August 19, 2005
stop the war
We need to stop this war based on lies, and concocted for political gain. It’s harming our troops, distorting the truth, creating more terrorists, and making us less safe. Yes, we need to stop this war now… stop the left’s war of deception, their war to reclaim their positions of power and privilege regardless of the cost, the lies they have to use, or how they have to slander and hurt America.
There is no doubt that those on the left see their power ebbing away. Their worldview receding into the dustbin of history. As history shows, people who are desperate often resort to lies and slander in their time of weakness and defeat. They begin to see political opposition as truly sinister and diobolical, rather than just mistaken or even having honestly held beliefs. This distortion over time might even lead them to not be able to distinguish truth from fiction, to begin believing what they want to be true rather than what actually is.
Even though time after time when leftist policies are actually put into practice they clearly and undeniably demonstrate the utter failure of collectivist/progressive ideology, still some cannot help but cling to their dead religion. Hence the abundance of sleazy lies and baseless personal attacks against Republicans and Bush in particular.
When you don't have the truth on your side, of course, you must resort to lies. Nothing else is left to you with which to 'defend the faith'. Of course all those who are outside the faith are enemies worthy of slanderous attack and since Republicans don't believe as the left does they are all labeled liars because liberalism cannot be defended any other way.
An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers “supporting . . . a convicted clinic bomber” and of having an ideology that “leads him to excuse violence against other Americans” It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham, Alabama .The ad is false.
...In words and images, the ad conveys the idea that Roberts took a legal position excusing bombing of abortion clinics, which is false. To the contrary, during the Reagan administration when he was Associate Counsel to the President, Roberts drafted a memo saying abortion-clinic bombers "should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law." In the 1986 memo, Roberts called abortion bombers "criminals" and "misguided individuals," indicating that they would get no special treatment regarding requests for presidential pardons. Reagan in fact gave no pardons to abortion-clinic bombers. -factcheck
NARAL undoubtely believes they are doing the 'right thing' by lying, and justify it on the grounds that the danger is so great, the emergency so perilous that the ends justify the means. But it's not just NARAL that is willing to lie, it's a pattern well worn across the spectrum of progressive activists.
Bush lied, people died. This brilliant [sic.] liberal slogan typifies the willful obfuscation engaged in by the left in it's war on Bush. To many progressives it is far more important to defeat Bush than it is to defeat Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, the PLO, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Iran combined. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter after all.
That is why Republicans are today called Nazi's bent on creating a fascist police state. It is why Republicans are accused of attempting to starve children and seniors, of waging war against the poor; it's why every election won by Republicans is 'stolen', and why Bush lied to take us to war.
As a factual matter, did Bush lie to get us into war? Only if you change the definition of what a lie is. It used to be that a lie meant you said something you knew to be false. Now it just means that you are a Republican acting on intelligence you believe to be correct and which was correct only while a democrat was still in power. But of course the key element today to be called a liar by the left is that you are a Republican. No other proof is needed.
The left took the occasion of the 9/11 commission hearings, not to find out how to fix intelligence failures, but as an election year tactic to blame Bush for 9/11, to try and paint Bush as an evil monster who wanted 3,000 people to die. They tried to paint him as a coward fleeing washington on Airforce One. Tried to accuse him of treason by saying he allowed the Bin Laden family to 'escape' the US when all other planes were grounded. They tried to say Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen!
Now they say Bush lied to get us into war. So what was the lie? The lie was using Clinton administration intelligence.
The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
Shortly after the embassy bombings, Mr. Clinton ordered air strikes on al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and on the Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.
To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam's weapons scientists.
Mr. Cohen elaborated in March in testimony before the September 11 commission.
He testified that "bin Laden had been living [at the plant], that he had, in fact, money that he had put into this military industrial corporation, that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program."
He said that if the plant had been allowed to produce VX that was used to kill thousands of Americans, people would have asked him, " 'You had a manager that went to Baghdad; you had Osama bin Laden, who had funded, at least the corporation, and you had traces of [VX precursor] and you did what? And you did nothing?' Is that a responsible activity on the part of the secretary of defense?"
