Why We Are in Iraq

These smiling faces are reason number one. The reason Theater Iraq is a part of the war on terror is that we could not allow these children to be the property of Saddam Hussein or his sons to rape and torture as they please.

The plain and simple truth, which astoundingly has to be repeated over and over again for some of you, is that after 9/11 we could not allow a Saddam Hussein to continue funding and harboring terrorists, pursuing WMD, subverting sanctions and inspections, and murdering hundreds of thousands of his own people and call it a successful war on terror.

Just look at these girls in their classroom. Do they deserve to live under Saddam Hussein? Or these boys, do they not deserve the chance to smile and learn? To live in freedom? Could you look at your own children and say they don't deserve that?

Some say we had no right to 'impose' freedom on them. They assert that we have no right to try to 'change their culture' by trying to 'create democracy at the point of a gun'. What they overlook is that Iraq has a long history of liberal society, even by western standards. Iraqis have a culture that was destroyed by Baathism and Saddam Hussein. Or what do we imagine happens when a heartless murderer gains total power?

We are responsible for what happened in Iraq, we allowed a virulent strain of fascism to take hold and strangle the life out of an entire nation for four decades. We cannot afford to continue such a heartless and selfish foreign policy today.

My friends, we did not invade Iraq to colonize and control. We did so to restore the god given rights they are due. The right to freedom. The right to grow up and play their part in society. These are human rights, not rights exclusive to western culture.

So how is this a part of the war on terror?

It is the only long term solution for victory in this war. Ultimately, force of arms will not win the war on terror if we leave millions under dictatorships and statist governments. After all, what would we gain by merely killing or capturing Bin Laden if we left the Taliban in power in Afghanistan? Nothing at all, when individuals who despise western culture culture have more power than ever before to either create peace and freedom or death and destruction precisely because our way of life empowers individuals as never before in history.

The conditions under which some Muslims became terrorists and suicide bombers were not created overnight and will not be completely changed overnight. But it will never change if we say we have no part to play in changing it.

If we are not willing to put our blood and treasure on the line for their future and for their freedom, how can we ask them to do so for us?

If we say we have no right to fight for freedom for these people, our brothers, our fellow human beings, then we have no right to freedom ourselves. It is not a human right, if it does not apply to all equally.

I know that some will argue that we have violated human rights at Abu Ghraib, and this means that we are no better than Saddam Hussein and thus have no right to be in Iraq, or never should have been. Though it is true that we broke our own code of conduct, our own laws, that we have abused prisoners and in at least one case tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib, as unfortunate as that was, we still set an example by showing that we are not above our own laws and that such incidents are aberations. As such, it does not negate our responsibility to fight for freedom in the Middle East. In fact, it makes it all the more important that we not fail in what we have set out to do. That we not turn aside from doing what is right because a few did wrong.

What about tyranny all over the world?

In this case, the tool required to remove Saddam Hussein was military force. Nothing less would do, and nothing less may be needed again in other places against other dictatorships in the future. Does that mean that if we cannot free everyone at one time that it must not be done? Hardly. It means that we do what we can when we can and plan for the liberation and freedom for all who live under the same sky, and on the same earth.

Lest you say this is all purely political, I fully expect a Democrat to be President again in the future, and I will champion the same cause for a Democratic President as I have Bush. I think that our foreign policy will point in this direction for years to come. It will be different for each President, and a Democratic President may make a lot of noise about not using Military force as Bush has done, but as long as they focus on promoting and demanding freedom and democracy anywhere in the world, I will be for it.

The Truth On the Ground, a letter from a soldier.

When I told people that I was getting ready to head back to Iraq for my third tour, the usual response was a frown, a somber head shake and even the occasional "I'm sorry." When I told them that I was glad to be going back, the response was awkward disbelief, a fake smile and a change of subject. The common wisdom seems to be that Iraq is an unwinnable war and a quagmire and that the only thing left to decide is how quickly we withdraw. Depending on which poll you believe, about 60 percent of Americans think it's time to pull out of Iraq.

How is it, then, that 64 percent of U.S. military officers think we will succeed if we are allowed to continue our work? Why is there such a dramatic divergence between American public opinion and the upbeat assessment of the men and women doing the fighting?

...It is difficult for most Americans to rationalize this optimism in the face of the horrific images and depressing stories that have come to symbolize the war in Iraq. Most of the violent news is true; the death and destruction are very real. But experienced military officers know that the horror stories, however dramatic, do not represent the broader conditions there or the chances for future success. For every vividly portrayed suicide bombing, there are hundreds of thousands of people living quiet, if often uncertain, lives. For every depressing story of unrest and instability there is an untold story of potential and hope. The impression of Iraq as an unfathomable quagmire is false and dangerously misleading.

Posted by Eric Simonson at December 14, 2005 1:20 PM
Comments
Comment #102389

Eric
It was Bush’s faultthat your friend did three tours.Bush forced him,so it doesn’t count.

All those school girls were staged too.

Go Kerry

Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 14, 2005 1:38 PM
Comment #102391

Eric

Thought I’d say that before some of our left friends said it…saves time.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 14, 2005 1:40 PM
Comment #102398

Good one SE!

Here let me try.

Well what about the kids in North Korea or New Orleans?

Posted by: Jimf at December 14, 2005 2:00 PM
Comment #102400

Eric-
It’s easy in the arrogance the right displays to suppose that the left is evil and just wants to abandon these poor children or the rest of the Iraqis. Or at least to imply that knowing the opposite is true.

But none of this appeal you’ve got here makes a difference if our efforts have an undesired impact. There will be children already who remember the death of friends and family already, and blame it on us. If this Democracy fails, and civil war takes place, these children will not be smiling as they are now.

And if, God help us, another tyrant takes advantage of the weakness of the system we left behind, we will hardly have done them much good.

How about the children in our own country? If Iraq collapses, and al-Qaeda moves in and sets up camps, will our kids be smiling? If our military is broken by this war, and a world of trouble haunts our footsteps, where will those smiles be? If Bush’s imprudent tax cuts break our economic back at some point, and we are left some has been off to the side, who will be smiling then?

I don’t think you get it. As much as you have prophesized the successes of the Bush administration, only the elections have turned out as planned, and even those have had little effect on the chaos in the country as of yet. Bush may eventually be right about the progress of things, but it will only be after years of bloodshed and destruction, years that will not be forgotten by the Iraqis, or anybody else in the region.

We should be in Iraq to end this hemorrhage of violence, to balance the books and bring America even again. We should be there to return Iraq to peace, only this time better than it was.

You must realize that the insurgents aren’t the only enemy who can muck this up for us. We can do harm to ourselves as well, by not going about things the right way for the right reasons.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 14, 2005 2:04 PM
Comment #102402

Jim F

Oops forget that one too…Bush started the hurricaine and gave nuculear secrets to North Korea too.

Stephen

Sorry Steve.The USA won’t lose in Iraq so don’t worry.

Bad premise.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 14, 2005 2:08 PM
Comment #102412

SE,

I see your still on your game w/ the “go Kerry” (facetious) plug. Nice, brother!

Eric, nice post (once again). It seems like the liberals are going to complain how bad everything is going, and then “try” to take credit when it is successful. And, Iraq will succeed and we will win!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at December 14, 2005 2:24 PM
Comment #102415

I hope you righties enjoy you hairy palms after congratulating each other off like this…
Need wipes?

Posted by: Dave at December 14, 2005 2:30 PM
Comment #102416

Sorry, gentlemen…I don’t buy this. There are dozens of countries all over the world who are dominated by dictators or by military coups. North Korea, Cuba, many countries in Africa, eastern bloc countries…are we planning on “liberating” each country one by one after we have colonized (ahem…”liberated”) Iraq? NO. Why? because those other countries do not have something this country wants…OIL. Leave it to the GOP (“guns..oil..profit”) to try to whitewash their empire-building war.

Posted by: Nise53 at December 14, 2005 2:33 PM
Comment #102417

Eric,

I have spoken with marines and other soldiers that have served and they have a mixed bag of emotions and thoughts on the war. Yes, they go back because they see things that the media doesn’t show, frienldy Iraqi’s, happy children, support and hope. But, there isa lso a mistrust of the system over there. Not only the way the our administration is handling the war but at how little is being done to get the Iraqi’s ready to fight for themselves.

Your premise, as I read it, is that we are to free oppressed people and bring about freedom and democracy too regions around the world. Good idea, but, in the culture of the Islamic world, our ideals do not fit. a clash of religions to be simple about it. Their war is both a religious and ethnic civil war. Remember Bosnia?

Many parts of the world should be freed and new regimes put in place, but in order to do this one must understand how that region works. How their strong religious, how ever oppressive in our view, dictates how they choose to live. It is not a right or left ideal to understand your opponent, just smart.

That is where i feel this war has gone wrong. saddam was not a REAL threat. We could keep him in check and we did not have to use falty intel or rush into battle and get stuck. We had the backing of the world in 1992 and bush 41 did not go into iraq, why? We should have finished the war in afghanistan and captured the one who attacked us. Then moved to other targets. If saddam had wmds, or the arsenal bush claimed he did, where is it? The people I have spoken with said there have been cashes of weapons but not on the scale of what the administration spewed to get us into the war.

