or even on the tip of the President’s tongue Martin?

Evidence that Iraq DID have links to Al Qaeda.
Nice to say there’s no evidence to the contrary isnt it? It’s like saying guilty until proven innocent.

LawnBoy: And my point is that Kerry saw the same intel as the President, Colin Powell, and the rest of our government. And all three came to the same conclusions. To believe the “filtered” argument means that there is/was a massive cover-up encompassing two administrations, multiple foreign governments, and scores of non-political government workers, which (to me) it is just not likely.

The intel was bad. I can believe that if history proves it, but the past twelve years of history point more accurately to the fact that the Iraqis were hiding something for some reason. Hence 1441:

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

I gave you my theory which is as good or bad as anyone else’s. Only time will tell, but the benefactor of the “Bush Lied” theory is JFK, who needs to somehow reconcile that he voted for a war he is now campaigning against.

We agree to disagree I’m sure!

Suhasini, you’re quoting me completely out of context. I wasn’t taking about whether there were links between Al Qaida and the Iraqi government. That’s a totally different topic.

Hiding it where George?
In the sandunes?

Wait a minute, if I’m correct, you said that the only evidence that Bush abandoned the hunt for Al Qaeda by invading Iraq is a few unreliable sources right?
Well what I’m saying is simply this:the only evidence to say that Bush didn’t abandon Al qaeda by going to Iraq is inreliable.
And to assume that the two( Iraq and Al Qaeda) were connected simply by lack of evidence to show that they weren’t, is like assuming a person to be guilty before proving them innocent.

Armed with this knowledge, (David) Kay was able to say firmly to The Telegraph’s Con Coughlin on January 25: “We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons. But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam’s WMD program. Precisely what went to Syria and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved.”

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=780

I wrote Feinstein asking her to vote against invading Iraq. She replied that based on the evidence she was shown, it was clear that Hussein was a threat. I wrote her a ‘told you so’ letter recently and she replied that she was shown intelligence analysis without any qualifiers. The briefers described their analysis of satellite photos and communications intercepts as absolute proof that Saddam was hiding WMDs, so she had no choice but to act on it.

If you guys haven’t already, you should open a dialogue with your elected representatives. Mostly it’s automated replies, but sometimes you get info that doesn’t make it into the mass media.

As for the shifting of assets away from the hunt for bin Laden: Martin, we both seem like concerned citizens. Wy don’t we write our elected representatives and ask that they investigate the matter?