-washington times
Of course today we are learning more about grievious intelligence failures under Clinton. Operation Able Danger, which apparently wasn't important enough to even mention in the report reviewing why we didn't know more about Mohammed Atta and his terrorist plans before 9/11. It couldn't be that when there was an important (possibly the most important election in our lifetime?) coming up, that someone didn't want to change the subject from why Bush didn't prevent 9/11? Nah. No one could be that partisan and that deceitful, could they?
What I'd like to know now is what did Secretary of Defense William Cohen, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, and Richard Clarke (in charge of counter-terrorism) know and when did they know it? Particularily in light of Richard Clark's extremely partisan testimony to the 9/11 commission and Sandy Berger's theft of top secret documents at the National Archives.
Was Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke (and who knows who else) briefed about Able Danger?
It's obvious which war the left is engaged in. It is purely a war to defeat Bush. Don't confuse them with any facts, don't point out that all their claims are exaggerations of tangential truths. Don't point out that there is a real enemy out there and that America didn't create them, that America is not the danger here, that the Bush Administration is not the enemy. Don't point it out because it won't matter to those enthralled to their ideology.
Then again, maybe those like Cindy Sheehan are the left's own worst enemy. Perhaps the best defense here is just to let them continue talking.
Posted by Eric Simonson at August 19, 2005 02:40 PMThis is nothing more than wrong-wing hatemongering and doesn’t deserve a response.
Posted by: ElliottBay at August 19, 2005 02:52 PMCindy Sheehan needs to stay home for good. The rhetorical question she is asking was answered by Bush long ago, whether you agree or disagree with him. What just cause? Bush told us it was to find the wmd’s the whole world thought existed before the invasion, to spread democracy in the heart of tyranny and terrorism, and to force the terrorists to fight our MILITARY there, instead of killing our CIVILIANS here. And that worked (0 attacks here in four years since 9/11). I however do agree that we need to pull out and stay out of muslim countries. They do not want democracy, and love killings, bombings, suicide, beheadings, and the such. I supported going there but it was a mistake, I’ll admit. The point still remains though, Sheehan may have lost a son, an be in pain, but she is a tiresome, Liberal hack, that is asking a tiresome rhetorical question. She is approaching things in the wrong way. It wasn’t based on Bush’s lies, it was simply a mistake to go. Period. Her political hackery is sickening, and it DOES dishonor her son in my opinion, to use his death for her political agenda.
Posted by: David Stone at August 19, 2005 03:01 PMThis attempt to steer perceptions of the GOP into a 180 against Democrats, is priceless. The American voting public, as polls show, are losing faith and trust with the GOP from the President through Congress. This blatant attempt to try to spin that reality is hilarious.
Spin won’t do it, Eric. Resolve Iraq, and end the bloating of the tax burden on the next generation, and the GOP may be able to restore faith in the voting public that are qualified to lead. Until then, keep watching those poll numbers go south.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 19, 2005 03:08 PMElliotbay,
Thank you for your response.
David,
Here’s the point, the left wants support to dwindle. It wants us to lose in Iraq. To pullout and leave the country as a failure of Republican and conservative policy. It doesn’t matter how many people will die for such a ‘victory’ it’s all worth it to those who see Bush and Republicans as the enemy.
It reveals all of the cries about how the war must be stopped because ‘people are dying’ as the lie that it is.
You mention two things, resolving Iraq and removing the tax burden on the next generation. Both are Republican goals. The way to resolve Iraq is exactly as we are doing. Staying the course, and supporting the birth of a democratic Iraq. Also, to remove the immense tax burden on the American people it is necessary to dismantle many of the leftist institutions that burden the American people with those costs.
On both accounts the left is on the wrong side of these issues. The left predominantly favors an unraveling of Iraq and more not less of a tax burden on Americans of all generations.
Posted by: esimonson at August 19, 2005 03:30 PMEric,
“An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers €œsupporting … a convicted clinic bomber€ and of having an ideology that €œleads him to excuse violence against other Americans€ It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham, Alabama .”
Gee whiz guy, where were you a month ago when this actually might have been news?
Nothing you state is new. I wonder why. I suppose if you repeat something often enough people will start to belive it.
Could it be that the “partisan hacks” reside on both sides of the aisle?
Posted by: Rocky at August 19, 2005 03:38 PMRocky,
Gee whiz guy, where were you a month ago when this actually might have been news?