My point is the war could have been better planned and no victory should have been claimed until the job was truly finished. That is a long way off. This is turning into a crusade and the president uses his religion as a focal point and that is not what a democracy is based upon, it is compromise.

Posted by: Thomas G at December 14, 2005 2:37 PM
Comment #102418

NiSE 53

Cost of War in Iraq: $220 BILLION

What THEY PUMP PER Year : $22 Billion

Remind me not to go into business with you.

Wrong


Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 14, 2005 2:47 PM
Comment #102419

Dave

It’s critique the message,not the messanger,I thought.

Not nice.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 14, 2005 2:49 PM
Comment #102422

What critique? I was offering help in cleaning up the mess. Now, if only it were that easy in Iraq and with the budget deficit…

Posted by: Dave at December 14, 2005 2:54 PM
Comment #102423

Nise53,
“There are dozens of countries all over the world who are dominated by dictators or by military coups. North Korea, Cuba, many countries in Africa, eastern bloc countries…are we planning on “liberating” each country one by one after we have colonized (ahem…”liberated”) Iraq? NO.”

“We”? Now, people want to be part of this? “We”! Please, all of the complainers and whiners out there don’t give a damn about those other despotic, ruling countries. They wouldn’t do anything about them in the first place, so the fact that people are complaining why we went to Iraq is actually a compliment. The US must be doing something right then.

Posted by: rahdigly at December 14, 2005 3:01 PM
Comment #102425

Mighty Eagle,

Dave referred to me as “a spy for al-Qaeda and a Baathist” and “un-American” yesterday for basically saying we should support anti-terror operations in Iraq. Since you soaring high above him, you might want to ignore him until he either learns the WatchBlog motto or has something insightful to post.

Posted by: TheTraveler at December 14, 2005 3:12 PM
Comment #102426

SE-
The easiest way to go wrong is to think nothing will go wrong. Anything that can occur, will occur. The question is whether or not we’re in a position to do anything about it. It helps if we’ve thought things out. It helps if we’ve figured out what to do when something goes wrong before it goes wrong, and not after.

As for whining, what do you think you’re doing when you complain about media coverage? How truly confident, assertive, and bold is an administration and party that needs to dump responsibility on the media and its critics for all the negative stories? That seems more like whining than the confident assertions from my side that things need to be run differently.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 14, 2005 3:14 PM
Comment #102428

Traveller:

I sarcastically called you that after you called me a terrorist. Meanwhile, maybe you should go grab a wipe and clean up after the bird droppings.

=================================================
http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/003016.html
———————————————————————
It’s true that if you don’t support the war you support the terrorists.

Posted by TheTraveler at December 13, 2005 01:51 PM
=================================================

Posted by: Dave at December 14, 2005 3:27 PM
Comment #102432

Dave,

In the context of my post, I made a statement that you can either support terrorists, or you can support fighting them. Thanks for linking to it, by the way. I should have done that in my first post.
I don’t post to insult anyone, but to state and explain my opinions. I certainly did not call you ou any of our other readers a terrorist.

No droppings here, that I can see.

Posted by: TheTraveler at December 14, 2005 3:37 PM
Comment #102434

Stephen

Nice hearing from you my intelligent Texan friend.

However,the Eagle has to offer a minor course correction for your thought:

Right now the best military minds in the world are working on the problem and they have the president giving thwm what they ask for(dion’t give me the humvee analysis/vest thing eather…we adapted to the abttlefield conditions and now things are flowing….no more complaints from the troopers either.

Should I listen to Jack Murtha,who,however decorated he is(that in and of itself make him no more qualified than any oneth decorated veteran by the way) who is ,by the day looking sillier and sillier or

John Kerry with his “let’s telegraph to the enemy exactly when we are leaving so they can cool their powder until then” him…with 3 months experience in Vietnam and a terrible record in the Senate?


Or now Joe Biden,,who is already downplaying the significance of tomorrow historic election before it even takes place on purely partisian grounds.

I think that we can agree that the NYT and the LA Times and Washington Post…each of them with large(yet dwindling readerships)are not left leaning?

Surely CNN,ABC,NBC,MSNBC aren’t biased against the right now are they?

I stand behind that Steve

Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 14, 2005 3:40 PM
Comment #102435

Steve

Sorry I send the unedited post..but you get the message.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 14, 2005 3:41 PM
Comment #102438

When I think about Bush and this war, it is very similar to taking my daughter to toy store before Christmas.

Yes Hussein is a meanie! Sure we can take him out. Absolutely Iraq could be a better place.

But is that really the thing you want most?

Posted by: Craig Hobart at December 14, 2005 3:54 PM
Comment #102439

SE-
I’ve seen a number of indications that certain things just aren’t discussed with the president. Troop numbers among them. A Congressional panel was confronted with a bunch of angry generals telling them that they can’t bring up the subject without the Pentagon getting in the way, and that the president doesn’t really give them the opportunity to say much of anything.

Murtha himself, in the latest issue of Newsweek, revealed that he tried to approach the president on the problem for months before he decided to blow the lid off of things on Capitol Hill

As for Kerry, I think you miss a major problem with your theory: Any coherent plan will give the enemy something to shoot for, if you will. Whether its time or a goal, that is the price one pays for a plan. Besides, if you haven’t notice, the Pentagon is doing practically the same thing that Kerry suggested. As for his three month’s experience in Vietnam, I would remind you that this is three months more than Bush or Cheney had. As for his “terrible” record, I will reserve my own opinions on that subject.

As for the downplaying of importance? Could be, but I’d say there are non-partisan reason to believe that the next elections may not be the most relevant measure of progress out there.

As for the Newspapers, that dwindling readership is more of an industry issue than a political issue. People don’t read print as much. As long as we’re playing the ratings game, did you know that more people watch CNN than Fox, and that most Liberal or moderate hosts out perform their conservative counterparts?

I think the tragedy of viewing all this through the lens of bias is that one gets in the way of one’s own objectivity. You chain yourself to an interpretation of both the story and the source before you even have the chance to create a fresh one from the ground up.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 14, 2005 4:03 PM
Comment #102441

If a liberal fell into a latrine and found himself in a billion $ pile of $100.00 bills the first words out of his mouth would be “yeah but…”.

Posted by: pige at December 14, 2005 4:18 PM
Comment #102442

We are in Iraq because we are at war.

We are at war with an idea, and a movement whose geocenter is located in the Middle East.

The enemy is not any one nation, but a shadow army, funded and supported by many nations, that uses religion as both an offensive and defensive weapon.

Iraq is a staging area for a larger war. It was a wise military move to attack the largest standing Army in the group of openly hostile, anti-American regimes in the area that make up this group of nations funding world-wide Islamofascist terrorism…leaving Saddam’s weapons, armies, and wealth not addressed as we attempted to dismantle the many groups that make up this network of Islamic extremist terrorists was plainly bad planning.

Today, and even in Al Qaeda’s own recent communique, Iraq is the front line of the war against America, a much more desired front than the alternative…America’s cities and towns.

As a side, should the idea of democracy take hold in Iraq, it sets in place the greatest Islamic extremism’s greatest enemy…self-determination outside of Sharia law.

Iraq is a success; the left knows it, and they are desperate.

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at December 14, 2005 4:24 PM
Comment #102445

Liberals who want all others to be liberals are considered moral and moderate, but Christians who want all others to be Christians are considered zealots and bigots. I wonder why.

A rumor has it that Terrell Owens is going to be the new DNC chairman. This is unconfirmed.

The following cut and run anti Bush people now have a moniker attached to them.

Howard “Bedpan” Dean
Madeline Half-bright
Harry “Red” Reid
Ted “the red nosed” Kennedy
Dick “Do-Do” Durbin
San Fran Nan Pelosi
John “Derry” Kerry
Robert “the terd” Byrd
Jimmy “Peanut Brain” Carter
Charles Sock-mer
Joe “Bye-Bye” Biden
Eleanor “Cleft” Clift
Hill-Bill Clinton
Barbara “Pugnose” Boxer
Ramsey “the cluck” Clark
Mike Nor-Fair-all
Barbara Strei-rock
Sean Ink
Dan “Blather” Rather

That is the first team roster

Posted by: tomh at December 14, 2005 4:36 PM
Comment #102447

Is it a question of being left or right? What is there to be desperate about? I am so bored of the left vs. right fight. (Bush is neither, and neither am I, however that not what this post is about.)

To answer pige all those $100 bills we have been wiping our butt with are used up. Now I wonder is this really the first and last thing you wanted to spend your allowance on?

Maybe I am simply jealous, because this wasn’t the toy I wanted.

Posted by: Craig Hobart at December 14, 2005 4:43 PM
Comment #102449

Eric,

It’s easy to spout a list of good news in Iraq and claim you’ve proven the war worth it. It’s just as easy for the Left to spout a list of bad news and claim that the war wasn’t worth it. Of course, neither of these strategies prove anything.

Nobody is questioning that good things have been done in Iraq. (Ok.. maybe Howard Dean is, but let’s ignore him for a moment…) But those things have come at a price.

What you have failed to do here is to admit the COSTS of the war in Iraq, and then weigh them against what has been gained. Until you do that, this piece is nothing more than another stroke to the egos of the Republicans, without proving a thing.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at December 14, 2005 4:51 PM
Comment #102450

Stephen (As the Eagle throws off the chains)

1.Gereral Casey,as commander in Iraq,controls the allocation of troops.