I guess the reasons we are in Iraq would also not be worth mentioning because it happened so more than a month ago?
Nothing you state is new. I wonder why. I suppose if you repeat something often enough people will start to belive it.
Or perhaps the truth doesn’t change?
Posted by: esimonson at August 19, 2005 03:41 PMI see your Washington Times, and Raise you a New York Times:
THE INTELLIGENCE-Iraqis, Seeking Foes of Saudis, Contacted bin Laden, File Says
Several things should be noted: First, our source for this document is…
Ahmed Chalabi!
Second, This document indicates that the main reason for doing all this was because both hated the Saudis.
Third, whatever relationship there was, was made defunct by Sudan kicking Bin Laden out. In the article’s words:
But the document contains no statement of response by the Iraqi leadership under Mr. Hussein to the request for joint operations, and there is no indication of discussions about attacks on the United States or the use of unconventional weapons.The document is of interest to American officials as a detailed, if limited, snapshot of communications between Iraqi intelligence and Mr. bin Laden, but this view ends with Mr. bin Laden‘s departure from Sudan. At that point, Iraqi intelligence officers began “seeking other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of his current location,” the document states.
Members of the Pentagon task force that reviewed the document said it described no formal alliance being reached between Mr. bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence. The Iraqi document itself states that “cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement.”
Discussion, but never a conclusive relationship. Tell me, Eric, do we attack countries because they might have been a threat to us, or because they are one?
The War in Iraq, the only real war to which we can refer to, is as important and lethal an example of the deadliness of an intelligence failure as 9/11 is. Only difference is, the failure in Iraq was of an administration to get it’s facts straight before it put people into harm’s way.
As for Able Danger, the question is whether or not Curt Weldon’s chart was really all that verifiable, all that useful. We know now the consequence of improperly acted upon information. We don’t always know these things ahead of time, so it is good to be careful about what we take as gospel.
As for Richard Clarke, point out to me what was partisan about it, aside from the fact it doesn’t paint Bush in a good light? That seems to be your main criteria for complaint.
great punditry.
as some to the left of eric, which isn’t terribly difficult, i read all these talking points and get angry.
despite any skewed evidence or talking points put out by the GOP about how cindy sheehan is somehow an operative for white power, i guess my question is,
what if you are wrong? i know, i know…it’s impossible for conservatives to be mistaken, but what if us liberals actually got it right?
see, i hold to my ideals and my beliefs because it’s how i see the world, just as eric sees things his way. we clearly disagree on, well, everthing. however, at least i’m willing to admit that there is a chance i got it wrong…i don’t think eric would be as open to that potential.
am i wrong?
Posted by: views at August 19, 2005 04:21 PMEric,
Can I have some of what your on?
life must be so much simpler when you stop thinking (see 1984 by orwell)
Posted by: wishicouldbelievethelies at August 19, 2005 04:33 PMAnnie, your comment has been deleted. You republished someone else’s article without providing the source of that article nor providing information as to whether you have permission to reprint their work in another forum. —WatchBlog Managing Editor.
Posted by: Annie at August 19, 2005 04:37 PMEric said: “Here’s the point, the left wants support to dwindle. It wants us to lose in Iraq.”
That is no doubt true of some on the left, especially politicians on the left. But, I know folks on the left who don’t give a rat’s ass who gets credit or blame, they just want to see resolution in Iraq and the freeing up of our armed forces from what continues to appear a quagmire with no end.
The way to resolve Iraq is exactly as we are doing. Staying the course, …
What we have been doing is growing the conflict in Iraq, not resolving it. That is as plain as GW Bush’s face. Yes, in much of Iraq things are better for very many Iraqis. This is good. But, the insurgency and the terrorism and the strikes against our troops and the Iraqi troops are more frequent, more deadly, NOT LESS. That does not look like progress to the American voting public. Staying the course we have been on for more than 2 years is obviously not ending the conflict.
What good is it to have a Constitution if the people of Iraq haven’t a clue what a Constitution is, what is in it, and if it does not bring peace and security. And NO Constitution can bring peace and security when the elements of civil war are at play as our OWN history proves.
I always chuckle when reading one of Eric’s posts. In his world, only his opponents lie, never his allies. Only his perspective makes sense. Only evidence that supports his viewpoint is valid. Only his opposition sees its enemy as sinister and diabolical. Only his allies are called Nazis.
What a quaint little world.
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 19, 2005 04:46 PMAnd Eric, are you aware Bush and the GOP have added more than $16,000 of federal tax debt on average to every wage earner in America since 2000? That is 2.5 trillion dollars in increased federal debt, to be paid by taxpayers. Republicans have had control of both the revenue and spending side of the surplus/deficit equation for 5 years, and all they have managed to do is grow the national debt from over 5 trillion to near 8 trillion dollars and still climbing by another 1/3 trillion dollars this year.
You say Republicans are for fiscal responsibility? I say where is there ANY evidence of that?
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 19, 2005 04:47 PMStrangely enough, nothing in Eric’s long diatribe explains why Cheney went on TV and said the Iraqi Insurgency was on its death throes. It does not explain why, even after the Senate Investigation disproved it, Cheney STILL claimed Iraq commited 9/11. Nor does Eric mention Accountability in any of his writings. Just how many screwups does it take for Eric to fire someone?
Posted by: Aldous at August 19, 2005 04:50 PMbtw. I seem to remember Clinton firing a dozen cruise missiles at Bin Ladin. I also remember Republicans screaming “Wag the Dog”. Seems the Conservatives were focused on a certain Blowjob and didn’t want a little Terrorist to get in the way.
Do you remember that, Eric?
Posted by: Aldous at August 19, 2005 04:54 PMI wonder what will happen when the facts about “able danger” come out?
I wonder what Sandy Berger stuffed into his “underoos” to cover up?
Politically, things will get fun in the next year leading up to the 2006 elections.
I love politics, and watchblog for a place to debate that, but I predict that 2006 wont be kind to team blue.
Posted by: Beagle at August 19, 2005 05:50 PMYou know what I find amazing is that both sides these days has their head so buried up their behind that they do not see anything except their own lies. The fact of the matter is that the USA survives on money. It is that simple take away our money or our ability to spend and you have brought the US to its knees. What I find amazing is that it is the same no matter who is in office a Democrat and a Republican makes no difference in the end. Shallow people take their slanted ideas and spread crap. The main job of the President is to keep the money flowing and the rest of this bull is just that bull. These parties suck in the end because they get on their own agenda pretending to care about the little person. No-one cares about the little person because we are not a socialist country that takes care of them. We also should not be one. Bleeding hearts should stay in the back where they belong and pretend that morals and being fair to people matters. In real life it does not matter what matters is that we keep the Nation going and we crush anything that might jepardize our financial stability. Own a business and what decisions do you make in the end. If you survive the number one question is will it make me money in the long run. America is like that. It is not hey lets take all the money we have and support everyone in the end. It is what do we need to do to provide a life for our people that lasts. Some hard choices have to be made sometimes and people get hurt and some people get pissed. Well too bad grow up and take it or move. We were not better off with a Democrat that just had people like him nor are we better off with a Rupublican that comes from Texas, the fact is it does not matter and I guess people just don’t get that. If someone was to be a threat to our stability how long do you think they would be around. When push comes to shove I would hope that the government would take action to resolve any real threat to our country. In the meantime lets just keep heating up the people that think they have the answers and allow the so-called educated to spout their narrow-minded crap to people that listen. Isn’t that the joy of being an American. We can say just about anything to someone that listens even if it is half true. Ever since I got old enough to vote I have been told that Social Security would not be there. That was over 30 years ago. Medicare also was not going to be there and frankly every kind of doom sayer has had their turn. Environmental scares and political bull has been a way of life now for several years. The only thing that has changed is that the people are paying attention to the lies that these doom spreaders are spreading and that effects their life in general. People are getting depressed and loosing faith and frankly they should not be. Being ex military I am ashamed of the American people and their lack of pride in the US but it is people like these political half truth tellers that I am mostly ashamed of. Take the time to depress the nation and ruin peoples lives with lies and half truths. Both parties are responsible for the state of the nation. Both parties are responsible for having our people wonder why and loosing faith in America. Honestly we might be better off if we were to send the leaders of the parties to another country for a while and we just run ourselves. These days I look at just who tells me what is going on without telling me what is wrong with something else. The minute anyone in politics starts to tell me about the other party I know they are lieing and hiding something. In the end I guess this is just plain boring and old. Which party will grow up first would be my question to both. When are we going to get some pride back in who we are rather than who we can bash or hurt.