If he needs more,he asks the president and the president gives him what he wants.

If generals are squaking..it’s about WHERE Casey allocates those assets..plus Casey addressed this very issue a couple weeks ago at the Armed Services Committee Hearing for the 100th time.

You know that,of course.

2.Murtha blew nothing off except whatever juice that he had up there on the Hill.
Now he is marginalized…..and trapped in his position.

I respect the guy for his service to his country but I respect more that of Sam Johnson…from your neck of the woods…who has a diametrically opposed view.

Again, you know that.

3.Kerry has a plan(?) ….publicized today,changed tomorrow…that plan?

That’s the plan your talking about,right?

This week’s version,right?

At least Bush,equally as inexperienced as Kerry’s 3 months on the”battlefield”(I let that one go Steve,although I would really like to comment on that)had the presence of mind to follow experienced military minds in forming and carrying out(that’s the operative thing here…carrying out..not waffling) the plan.

3.Already doing spin control on tomorrow’s election?

Don’t you want a successful election tomorrow?

Deep down inside,you don’t really want failure there for politicial reasons…do you?

4.The Times is losing readership because they are out of step with mainstream America…the Grey Lady is sinking and everybody knows it.Same with the LA Times.Those are facts.


Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 14, 2005 4:53 PM
Comment #102451

Luis-
We are in Iraq because we are at war.

Dear oh dear. I thought we were there for the tea.

I know why we must win, but why are we there in the first place? Additionally, how does “We will stand down as they stand up” square with using Iraq as a staging area?

Additionally, can you give us any real organizational work up of this so-called Islamofascist movement? Surely there must be some body or movement attached to all these disparate folks you call Islamofascists?

The most bothersome thing to me about all these labels some of you on the right throw around is all the sloppy thinking that backs them up.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 14, 2005 4:56 PM
Comment #102456

My point is no matter how good the news as long as a Republican could get credit for it it is never ever good enough. Therefore if it’s not good enough it must be bad news.

Posted by: pige at December 14, 2005 4:59 PM
Comment #102465

And now for the cut and run 1st team subs.

John “Muddy”Murtha
George “Looney” Clooney
Christopher “Dud” Dodd
Russell “Coarse-brass” Feingold
Chuck “the Bagel” Hagel
Patrick “Laywho” Leahy
Carl “with yeast” Levin
John “stoned” Rockefeller
John “also ran” Edwards
Dennis “the menace” Kuchinich
Steny “Hoya” Hoyer
Charles “Wrangle” Rangel
Michael “the Moron” Moore
Cindy “Hee-Haw” Sheehan
Jacque “strap” Chirac
George “Hurtin” Soros
Maureen “Loud” Dowd
Al “Freakin” Franken

Some of those are going to retire soon, so there will be a draft of new team mates coming soon.

Posted by: tomh at December 14, 2005 5:26 PM
Comment #102470

Eric,
Thanks for the pictures of the smiling Iraqis.

Warning: the following link contains extremely graphic pictures.

These Iraqis don’t seem to be smiling, unless you consider the rictus of death a ‘smile.’

Oh! Oh my! How impolite! We’re not supposed to talk about people dying horribly, especially not innocent men & women & children, are we? In this country, we ship home our dead neighbors and co-workers and sons and daughters at night, in darkness.

“Some say we had no right to ‘impose’ freedom on them.” Some say we had no right to melt their skin with White Phosphorus, too. Gosh. People say the darndest things.

Speaking of people saying the darndest things:

“Iraq has a long history of liberal society, even by western standards.”

Now that’s a real jaw-dropper. It can’t possibly be as stupid as it appears at first blush. I refuse to believe that. Please explain.

And just when you thought it couldn’t get any ‘darndier’!!!

Sicilian,
You obviously haven’t read my previous comments about oil, or my links, otherwise the silly reply earlier would never have been made. Blood for oil? You betcha. Iraq has the third largest oil reserves in the world. The hundreds of billions spent are for access to it come from US taxpayer dollars. The tens, and possibly hundreds of billions in profits- go to Big Oil. The blood is given by our sons and daughters. The profits goes to Big Oil. And we pick up the tab.

‘If it’s all about oil, why are the prices so high at the pump?’ It’s not about cheap oil for consumers. It’s about big profits for a few multinationals. It’s no coincidence the biggest quarterly profit in history was just recorded by Exxon, $9.98 billion.

Posted by: phx8 at December 14, 2005 5:34 PM
Comment #102472

I think that it’s about time to start talking instead of labeling and name calling. Like it or not, we are in Iraq, and it looks like we’re stuck there. Now is the time to try to plan for the future - not just Iraq’s but also ourselves. If we can’t figure out how to discuss things coolly, calmly, and rationally, then our country appears to be headed the same way as all the other great nations before us.

Read your history - study the fall of the Egyptians, the Greek, the Romans, even the later day nations such as Spain, Italy, and Great Britain. The lets try to see if there’s anyway we can learn to agree with each other, instead of the Evil this party and evil that one.
Linda H.

Posted by: Linda H. at December 14, 2005 5:36 PM
Comment #102474

Linda,
Reading is a great idea. I’d suggest “Banking on Bagdhad” by Black. It’s a well-written, readable history, although in my opinion the author spends too much time meticulously detailing the influence of oil companies on the politics of the region in the first half of the 20th century.

I’ve read history, and taught High School World History. I’m sure we would agree, being knowledgable is a prerequisite for making informed judgments; and being presented with a fait accompli is no reason to absolve or excuse the evil actions of others, or for advocating evil. Sorry. No passes, Linda.

Posted by: phx8 at December 14, 2005 5:43 PM
Comment #102475

Awwww. Bleeding heart Republicans. Who knew? Gimme a hug guys.

Oh and remember to write your letters to Bush about slashing funding to all the African children. They’re cute too! Ciao!

Posted by: Max at December 14, 2005 5:47 PM
Comment #102478

Everyone,

i think that everyone here can go back through these posts and see just what is werong with this nation. A opinion is posted and instead of intellectual, educated, responses there is name calling and rhetoric on both sides. Does any one care about hte big picture or just enough to keep it out of your back yard? Information is gathered through debate and debates are based on knowledge and facts. That what this is all about, correct? So, Max, what facts do you want to bring? tomh? Nice to see SE and Stephen at least trying.

Posted by: Thomas G at December 14, 2005 6:07 PM
Comment #102484

What’s that, reason #5442: Is it good for the children? Last reason I heard, (#4776) was to give democracy a foothold in an unstable region. I guess Republicans are beginning to face facts that maybe democracy isn’t going to spread like a virus over there once the election’s over and are (again) hedging their bets.

I sure miss the days when the Republicans wanted a strong defense, no foreign entanglements and every man for himself; as well as the days when it was only the Democrats who wanted to save the world. Now the Republicans want internationally to save the world and domestically every man for himself.

If there were still any doubts, your post proves that today’s Republicans are sure not conservatives.

Posted by: Erich Noll at December 14, 2005 6:33 PM
Comment #102488

I applaud the ‘smiling faces’ — and I certainly hope that Iraq is a better place as the result of our (including my personal) efforts.

However, I remain very skeptical that it will. The Shia will continue to reign vengence upon the Sunni… as we have recently seen with the ‘secret’ detention and torture centers in Baghdad and elsewhere.

This administration simply did not understand the cultural can-of-worms they opened (but were warned about by Powell, Zinni and other military leaders who spent significant time in the region).

I hope things get better: but hope isn’t a great ‘payoff’ for the cost we’ve already paid — a cost in lives and BILLIONS of $$$$

Posted by: Reign of Reason at December 14, 2005 6:46 PM
Comment #102493

Reign,
It’s funny, and it’s sad. The right wingers hold up the fact that an election is occurring as an accomplishment. They steadfastly ignore who is about to take power.
SCIRI is an Iranian backed Shia party which will certainly win the election. As Louis XIV has pointed out, SCIRI, Dawa, and the Sadrists all have their roots in terrorism; instead of Al Qaida, they can trace their roots to Iran. As I posted in a previous thread, SCIRI wants the US out of Iraq. Goaded by Al-Sadr, SCIRI & Dawa & Chalabi signed onto a joint announcement condemning Israel. Combine this with the Iranian leader’s profoundly anti-semitic statements, and… Voila!

Score one for Iranian style theocratic democracy.

We’re been politically outmaneuvered by the Iranians in spectacular style. Not good, because the stakes are high, and the US invasion raised the bet.

“Smiling faces” aside, a major part of the reason we invaded Iraq was to prevent the signing of contracts between Saddam Hussein and foreign oil companies, namely French & Russian companies.

We’re betting blood for oil. We’re betting our man Chalabi will come through, and US Big Oil will finally have the legitimate government it so desperately needs, in order to sign long-term binding oil contracts. Chalabi, the current interim Oil Minister, has ambitions to become Prime Minister. We already know, from former CIA Director Tenet’s testimony, that Chalabi is an Iranian spy… Yes, the same Chalabi who lied to the US again and again by providing false information… the same Chalabi still wanted to this day for a multimillion embezzlement from Jordan… the same Chalabi who just met behind closed doors with Rice & Cheney & Hadley (NO pictures permitted, thank you!). We know Chalabi is in it for his own network, his own accumulation of power. But towards which side will Chalabi break? Iran, or the US and its enticing $$$$$ ?

The great question: will Iraq sign on with US Big Oil, or turn to Iran, and sign up with the French, Russian, and possibly Chinese companies?

Posted by: phx8 at December 14, 2005 7:04 PM
Comment #102497

SE,

“Cost of War in Iraq: $220 BILLION

What THEY PUMP PER Year : $22 Billion”

Wow we should be able to make up the cost of the war in no time.

tomh,

You need a hobby pal.

Posted by: Rocky at December 14, 2005 7:21 PM
Comment #102498

It’s just too early to tell about Iraq!!!!

Vote out incumbents! Money has perverted them. PAC’s rule our country and we argue about right and left strategies. Both right and left have sold out to the PAC’s. Sure, some PAC’s are right and left…but the fact remains…..

This country is run by the wealthy and for the wealthy….the “have’s and have nots”. We complain about the religous culture of Islam and the oppression of women while we worship one thing….cold hard cash!

Posted by: Tom L at December 14, 2005 7:21 PM
Comment #102511

The first 2 reason we are in Iraq are children?

Yes maybe they are now after we found out that the prewar intell was cherry picked, and the thousands of tons of WMD’s that George promised us never appeared. How quickly so many on the right forget the real reason and jump onboard the “delivering freedom to the Iraq’s crap”.

If our goal was to free people from the reins of a brutal dictator perhaps we should have started in Cuba it is alot closer and would have been a much easier starting point.

Maybe when you post the links to those dozens of children you should mention the 30,000+ innocent Iraq citzens that have died since we started this war. I bet many of them had nice smiles also and enjoyed posing for photos.

Oh and timh now that you have made such a compelling arguement by calling Demorcatic leaders names I think I’ll jump right on board your right wing hate machine. I can’t believe I have been voting Democratic all these years. Now that you pointed out Howard Dean’s former profession is so ignoble becasue it invloves a bedpan it changed my mind.


Posted by: Jeff Gannon at December 14, 2005 8:00 PM
Comment #102515

We are at war because we have the most pathetic leadership this country has ever encountered. We have a lying executive branch. A stupid gutless Congress and 8 Judges in Depends. The military is spineless and submissive to the Master Rummy, and a majority of this ignorant country are letting it all happen. I served 20 years in the military and I can’t believe it was for not. If you support Bush you are a fool, (and you do not support the troops). You support big business, and greed. So Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and Happy Kwanzaa. Oh yea, and Happy Festivous For The Rest Of Us. Did I miss anyone? Tough Shit.

Posted by: Mike Wski at December 14, 2005 8:12 PM
Comment #102524

phx8
You wrote:
…being presented with a fait accompli is no reason to absolve or excuse the evil actions of others, or for advocating evil.

Regardless of how we got there, (and I truly believe we shouldn’t be there) we are not going to get out as easily as we got in. And regardless of how we may feel about the Republicans or how they feel about Democrats, name calling, labeling and other rather childish actions certainly will not help the situation.

I don’t believe absolution or excuses will do any good at this point. Even though Bush finally admitted his responsibility for invading Iraq, the fact that we are now there has not changed. It’s time we actually start acting like adults, and at least attempt to solve our problems like adults, or it won’t matter because like other great nations of the world, our wonderful U.S.A. will fall by the wayside.

Posted by: Linda H. at December 14, 2005 8:35 PM
Comment #102528

It has been said…

We are in Iraq in order to make money for “Big Oil” and also that Exxon Mobil made historic profits of $9.8 billion last quarter.
It has been subsequently inferred that Exxon Mobil therefore must have made its enormous profits from Iraqi oil, right? (Before anybody starts, I’m not disputing the profits of Exxon Mobil. Jeez.) A few points to consider…

1)ALL of Exxon Mobil’s crude oil comes from non-OPEC countries.
2)Iraq is an OPEC member.
3)Therefore, Exxon Mobil does not make any money from Iraqi oil.

Wait…gotta give ‘em a few seconds to come up with a response…

Gotta love Socrates. Please, prove me wrong if you can. Use facts (I did) and not name-calling or anger, please.

Posted by: Foxbat at December 14, 2005 8:55 PM
Comment #102537

For all the mutual lovefest I see in this Thread, there is still a massive shortage of recruitment in the Armed Forces. Clearly the Righties here are following their Leaders’ example: Let others fight while they hide at home.

Posted by: Aldous at December 14, 2005 9:23 PM
Comment #102538

Hi Eric,

“The plain and simple truth, which astoundingly has to be repeated over and over again for some of you, is that after 9/11 we could not allow a Saddam Hussein to continue funding and harboring terrorists, pursuing WMD, subverting sanctions and inspections, and murdering hundreds of thousands of his own people and call it a successful war on terror.”

We are in Iraq, to a large extent, because the White House provided, and the American people went in for that sort of aggressive spin.

If one didn’t know better, after reading your piece, one would think that Iraq was more of a threat to us than Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Somolia, and others.

Iraq wasn’t at all a threat to us compared to those countries I just named.

For your own good I recomend that you strive for clear thought. I suspect that all that extreme spin you engage in is rotting your brain.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 14, 2005 9:26 PM
Comment #102540

You know, something strikes me here: the use of the term cut and run. We’re not talking about somebody saying essentially that we are those in favor of a quicker, more prompt withdrawal, a description that would accurately portray us. No, we are essentially being called cowards here.

But cowards in terms of what? Before the original elections, the dominant theory among Democrats was not to attempt elections before the security was greater, and our hold on the situation was firmer.

Only recently has the Democratic attitude explicitly entertained withdrawal, the main reason being the interminable lack of resolution. Even then, the Republicans had to bowlderize a bill to make Rep. Murtha’s bill look like the act of cowardice. Where Murtha’s bill only sees us withdraw when it’s practicable, leaves a force over the horizon, and use diplomacy to continue our work thereafter, the bill that the GOP congress had us voting on simply called for withdrawal.

Why does the Right fear to have American see our position for what it is? My theory? The leadership of the right is so radical in its positions in comparison to that of the left that they must portray ours as equally radical, not to mention irresponsible and immoral. It’s not enough to gain disagreement here, they have to make Americans fear for the Liberals getting in charge of this war. But since we’re typically presenting moderate positions, the truth isn’t sexy enough to scare the average citizen.

As rhetorically effective as this is, it has allowed the Republicans to maintain a counterfactual defense of a dysfunctional policy, and so we should regard this cut-and-run argument as it is: a cowardly distraction, used by people afraid to defend their own policies on their merits rather than slander that of their competitor’s.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 14, 2005 9:28 PM
Comment #102554

Eric,
Why are we in Iraq? Oh let us count the way. While I will be nice and not present a day by day blow, the fact that this so called run up to the war was used by the Republican Party’s to force the vote of Congress to authorize given the President to use Force as a last resort in their political campaign of 2002 Elections only to have it proven wrong. The problem still remains that their political and diplomatically dropped the ball that Saddam threw back at them. However, the release of a CIA Agent’s name used in the President’s and Republican’s campaign to show how “Macho” their “Stay the Course” social policy has made it so that our position in Iraq is questionable at best.

Senator Biden and others have dad to state publicly what to do time and time again before the administration finally gives in and does the right thing. Increased Troops size, Up Graded Armor and Supplies, etc. All has had to be publicly debated and proven to be right for the President would change policy and allow our government to work. Now, hopefully the Iraq political leaders can come up with the necessary changes in their constitution to make it work over the next four months. However, if I was advising President Bush, I would point out to him a trick that Washington and others have often used to ensure the domestic tranquility of a nation and that is I would lock away every single elected officials some where outside of Iraq and force them to get their act together. It has worked in the past with other groups and there is no reason to believe that grown men can’t come to a reasonable agreement on how to govern a nation so that every citizen can enjoy living a simple productive life.

Given the track record of this administration does any Republican want to give me odds on the President arranging such a thing? How else does this group of Humans stand a chance to come to terms without others telling them what and how to think? No, the President has been left out of the loop of ideas and it is his duty to step forward along with the Republican Leadership and prove that they can win the peace in Iraq while continuing the War on Terror and nothing that I have heard from either side is how we do that. Maybe both the Democrats and Republicans are wrong and therefore, a harsh public debate is required to stand up America again as the first rate Nation left to us by Our Forefathers.

Posted by: h at December 14, 2005 11:21 PM
Comment #102559

Louis

Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia were threats to the U.S. in very different ways than Iraq and not greater. Syria is the only one of the same sort. Saudi and Pakistan are dangers in that they might disintegrate and/or cant control all their citizens. Somalia and Yemen are not much of a danger to us at all except as failed states.

There was a lot of history with Iraq that was unique. No other country had attacked four of its neighbors. None of them (even Syria) had sworn implacable hostility toward the U.S. None had tried to assassinate high ranking Americans. None had a history of using WMD. None had violated 17 UNSC resolutions. None had committed anything like the organized genocide Saddam did. None had military that was shooting at Americans and UK airplanes almost every day. None had been living under a cease fire with the U.S.

We declared regime change in Iraq a U.S. policy in 1998. As far as I know, that is the ONLY country where we have actually made regime change a U.S. policy.

If you look at the last 20 years, Saddam would have been the person in the world responsible for the most deaths. He was a destabilizing influence in a place crucial to the world economy. None of the countries you mention and no other country in the world had so many negatives with no balancing good points (with the possible exception of Iran. North Korea is nasty in a different way).