Posted by: Michael at August 19, 2005 05:54 PM“I was going to say he’s a piece of work, but that might not translate too well. Is that all right, if I call you a ‘piece of work’?” —George W. Bush to Jean-Claude Juncker, prime minister of Luxembourg, Washington, D.C., June 20, 2005
Is it all right if I say the same about this post? :^D It’s hilarious!!!
Posted by: Adrienne at August 19, 2005 06:30 PMTreason, n. Violation of allegiance toward one’s country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one’s country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
Can anyone make the case that what Cindy Sheehan is doing is not waging war against the elected leaders of this country and aiding its enemies? You don’t think that this encourages the not-so-nice guys in the same way it did the Viet Cong? I’m politically a moderate…but if it were up to me I would say Cindy Sheehan has gone way beyond a first amendment right and is asking for a brain hemmorage of the nine millimeter variety…
Posted by: John E. at August 19, 2005 06:30 PM“Can anyone make the case that what Cindy Sheehan is doing is not waging war against the elected leaders of this country and aiding its enemies?”
Is public dissent the same as waging war against elected leaders and aiding the enemies? Last time I checked, public dissent was just part of the Democratic process.
Posted by: Andrew L. at August 19, 2005 06:38 PMCan anyone make the case that what Cindy Sheehan is doing is not waging war against the elected leaders of this country and aiding its enemies
Yes, without breaking a sweat.
but if it were up to me I would say Cindy Sheehan has gone way beyond a first amendment right and is asking for a brain hemmorage of the nine millimeter variety
I believe you just threatened the life of a fellow citizen. How exactly is that Patriotic or moderate?
Wow.
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 19, 2005 06:42 PMThe rhetorical question [Cindy Sheehan] is asking was answered by Bush long ago
No, Bush keeps changing his answer as soon as the facts prove his previous answer wrong.
Beagle-
Sandy Berger, if he had gotten away, would have had copies stuffed next to Optimus Prime or GI Joe, not the originals. Of course, that’s not sexy enough for the talking points crowd. There has to be a coverup! There has to be more Clinton chicanery! Berger sent on Secret mission to compromise 9/11 commission!
Doesn’t it strike you as suspicious that right about the time that the now defunct commission is pushing for better compliance with their recommendations, the Right begins bringing up the old partisan questions about Jamie Gorelick role? Never mind that The Fabled Wall of Secrecy never extended to Able Danger.
Read this if you want to know just how shaky the Able Danger Charges are.
This right here is part of the quote on that evidence:
The interviewee had no documentary evidence and said he had only seen the document briefly some years earlier. He could not describe what information had led to this supposed Atta identification. Nor could the interviewee recall, when questioned, any details about how he thought a link to Atta could have been made by this DOD [Department of Defense] program in 2000 or any time before 9/11. The Department of Defense documents had mentioned nothing about Atta, nor had anyone come forward between September 2001 and July 2004 with any similar information. Weighing this with the information about Atta’s actual activities, the negligible information available about Atta to other U.S. government agencies and the German government before 9/11, and the interviewer’s assessment of the interviewee’s knowledge and credibility, the Commission staff concluded that the officer’s account was not sufficiently reliable to warrant revision of the report or further investigation.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 19, 2005 07:25 PM
Stephen,
I’m not sure exactly what Berger was doing?
But most thinking persons would classify it as damn odd behavior?
Jamie Gorelick is just a duck, anything she did, or does, would neither confound, or astound me.
It will all come out in the wash, I can wait if you can.
Posted by: Beagle at August 19, 2005 07:59 PM“but if it were up to me I would say Cindy Sheehan has gone way beyond a first amendment right and is asking for a brain hemmorage of the nine millimeter variety”
This is a moderate response to protest??????????????
Okay then, line up, maybe you could also for your protest of her protest.
Posted by: womanmarine at August 19, 2005 08:01 PMEric,
WOW! did you piss off the left or what?
ElliottBay
This is nothing more than wrong-wing hatemongering and doesn’t deserve a response.
Your right, hatemongering is best when it comes from the experts at it on the left.