Stephen

You are a reasonable guy. Most Dems are not. I could write a post about Sumerian pottery and within two or three responses somebody would be telling my how it was George Bush’s fault.

Try this. Google “hate bush”. You will find all sorts of leftist webpages devoted to hating Bush.

Posted by: Jack at December 14, 2005 11:42 PM
Comment #102561

Aldous, re-enlistment among those serving in Iraq is at an all time high and it is not because of one your earlier posts, which by the way ranks as one of the all time pieces of bullshit I have ever seen, that they are receiving $150,000. Re-enlistment is high because they want to be a part of the success.

Louis, accusing Eric of spinning for the right is a little like calling the kettle black, isn’t it?

Stephen, you are one of the more reasonable voices of the left. I honestly think the Bush admin. has listened to the reasonable voices from the left, those of Lieberman, Biden, Murtha, etc. However what we hear from the media is only the shrill of Pelosi and Dean. There is no doubt that America is at it’s finest when we can find common ground and forge ahead, that has been demonstrated time and time again. It’s unfortunate that this war has so severly polarized this nation, but IMHO, this war needed to be fought and won. The rest of the world will rally behind us if we remain strong and united against this threat. They only become nervous when we demonstrate weakness because we are the only country in the world that can successfully win this battle.

Posted by: Jay at December 14, 2005 11:50 PM
Comment #102564

Mike, you seem like a fun guy.

Posted by: Jay at December 15, 2005 12:00 AM
Comment #102565

Jay:

Nice Spin and MisDirection on your part. Recruitment is not the same thing as re-enlistment. I know its hard to to know that with glossaries not integral to GOP Talking Points Memos but you should make the effort.

BTW… Re-Enlistment Bonuses can go as high as $150,000 for Special Forces and other rare jobs. You really should stop depending on unreliable info. Makes you look gullible.

Posted by: Aldous at December 15, 2005 12:26 AM
Comment #102566

Luis Gonzalez,

Well said. Very well said indeed.

Posted by: esimonson at December 15, 2005 12:36 AM
Comment #102567

tomh,

I am very disappointed in your comments. You have nothing worthwhile to add, so you resort to needless name calling. Your posts have now lost all credibility with me.

All,

Why do we keep hashing the same arguments over and over again. There is nothing new here. At some point we must move forward. Republicans accuse Democrats of not having any ideas. But I have not heard any ideas from the Republicans either. If I have to listen to President Bush recycle the same old speech one more time, I’m gonna scream. Are we stuck in neutral because nobody has any ideas on how to move us forward?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 15, 2005 12:43 AM
Comment #102570

Jack,

I was just about to post a comment and then I read yours and realize you’ve answered better than I would have anyway.

Stephen,

I’m curious, if Murtha’s plan (et al) is just to “withdraw when it’s practicable”, how is that any different from “When Iraqi’s stand up, we stand down”? What’s the difference between when Murtha said it and when Bush says it?

The difference is that Murtha said we’ve lost, that our military is broken, and that there’s nothing we can do to win, while Bush says we are winning, we will win, and all hope is not lost. So the real difference between the two statements, which look similiar on the surface is the difference between proposing withdrawal in defeat, and promising withdrawal in victory.

That is why I come to such a ‘cowardly distraction’ as to interpret Democratic statements as amounting to ‘cut and run’.

Unless Murtha was saying the same thing as Bush, in which case the other democratic lie is embarassingly exposed: that there is a Bush plan. As shocking as that is. (Meaning, that democrats lie, not that Bush has a plan. …and it’s not even a secret plan like Kerry’s. Heh.)

Posted by: esimonson at December 15, 2005 12:56 AM
Comment #102574

Foxbat,
“1)ALL of Exxon Mobil’s crude oil comes from non-OPEC countries.
2)Iraq is an OPEC member.
3)Therefore, Exxon Mobil does not make any money from Iraqi oil.”

Exxon would be a possible investor in Iraqi oil fields. The “Strategy for Victory” paper suggests Iraqi oil exports could be increased from 2 to 5 million bbl, which represents an enormous amount of money, and a huge opportunity for Exxon and other oil companies. While Exxon does not make any money from Iraqi oil- Saddam Hussein nationalized it three decades ago- Exxon does profit a great deal from the high oil prices, which are in part due to the situation in Iraq. Being given another crack at the Iraqi oil fields is a dream come true for Big Oil.

Posted by: phx8 at December 15, 2005 1:58 AM
Comment #102609

Linda H.

Even though Bush finally admitted his responsibility for invading Iraq

So what? He also admitted he would have done it anyway. If anyone thinks this is any kind of admission, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale..cheap!

Posted by: womanmarine at December 15, 2005 3:36 AM
Comment #102612

Jack-
The problem is, we could criticize Bush for any number of legitimate reasons, and be told by the right that we are irrational. Why was all this supposedly definitive evidence so dramatically off-base, for example? Why was it so pervasively wrong? Such an across the board failure cannot have just some random explanation. Because of recent revelations about how much dissent and creative editing was involved in this intelligence failure, I really doubt the intelligence community could be saddled with the full blame.

As for your specifying of what made Iraq special? The threat of terrorism was greater from the other countries than from Iraq. The four neighbors in question were not random. All related to the situation in the gulf during the late eighties and early nineties. Iran was more or less attacked by Iraq with our blessing. The debts from that were staggering, and Iraq believe the U.S. would sit blithely by as Kuwait was made a province of Iraq. Iraq had no problem with shedding blood for oil, which is why I have no problem with that war. It made incursions into Saudi Arabia, and tried to provoke Israel into entering the war.

There can be no doubt that Saddam presented a potent threat, both in WMDs and conventional forces to the region. But that was then. We shouldn’t be attacking other countries for old times sake. Iraq was defeated, we were the victor, they were not.

Israel, I would wager, has its share of broken resolutions. As for organized genocide, what of the starvation in Somalia, or the mess in the Sudan? As for missiles being shot at planes, do tell me, how many planes did he shoot down? Patterns, Jack.

Saddam was a has been who felt it necessary to puff himself up, even as he never slept in the same place twice.

As for cease fire, could you tell me the current level of Diplomatic relations with Iran?

All your arguments essentially say that he was a persistent problem, and this is true, the question is, was he a grave and gathering threat in the terms of all the WMD and disarming hype used to drum up support for the war.

Jay-
Pelosi supported Murtha’s plan. Dean? He’s not an elected leader, he’s a partisan cheerleader/fundraiser at this time, trying to appeal to a base.

I’m afraid we lost the chance to have people truly rally behind us when the tests for WMDitis turned up negative. That was the only thing that would have validated our plan of action. I think the troubles that afflict us in Iraq are more than media deep.

Eric-
I don’t think it’s at all that much different, except in that it emphasizes our departure from the immediate environment, a withdrawal over the horizon, and a getting out of the way of the Iraqis at the soonest possible date.

Whether we win or not, our military is broken. That’s not a vain bit of propagandizing, that’s just saying that we don’t have a deployable army ready for use if another conflict demands our attention. It’s saying our readiness is in the toilet. These are verifiable statements that if wrong can be rendered such for the world to see with a factcheck.

What you seem to be concerned with is whether or not we get to continue this bit of military adventurism after Iraq. I’m telling you we can’t afford it, and we don’t have the fresh troops left to fight those battles. Your president has extended tours of duty, used National Guards and Reserves, and repeatedly called up units back to the front.

We’re not being cowardly. We were asking for you folks to put more troops in, even suggesting the eventuality of a draft if necessary. If you folks were so bold, so unconcerned with appearances, you wouldn’t think twice. You would do what was necessary, and shame your rivals by your earnest, forthright manner in asking the sacrifices of our country. Instead, your people have more reasons not to expand forces than you have to do them.

That is the irony here: The Democrats are turning into the hard-nosed realists here, while the GOP becomes more ivory tower about its dealings with the military.

The Bush plan, so far, has been more of the same. Why can’t you admit that what makes this admission news is its absolute rarity?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 15, 2005 3:44 AM
Comment #102647

Hi Jay,

“Louis, accusing Eric of spinning for the right is a little like calling the kettle black, isn’t it?”

Please support or retract that statement.

If you have no examples of what you accused me of you’ll admit that you’re lying here?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 7:36 AM
Comment #102648

Hi Jack,

“threats to the U.S. in very different ways than Iraq and not greater.”

If terrorism is the threat under discussion here, and I think it is, then Iraq wasn’t a threat to us compared to the countries I mentioned.

“Somalia and Yemen are not much of a danger to us at all except as failed states.”

If al Qaeda was considered to be a threat to us when we went into Iraq than Somolia and Yemen were threats.

“If you look at the last 20 years, Saddam would have been the person in the world responsible for the most deaths.”

How many millions were murdered by African governments during that time?….We’re talking about 10’s of millions aren’t we?

Saddam wasn’t a significant threat. He’s a truly horrible fellow but when considering where to put massive military resources strategic priorities come into play. There isn’t a case to be made that Iraq was a strategic priority in the war against those who attacked us on 9/11.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 7:43 AM
Comment #102676

“I know why we must win, but why are we there in the first place?”

Stephen…did you bother reading the rest of my post?

I listed some of the reason s why we are in there, and here are the rest of the reasons…everyone in Washington believed that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US, from Bill Clinton on down through the rank and file of the Democrats in government, all believed that he had WMD’s, and that he was a serious threat to our security…and not one of them did a damned thing to protect America from what they fully believed was a serious threat.

President Bush is guilty of acting in our best interest, but based on faulty intelligence handed to us by our staunchest allies.

Clinton is guilty of not taking any action to secure the United States and her citizens in the face of what he fully believed was a serious threat.

Of the two, i’d take President Bush’s actions in behalf of national security, over Clinton’s inactions.

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at December 15, 2005 8:44 AM
Comment #102677

“Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia were threats to the U.S. in very different ways than Iraq and not greater.”

Jack…Iraq had the biggest standing Army, it seems that when going to war on foreign soil against multiple enemies, neutralizing the strongest at the point when you yourself are at your strongest just makes a whole lot of military sense.

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at December 15, 2005 8:49 AM
Comment #102678

Hi Luis,

“based on faulty intelligence handed to us by our staunchest allies.”

I knew that Bush’s intelligence was bad when he was using it as evidence to go to war.

Don’t you think that if the average newspaper reader had access to intelligence that showed Bush’s “intelligence” to be wrong that Bush should have known better?

If Bush wasn’t lying about the intelligence he’s obviously far too stupid to be making policy decisions.

I think going into Iraq is going to be the worst strategic mistake in the history of this country. Really stupid action, especially in the Middle East, is likely to be far worse than inaction.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 8:49 AM
Comment #102682

Hi Luis,

“Iraq had the biggest standing Army”

I’d be very interested to hear your explanation of how the Iraqi Army was more of a threat to us than al Qaeda and other Muslim Terrorists were when we went into Iraq.

Putting massive military resources in a country that wasn’t a threat to us makes no sense.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 8:52 AM
Comment #102683

The right says: Clinton sucked, Bush is God.

The left says: Bush Sucks real bad, Clinton wasn’t perfect and that’s in the past.

Logically:
Since God sucks as bad as Bush put your head between your knees and kiss your ass goodbye.

Posted by: Dave at December 15, 2005 8:53 AM
Comment #102684

Louis, right on cue! Bringing out the “lying” card. How liberal of you.

Stephen, WMD’s was far from the being the “only validation for our plan of action”. Have you forgotten 17 UN resolution violations, Continued hostilities towards British and American patrol planes and funding of the Palestinian suicide bombers (by the way have you noticed the decrease in that particular macabre activity since the money from Saddam is not available?). Your leaning on the WMD crutch is purely politically driven and Bush stated this week that that was not the only reason for the conflict. The MSM have lost their objectivity compass, reporting 4 to 1 negative vs positive stories from Iraq. Hard to take them seriously.

Posted by: Jay at December 15, 2005 8:54 AM
Comment #102692

Hi Jay,

You haven’t supported your accusation. Will you please retract it?

I’m starting to doubt that you have the integrity to do either.

“How liberal of you.”

You accused me of something without any basis for doing so. What does “liberal” have to do with that?

Why not show some integrity and support or retract what you’ve accused me of?

Don’t bother calling me “liberal”, just show a little integrity.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 9:09 AM
Comment #102697

Hi Jay,

“The MSM have lost their objectivity compass, reporting 4 to 1 negative vs positive stories from Iraq.”

There is a lot of negative news coming from Iraq. Are you suggesting that the various bombings, incidents of American soldiers dying, Iraqi government sponsered terrorism, religious persecution, rampant corruption, assasination of Iraqi leaders, terrorism on the part of Iraqi security forces on our payroll, and other sorts of problems not be reported?

When bad news happens in Iraq you think we shouldn’t be allowed to find out about it?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 9:15 AM
Comment #102703

“I’d be very interested to hear your explanation of how the Iraqi Army was more of a threat to us than al Qaeda and other Muslim Terrorists were when we went into Iraq.”

Saddam was the threat, or at least most of the DNC thought that he was…should I post the quotes?

We also knew where to find Saddam’s armies, and needed a place to station enough troops to make other hostile regimes in the region think twice about increasing their open support of Al Qaeda.

Now, here’s a question for you…

If Saddam wasn’t a threat, why did Bill Clinton, in conjunction with the British, drop 1.3 million pounds of bombs on Iraq during the last two years of his administration?

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at December 15, 2005 9:21 AM
Comment #102705

Louis

You mention that any newspaper reader could have seen that there were no WMD in Iraq. Which newspapers? I would like to get a subscription. I was reading WSJ, Washington Post, NYT etc, but I couldn’t tell. If I could get a hold of those papers you read, I expect I could improve my investing track record.

You evidently feel fairly confident about predicting the past. Why not try to future. It doesn’t have to be very specific. Just some ranges. Six months from today, what will be the level of the Dow Jones and S&P 500. I think within 10% is fair for someone with good predictive powers. That is some useful information. How about in Iraq. Will the situation in Iraq be more or less secure? That is maybe too general, so will electric power generation be higher or lower than prewar levels. Same for oil production. How about a little longer political prediction. Who will control the House and Senate after next year’s elections? By about how much (again 90% confidence) Just so you can’t again predict the past, try it now when it is still in the future.

Posted by: Jack at December 15, 2005 9:26 AM
Comment #102706

Hi Luis,

“Saddam was the threat”

Compared to Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, and Somolia he wasn’t a threat.

It makes no sense to put most of our strategic resources into a country that wasn’t much of a threat to us.

“and needed a place to station enough troops to make other hostile regimes in the region think twice about increasing their open support of Al Qaeda.”

If you’re saying that we invaded Iraq because we needed a place to put our troops you’re being ridiculous.

There is credible evidence that our activities in Iraq are increasing rather than decreasing the threat of terrorism.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/22/international/middleeast/22intel.html?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 9:33 AM
Comment #102708

“I knew that Bush’s intelligence was bad when he was using it as evidence to go to war.”

Bill Clinton, using that very same evidence, dropped more bombs on Iraq in 1999-2001 than President Bush did in the period leading to war.

Did you have a problem with that?

Bill Clinton led an ineffective war of attrition in Iraq, and left office fully convinced that Saddam had WMD’s, and that he was a threat tothe US.

He was also the man in charge during the time that the 9/11 terrorist entered the country, planned their attack, and rehearsed it.

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at December 15, 2005 9:33 AM
Comment #102710

Louis:

When bad news happens in Iraq you think we shouldn’t be allowed to find out about it?

Of course we should know about it, but we should also know about the good news as well. The news should be reported fairly, and I’d submit it is not treated fairly.

As I read stories, I find that even a positive story takes on a negative viewpoint. You can damn someone with faint praise. If I were to say that you “write very well, given your limitations”, would that be considered praise or damnation. One could argue both, but we’d really know that I was demeaning you. For the record, I use that only as an example of what I’m talking about.

The media virtually ignored Paul Volcker’s Oil for Food scandal probe. His last report came out on October and was met with thunderous silence. His assessment was that Saddam was using the program to benefit those countries who were “friendly” to him, and who were helping him to weaken the support for the sanctions.

I’ve long maintained that if Saddam had gotten the sanctions removed, he would have truly become the imminent threat that so many were worried about. And Volcker’s report shows how hard Saddam was working to get rid of the sanctions with bribes and payoffs.

Despite the importance of this story, the media virtually ignored it. The question I would ask of you is simply “Why?”

Both negative and positive needs to be reported fairly. I don’t see that happening. Perhaps you can give me your insight as to whether you see it happening.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 15, 2005 9:34 AM
Comment #102712

Louis…

Yemen was/is more of a threat than Iraq?

That’s funny.

Bill Clinton thought that Iraq was the greatest threat to our national security during his presidency.

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at December 15, 2005 9:36 AM
Comment #102718

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051115-1.html

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at December 15, 2005 9:42 AM
Comment #102719

Hi Jack,

“You mention that any newspaper reader could have seen that there were no WMD in Iraq.”

I said nothing of the sort. I said that newspapers had far better intelligence than Bush provided about Iraq.

“You evidently feel fairly confident about predicting the past.”

I predicted that Iraq was going to be a disaster when Cheney and other idiots in the Bush administration were telling us it was going to go really well.

“Why not try to future.”

Are you accusing me of not being able to predict the future? That’s a very odd accusation isn’t it?

Oil prices will go up and that will hurt our economy. Interest payments on the debt are rapidly rising and that will hurt our economy.

If Allawi wins in Iraq things might get a bit better there although I don’t think so. Things could get quite a bit better and still be really bad there. If the Shiite party wins then we’ll be supporting terrorists in Iraq for the next few years.

I’m not in the habit of predicting American elections a year before they occur. There are far too many variables that may come up between now and then.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 9:43 AM
Comment #102723

Hi Luis,

“That’s funny.”

It’s not really that funny. Yemen had a lot of al Qaeda activity going on there.

“Bill Clinton thought that Iraq was the greatest threat to our national security during his presidency.”

He thought Bin Laden was the greatest threat.

You have Clinton confused with Bush.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 9:45 AM
Comment #102726

If he thought Bin Laden was the greatest threat, and he dropped 1.3 million lbs of bombs on Iraq, then Clinton thought that Bin Laden was in Iraq.

Right?