Posted by: Ron Brown at August 19, 2005 08:05 PMHave patience Eric, The Liberals are losing this war. The American people see things as they really are. The right is not always right, but the left seldom is.
Posted by: tomd at August 19, 2005 08:19 PMJohn E., you believe she is asking to be assasinated for voicing her opinion? I suspect the traitor here is anyone who would propose subverting the Constitution’s 1st Amendment by thinly vailing assasination as a solution to those who speak opposition to power. Of course, such a person would be a hero in Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany, I suspect. Racking up ever more extremist comments like this in the name of the GOP and conservatives will incur a price eventually at the polls. Of that I am confident.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 19, 2005 08:20 PMJohn E.-
Ah yes. Poor America. We indulged dissidents, while our much stiffer spined enemies in the USSR and China shot them. That must be why we lost the Cold War. Wait…
That’s right. We won. You know why? Because here, we don’t extend the definition of treason to disagreeing with the government. Nobody has to run and hide because they got an unpopular opinion, religion, or political association.
Beagle-
I think he was breaking the rules and knew it. I think, though, he overestimated what he could get away with, and underestimated the seriousness of what he did. As for Jamie Gorelick, I think her reputations is earned more by innuendo than fact. Fact is, Gorelick was not the architect of the policy, nor was she the last one to use it. Our former AG, John Ashcroft, accepted the policy with no changes.
I think if there is anybody for whom it will all come out in a wash, it’s the Bush administration. They’ve kept such a tight lid on the place, even John Dean, former White House Counsel to Nixon thinks its excessive. I think the picture we get of this administration after its gone could be radically different than what his supporters expect, and with all that’s happened, I doubt it’s going to be pretty.
Ron Brown-
Thank you and those like you for pissing off the left. What you and others can hardly guess is that your actions are directly related to the strength and the unity of your new opposition. asking the the question that Theoden did in The Two Towers- What can one do against such reckless hate?- we decided it was best to start making our stands. I know I would have been considerably less of an activist both against Bush and for the Democrats, had he not made it fair game to scapegoat liberals for the tragedy that affected us all.
He underestimated how truly committed many liberals were to their country, and therefore the degree of offense and betrayal this would represent to them, to be so vilified by their president. Bush failed to be a statesmen to both sides. He sold his soul to his campaign manager, and turned an issue that had unified American into a partisan bash on the left.
But thanks. What might have taken decades may only take one, thanks to his alienation of half the country.
tomd-
Don’t hold your breath. You got it right. But the American people see the truth, and it’s not flattering to the right.
Ron Brown,
I bow before your superior skills at invective and name-calling. Obviously, you’ve had a lot of practice.
If your so sure about Bush’s lies why don’t you try being President one day I’m sure you would walk away with a clear mind.The life of Mr.Bush is more complicated then your’s will ever dream of being so take a number and do the world a favor SHUT UP!
Savannah, you have no authority nor right to tell any other participant or visitor here at WatchBlog to shut up. It is a debate site. If you don’t like hearing opposing views, find another site.
—WatchBlog Managing Editor
Stephen,
Discussion, but never a conclusive relationship. Tell me, Eric, do we attack countries because they might have been a threat to us, or because they are one?
How about funding terror with oil-for-food money?
a) Saddam openly funded terrorists. Openly harbored terrorists. b) Saddam had chemical and biological weapons, he continued to have the capability to make both, and he had shown no indication that he wouldn’t continue to pursue creation of both.
Can’t you put A and B together in a post 9/11 world? The alternative is weapon inspections and sanctions in perpetuity. Sanctions which leave a dictator in power to torture indefinately, and when he died his sons would take over. Quite a plan I would say.
You’re right, invading Iraq had little to do with the Kerry-style legalistic definitions of properly giving terrorists their miranda rights. It had everything to do with the war on terror.
For instance, Afghanistan didn’t attack us on 9/11. Al Qaeda did. How can you support the invasion of a country that didn’t attack us? Even at that how do you know that Osama Bin Laden was really behind 9/11? What solid evidence besides his braggidocio confesssion do you have?
I can put together, Eric, that Saddam funded the old school kind of terrorist that were hardly the threat to nation security, at least our own, that were not the professional operators that make al-Qaeda the threat it is. Most of his terrorist plots were aimed at neighbors he didn’t like. Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia were his targets. He tried America by going after Bush, and Clinton performed the professional courtesy of levelling Saddam’s Intel HQ with a bunch of cruise missiles. I think the number was something like 24.