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at December 15, 2005 9:48 AM
Comment #102728
Bill Clinton led an ineffective war of attrition in Iraq, and left office fully convinced that Saddam had WMD’s, and that he was a threat tothe US.

…and…

Bill Clinton thought that Iraq was the greatest threat to our national security during his presidency.

So, if Clinton believed it, then it must be true??!! After all these years of the Right bashing Clinton and everything he stood for, it seems strange that they’re using this argument now.

Based on the other (non-Iraq) discussions on this board, I would expect the Right ot be convinced that Saddam WASN’T a threat, simply because Clinton claimed that he WAS.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at December 15, 2005 9:48 AM
Comment #102730

Hi joebagodonuts,

The bad news from Iraq has far outweighed the good. There is good news that is undereported but there is one hell of a lot of bad news that’s undereported.

Most people don’t realize that the Prime Minister of Iraq is a member of an anti-American terrorist group for example. This was reported but not reported prominently.

If there weren’t a strong pro-war media bias in this country the fact that our troops are fighting and dying to support terrorists in Iraq would be headline news….as it is one must read carefully to find it.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 9:49 AM
Comment #102732

Hi Luis,

“then Clinton thought that Bin Laden was in Iraq.”

If you’re interested in honest discussion you’ll let me know?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 9:50 AM
Comment #102735

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

“Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face — and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm.” - Madeline Albright, February 18 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at December 15, 2005 9:56 AM
Comment #102742

Hi Luis,

“NEW YORK - Former President Bill Clinton warned President George W. Bush before he left office in 2001 that Osama bin Laden was the biggest security threat the United States faced, Clinton said on Wednesday.”
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/printer_101703A.shtml

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 10:07 AM
Comment #102743

Louis

I thought so. The practical measure of any system of thinking (even of “truth”) is its predictive power. If there are too many variables for you to make predictions about your own country some months in the future, how can you criticize others for not KNOWING the future.

Re newspapers - You say they had better intelligence, yet they came up with many of the same conclusions.

As a practical matter, knowing something is not much good unless you can use it. And I have generally found that when people fail to use what they claim to know, they are either decieving themselves, trying to decieve others or some of both.

BTW - why do you think Yemen was more of a threat than Iraq? Is it because of the Cole? Or maybe you worry that they would sqeeze the worls qat supply. And Somalia? Maybe you saw “Blackhawk Down” too many times.

Posted by: Jack at December 15, 2005 10:12 AM
Comment #102749

Hi Jack,

“If there are too many variables for you to make predictions about your own country some months in the future, how can you criticize others for not KNOWING the future.”

I knew things would go badly in Iraq which is far more than Cheney as those idiots in the White House knew.

Are you seriously asserting that Cheney had no way of knowing that things would go badly in Iraq?

“You say they had better intelligence”

It’s a fact Jack. While Bush was lying about the aluminum tubes news sources had provided intelligence that indicated they weren’t what Bush said they were.

“why do you think Yemen was more of a threat than Iraq?”

al Qaeda activity

“And Somalia?”

al Qaeda activity

You do agree that when we went into Iraq al Qaeda was widely agreed to be a serious threat to us?



Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 10:24 AM
Comment #102756

Rob,
“So, if Clinton believed it, then it must be true??!! After all these years of the Right bashing Clinton and everything he stood for, it seems strange that they’re using this argument now. Based on the other (non-Iraq) discussions on this board, I would expect the Right ot be convinced that Saddam WASN’T a threat, simply because Clinton claimed that he WAS.”


You’re looking at it the wrong way. You’re using the premise that since the right disagreed with Clinton that they shouldn’t listen to him now. When you really should be looking at it as the left have been defending Clinton so much, that now w/ the same tyrant, they shouldn’t be against Bush.


Bush and Clinton were not the problem, it was Saddam. And now he’s finished; his sons are dead and we are admidst an extroardinary change in a region that was suppressed and oppressed for a very long time.


Today’s a great day. So, for all those who have backed this war (for whatever the reason) congratulations. For all those who didn’t, shame on you.

Posted by: rahdigly at December 15, 2005 10:43 AM
Comment #102758

Hi rahdigly,

“For all those who didn’t, shame on you.”

I don’t think our troops should be fighting and dying to support terrorists.

Why should I be ashamed of that?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 10:48 AM
Comment #102761

If the shoe fits.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/iraq

“Iraqis voted in a historic parliamentary election Thursday, with strong turnout reported in Sunni Arab areas and even a shortage of ballots in some precincts.”


rahdigly 3 liberals 0

Posted by: rahdigly at December 15, 2005 10:59 AM
Comment #102762

Hi rahdigly,

You think our troops should be dying to support terrorists and you’re telling me I should be ashamed.

Do you lack the integrity to tell me what I should be ashamed of?

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 11:03 AM
Comment #102765

Pige,

If a liberal fell into a latrine and found himself in a billion $ pile of $100.00 bills the first words out of his mouth would be “yeah but…”.

When someone fall into a latrine the first words out of his mouth are “oh shit!” most of the time.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 15, 2005 11:32 AM
Comment #102766

Attention liberals,

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, if you’ve lied, dodged questions and answers, or just showed your a$$ to the rahdigster, then you’re cut off. You get no play. There were three that have fell into those specific categories mentioned above; hence the reason for the score board.


http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Iraq

Purple finger power!


rahdigly 3 liberals 0

Posted by: rahdigly at December 15, 2005 11:34 AM
Comment #102767

Louis

YOu ask to give examples when you are missing the point. Yemen and Somalia are such examples.

As you may recall, we had Al Qaeda activity in up state New York, Washington, Michigan etc.

We also had Al Qaeda activity in Iraq for that matter. Zarqawi was nearly two years before we were.

Re things going badly in Iraq, I read what a FRENCH book said about it. About “Le Livre Noir De Saddam Hussein” (The Black Book of Saddam Hussein) they write, “The American war was perhaps not a good solution to put an end to Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. But, as this book shows, after 35 years of a dictatorship of exceptional violence which destroyed Iraqi civil society and created millions of victims, there wasn’t a good option.”

Posted by: Jack at December 15, 2005 11:40 AM
Comment #102770

“Yee haw, I win 3-0”, says the toy soldier, as he rides the nuclear missle down to its ultimate conclusion.

Got those wipes yet?

See Dr. Strangelove if you don’t get the reference.

Posted by: Dave at December 15, 2005 11:43 AM
Comment #102771

I like this person:

http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/12/13/gotohell/

“Anybody who doesn’t appreciate what America has done and President Bush, let them go to hell”

Posted by: rahdigly at December 15, 2005 11:47 AM
Comment #102775

Louis:

You don’t need to be ashamed. You shouldnt be ashamed. If you have honest disagreement about policies, you should have the right to your opinion.

However, there are those out there actively rooting for the US to lose. Thats anti patriotic and potentially treasonous, depending on their actions. There are those who are in favor of policies that would not be in America’s best interests—I find those people misguided.

Lets assume that Iraq becomes a democracy of sorts, that the violence diminishes, that their economy flourishes, that the world is better off for having gotten rid of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Al Queda worldwide. I’d then expect you to recognize that the path taken has been a correct one, albeit one with difficulties. I’d then expect you not to be ashamed of your decisions, but certainly in recognition that they were wrong decisions.

If the opposite holds true, I’d put myself in the same shoes I ask you to wear. We aren’t yet at the decision point, but the news of the current election, with its widespread support even among Sunnis, is great great news. Its a big step forward. There are still steps forward that need to be taken, but its heartening news, wouldnt you agree?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 15, 2005 11:53 AM
Comment #102777

womanmarine,

So what? He also admitted he would have done it anyway. If anyone thinks this is any kind of admission, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale..cheap!

That’s my point. It doesn’t really matter what Bush has said, it’s what he’s done. Unfortunately we’re still in Iraq, and I sincerely hope that someone is seriously trying to figure out a way to get our troops home. Working together just might be a start.

Labeling, calling names, and in internal fighting about party politics will not get our people home. Only calm, cool, rational thinking and planning will do that.

I wish I could challenge someone to actually come up with a decent solution - and quickly. Re-hashing the past won’t change it.
Linda H.

Posted by: Linda H. at December 15, 2005 12:02 PM
Comment #102779
The MSM have lost their objectivity compass, reporting 4 to 1 negative vs positive stories from Iraq. Hard to take them seriously. Posted by: Jay at December 15, 2005 08:54 AM

Jay,

Have you even seen any news at all coming the MSM in the last…I don’t even know how many years? I think the 4 to 1 negative to positive is the standard for all news not just news on Iraq. Why do you think they would suddenly change their standards on Iraq? The only reason I can think of is if they were paid or if the administration staged the news. But that would never happen, would it?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 15, 2005 12:03 PM
Comment #102780

“yee haw” says the parrot. “$5 and I got me an old lady to squawk! What a good boy am I”

(if that’s what teens look like in Iraq, it’s amazing they keep on reproducing)

Posted by: Dave at December 15, 2005 12:09 PM
Comment #102782

JBOD,
“I’d then expect you not to be ashamed of your decisions, but certainly in recognition that they were wrong decisions.”


I enjoyed your post. I agree with you with the anti-patriotic crowd, that definitely borders on treason. However, think about this, if one is rooted in the US to fail, or at least focusing (solely) on the negatives, then how are they going to admit that they were wrong? What I’m trying to say is that, when people hate, they are unaware of the consequences and they don’t care who they go through to prove their point.