As for Afghanistan, you fail to realize two things: The first is that al-Qaeda and the Taliban were not exactly distinct. They shared personnel. Osama was their sugar daddy to some extent, the rich uncle who would do things for them. Hell, Mullah Omar was an in-law! They were almost literally in bed with each other. Second, harboring folks who commit an act of war IS an act of war itself!
And how do I know Osama’s behind it? Well let’s see. Oh, for starters, the attack, with it’s coordination and multiple targets fits the profile of previous al-Qaeda attacks. Additionally, the videotape that was seized in Afghanistan was private and not for public distribution. In short, he had no need to brag to his fellow terrorists. They all knew. Additionally all these fellows who hijacked these planes can be traced back through investigation to Bin Laden.
This is the difference: the more we looked into Iraq, the less we found was true about the case for war. The more we look into Afghanistan, the more we found the evidence backed us up. Generally, for us in the reality-based community, that’s a sign you’re heading in the right direction. For you, it seems like cause to rationalize ambiguities into defenses, to muddy the issues, lower the standards, and move the goalposts. I’m not even sure that you comprehend how far what you are saying today is from what you were saying at the beginning. You would do well to take a compass reading and get back to less foggy territory.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 20, 2005 03:38 PMeric,
“The alternative is weapon inspections and sanctions in perpetuity. Sanctions which leave a dictator in power to torture indefinately, and when he died his sons would take over. Quite a plan I would say.”
Let me think.
Inspections in perpetuity….. 1800+ American lives and $207billion so far.
I don’t know man, that’s a tuffy.
Posted by: Rocky at August 20, 2005 05:17 PMMaybe, just maybe if we had stayed in Afghanistan things like this wouldn’t be happening:
“Salon senior writer Katharine Mieszkowski looks at a new report on underage marriage in Afghanistan.
Howard Dean angered Republicans last weekend when he dared to suggest that Iraqi women may be worse off in the new Iraq than they were under Saddam Hussein. While Dean’s paying attention to the sorry state of women’s rights in countries the United States has forcibly “liberated,” we hope he doesn’t overlook Afghanistan.
The United Nations’ newest report finds that underage marriage is a rampant problem in the country, especially in rural areas. “Nearly 45 percent of marriages in this country involve girls below the legal age of 16,” the U.N. Population Fund said in a statement. “The tradition of marrying off daughters as young as six is still common.”
Afghan girls are sometimes traded as chattel to resolve disputes with another tribal family. The children become the “property of the family or individual who receives them,” the report says. The U.N. Population Fund will hold a two-day workshop with Islamic leaders to grapple with the problem later this month in Kabul.
The report reminded us of how President Bush and even Laura Bush sold the war with Afghanistan to the American people as a bid to end the horrific oppression of women under the Taliban. And, then, how on Women’s Equality Day in 2002, a triumphant President Bush boasted: “Our coalition has liberated Afghanistan and restored fundamental human rights and freedoms to Afghan women, and all the people of Afghanistan. Young girls in Afghanistan are able to attend schools for the first time.”
Afghan girls — now free to marry at age 6. That’s some liberation.”
I wish one of you watchblog editors on either side would start a post about this very issue.
Posted by: womanmarine at August 20, 2005 05:29 PMI wonder why no one puts the partisan crap away and just argues the facts.
The over-all point that needs to be made is that while Sheehan’s desire to remove ALL US troops is a polar extreme she does have some central points that deserve honest, intellectual debate. No party-aligned support babble. Blind party support is a disservice to our troops and to our nation. Pulling out now would be an enormous mistake, but continuing current policy isn’t doing much better either…August ’05 is shaping up to be a pretty bad month over there…even worse than a year ago.
Red or Blue it does not matter…as an American I am seriously concerned about the state of our union. We are in a war that was started based on faulty information…intentional or not. ALL of you have to admit that if a CEO of a Fortune 500 company had a track record similar to this President’s he would have long since been fired. Period. If your boss had been this wrong about any single project under his/her direct control you know in your heart that they would have been fired or at least severely reprimanded.
Just the facts folks…just the facts. Forget your party affiliation…make a list of assertions made before the war and then next to those entries write down the now known realities. It’s startling how many of the facts given at the time and assertions made (some even to this day) were and are COMPLETELY wrong…maybe not intentionally but nonetheless wrong.
I don’t hate Bush, I’d actually love to have a brew with the guy, but boy he has mangled this war pretty bad. I don’t want him out of office or impeached either. I just want him to acknowledge his errors publicly, regain public good will and support, and then reach out for help from where ever it is offered. A good, God fearing man is not concerned with saving face…he is concerned with the safety and well being of ALL men, women, and children (regardless of color, religion, or nationality), especially those he placed in harms way. Humility is the grace of God living in man.
Come on people…please just examine the facts and maybe, just maybe, we can save our troops, the Iraqis, and ultimately us all. God bless America and may he give sight to the party aligned blind.
McCain ’08! We need an actual soldier to lead our troops…no more pretend warriors, Bill or George.
jp
First things first, coming here was not a mistake, since i am here(in iraq), i can tell you this country (iraq and the US)needed to be rid of hussien and the UN, and the only country capable was the US. You never have seen poverty until you’ve been here, or brutality for that matter. It will take a generation or more to properly civilize this country and if the left is successful we will pull out way to soon, it is their desire that we fail. They thwarted us in Vietnam, Johnsons war of attricion with arbitrary boundarys led to this failure. If the left had their guy elected I feel he would try to fight this war in the same manner, which would have many more casualties and alienate the entire muslim world.
As much as I hate being here, I volunteered, and I’m proud to assist my boss in this cause. I am far more disappointed in his education spending plan with kennedy and drug welfare for the grey panthers. I don’t like the patriot act much either, these are greater mistakes in my opinion but if i decided to fire my boss what am i left with? A guy who wants to turn over soveregnty to pinko bueracrats at the un?
I think the Left needs to take a good long look at its self and see what it is doing to this country, if it even cares. It is causing all kinds of hate and doing very little good. The ACLU is getting involved in things that don’t even concern it and mom’s like Cindy Sheehan are becoming folk hero’s because they are causing hate in our society. Christ must be crying over this. Why do you think there are so many natural disasters occuring in our country right now. With abortion so high in our country if God didn’t serve judgement on us He would have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorah.
Posted by: William Morris at August 21, 2005 02:02 PMPete,
“It will take a generation or more to properly civilize this country and if the left is successful we will pull out way to soon, it is their desire that we fail.”
First of all it is not our place to “civilize” Iraq. Second, those that are asking us to pull out are a minority. Third if this had been done right we’d have been done by now anyway.
“They thwarted us in Vietnam, Johnsons war of attricion with arbitrary boundarys led to this failure. If the left had their guy elected I feel he would try to fight this war in the same manner, which would have many more casualties and alienate the entire muslim world.”
It would seem that your memory of history is quite selective. The left had little or nothing to do with the defeat in VietNam. To this day America is still ill prepared to fight a guerilla war against a highly motivated opponent.
Our military has been built to fight Cold War opponents in Eastern Europe, and our weapons systems reflect that.
William Morris,
“Why do you think there are so many natural disasters occuring in our country right now. With abortion so high in our country if God didn’t serve judgement on us He would have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorah.”
Whatever…..
It must be comforting for you to have such a black and white belief system.
William Morris-
Natural disasters occur every year, everywhere. It is ancient superstition to see these natural events as God’s judgment. The real judgment is that on our souls, and that is not visited on the innocent and the guilty alike the way a natural disaster is. Besides, who qualified you to judge all liberals? Maybe you are the worse sinner, and in your pride you don’t allow yourself to acknowledge that. Maybe I’m worse, and I fail to realize how holy you and the GOP are. The only person who knows for sure is God.
We are not operating with sinister intentions, and you do yourself and us harm by assuming evil intentions where you do not know them to be true.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 21, 2005 03:14 PMWhy do you think there are so many natural disasters occuring in our country right now.
Global warming? :)
Posted by: American Pundit at August 23, 2005 07:22 AMEric,
“This distortion over time might even lead them to not be able to distinguish truth from fiction, to begin believing what they want to be true rather than what actually is.”
You prove the accuracy of your own statement.
Don’t you get tired of the same old Left bashing?