I’ve mentioned several times on this blog and I’ve seen other bloggers talk about the difference between dissent and hate. Some people just don’t get it and they’ll stop at nothing to get Bush out of office. What do you think?

Posted by: rahdigly at December 15, 2005 12:11 PM
Comment #102784

Hi Jack,

“YOu ask to give examples when you are missing the point. Yemen and Somalia are such examples.”

There are many foremost experts who think that Yemen and Somolia were far more of a threat.

Agreeing with the experts that Iraq wasn’t a threat relatavely speaking isn’t missing the point…..it IS THE POINT in this discussion.

I, and the experts consider Pakistan to be a far greater threat. Al Qaeda activity is rampant there and they have nuclear weapons.

You have not provided an example of me missing the point. This is an example of me getting right to the heart of the matter.

“there wasn’t a good option.”

There are rarely good options in the Middle East. It’s a land of lousy options from a strategic point of view.

Going into Iraq was an incredibly bad strategic option.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 12:20 PM
Comment #102786

Hi rahdigly,

“there are those out there actively rooting for the US to lose.”

Are there any on this board? You essentially said that everybody who disagrees with you about Iraq should be ashamed.

“Lets assume that Iraq becomes a democracy of sorts, that the violence diminishes, that their economy flourishes, that the world is better off for having gotten rid of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Al Queda worldwide.”

That’s a good point. I’ve thought about that a bit. If things go well in Iraq I’m fully prepared to credit Bush.

“with its widespread support even among Sunnis, is great great news.”

If they elect terrorists as they did last time it’s really bad news.

Supporting a terrorist government is not at all a good thing for us to be doing…..even an elected terrorist government.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 12:25 PM
Comment #102787

Awesome article! Now where are the pictures of the kids in Iran? Sudan? North Korea?

Posted by: chantico at December 15, 2005 12:27 PM
Comment #102788

Hi rahdigly,

“Anybody who doesn’t appreciate what America has done and President Bush, let them go to hell”

Do you think that constitutes reasoning?

You really think that shouting “everybody who disagrees with me should bo to hell” is reasoned discourse?

Seriously rahdigly, don’t you think that ideas should be discussed on their merits rather than calling everyone who disagrees with you evil?

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 12:29 PM
Comment #102789

rahdigly, in case you have any doubt:

IMPEACH BUSH!

He is a traitor of the worst kind. He has commited the highest of crimes. His sycophants are either the pied piper’s rats or apostates of the American ideal. (yes, spelled that right)

Is that radical enough for you? Somebody has to balance the rabid pseudopatriotic nonsense here.

Posted by: Dave at December 15, 2005 12:31 PM
Comment #102790
If you look at the last 20 years, Saddam would have been the person in the world responsible for the most deaths.

The Interahamwe leaders strongly disagree with your claim. They claim they have a better score…
If you consider pope Jean Paul II opposition to condoms usage for AIDS protection, he may has been responsible for the most deaths in the last 20 years, particulary in Africa…
Yeah, I know, who care about Africa?

Anyway, Saddam was scoring high too, indeed.
Plus he was living over oil fields. What a fool.

He was a destabilizing influence in a place crucial to the world economy.

Great. Now could we focus quickly on the next threat that has a destabilizing influence everywhere to the world economy:
Global Warming Oil addiction.

Thanks.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 15, 2005 12:32 PM
Comment #102795

rahdigly,

“Iraqis voted in a historic parliamentary election Thursday, with strong turnout reported in Sunni Arab areas and even a shortage of ballots in some precincts.”

Don’t worry, Iran is really happy to be of some help providing extra ballots to his theocratic democratic neighboor.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 15, 2005 12:51 PM
Comment #102797

Funny how some people are trying to argue that other countries should have been more of an interest than Iraq. Oh, okay. And, what would you guys have said then? How much nonsense would you guys have said about Bush had he invaded North Korea, Syria, Pakistan, etc.?! Be honest.


Both Bush’s and Clinton were right to take on Saddam; it’s just GWB that did the right thing by taking him out for good!

Posted by: rahdigly at December 15, 2005 12:59 PM
Comment #102799

Frenchly,
“Don’t worry, Iran is really happy to be of some help providing extra ballots to his theocratic democratic neighboor.”


It’s funny how your quoting a story that turned out to be false (FALSE!). Good job on that one.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2005-12-14T104900Z_01_SCH428961_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-ELECTION-BALLOTS.xml&rpc=22

“The head of Iraq’s border guards denied police reports on Wednesday that a tanker truck stuffed with thousands of forged ballot papers had been seized crossing into Iraq from Iran before Thursday’s elections…This is all a lie,” said Lieutenant General Ahmed al-Khafaji, the chief of the U.S.-trained force which has responsibility for all Iraq’s borders…I heard this yesterday and I checked all the border crossings right away. The borders are all closed anyway,” he told Reuters.”

Posted by: rahdigly at December 15, 2005 1:03 PM
Comment #102801

Hi rahdigly,

Iraq was nowhere near the threat that those countries were. Simple facts like this give many right wingers fits. Many on the right seem incapable of wrapping their minds around this sort of obvious fact.

It’s as if the truth in this case takes away your major reason for supporting the war in Iraq.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 1:06 PM
Comment #102803

Louis:

Hi rahdigly,

“there are those out there actively rooting for the US to lose.”

Are there any on this board? You essentially said that everybody who disagrees with you about Iraq should be ashamed.

First and foremost, it was I, Joebagodonuts, who posted the above quote that you responded to. Secondly, my comment about those rooting for America to lose refers to people like the following:

“Tom Nagy, associate professor of business at George Washington University, proudly informed his university newspaper about providing aid to the Saddam regime against the United States during a recent (illegal) trip to Iraq.”

These people are out there. They are the ones I refer to. Anyone who tells me they want America to lose, or that they want George Bush to die, or who makes any similar comments to those deserves our derision.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 15, 2005 1:10 PM
Comment #102805

Thanks JBOD for taking care of the light work. You’re right, there are people out there that hate Bush enough to route against us. Yikes!!

Posted by: rahdigly at December 15, 2005 1:15 PM
Comment #102807

Philippe

Opposing condoms and actually killing people is very different. First of all, not many people actually listened the JP on sexuality. IF they did, you would have very little risk of getting AIDS anyway. People who are in monogamous relationships (gay or straight, BTW) have almost zero chance of getting AIDS from sex whether or not the wear condoms.

RE Africa, those genocides claimed more lives, but as far as I know they were not provoked or managed by one man and his staff. I think if we want to find the all time record killer it has to be Mao, but because of the decentralized nature of his murder it is harder to gage.

RE oil, I would be happy enough if the price of gas in the U.S. rose. I think it should be similar to the prices you pay in Europe. No American politician can pull that one off (liberal, conservative or other). In fact liberals are often those who complain loudest about the high prices when they do go up and advocate various price controls.

The ceiling price of oil is “naturally” around $60-70 in today’s dollars. This really doesn’t change much except in nominal dollars and to come down a little over time. This is because energy is fungible. At this price, alternatives make more sense and people move in that direction. In the short term it is very painful, but over the course of several years we adjust, as we did in the 1980s. Of course that doesn’t mean you want to eliminate oil as a fuel right away and it sure doesn’t mean that you want people like Saddam with their foot on the fuel hose.

I think we Americans should emulate you French and increase our reliance on nuclear power. We generate only about 22% of our electricity that way. You guys essentially do the mirror image – 78%. Congratulations.

Louis

Foremost experts implies that they are . . . foremost. Who are you talking about re Yemen and Somalia? There is a difference between being a local menace and being able to cause world wide carnage.

Posted by: Jack at December 15, 2005 1:16 PM
Comment #102809

Hi joebagodonuts,

“First and foremost, it was I, Joebagodonuts, who posted the above quote that you responded to.”

Sorry about that! I clearly screwed up this time.

There are plenty of wackos on both sides. There were Repblicans who said that they wished Bill Clinton dead and wanted to gang-rape Hilary.

This doesn’t mean that the Republican party is the party of homicidal Clinton haters or the party of Hilary gang-rapers. It just meanst that there are wackos on both sides.

Wackos of all stripes deserve derision.

There are many right wing bloggers who seem to take their marching orders from Rush Hannity. They pick some liberal idiot and attack the whole party based on what this guy said.

It’s different when someone holds Bush accountable for his policies. I think going into Iraq was the worst strategic decision in the history of the country. I’m not attacking all Republicans based on some idiot who advocates gang raping Hilary Clinton.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 1:19 PM
Comment #102810

Hi Jack,

“Who are you talking about re Yemen and Somalia?”

Various military/intelligence experts I’ve seen interviews with and read interviews with in Newspapers.

Richard Clarke is one example of many.

My point is that I didn’t make up the bit about Somolia and Yemen. There are a considerable number of experts who assert they were a serious threat.

If you’d like to leave them out of the discussion we still have Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran who presented far more serious threats to us than Iraq.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 1:24 PM
Comment #102813

Stephen,

But none of this appeal you’ve got here makes a difference if our efforts have an undesired impact. There will be children already who remember the death of friends and family already, and blame it on us. If this Democracy fails, and civil war takes place, these children will not be smiling as they are now.

The real question is not whether or not we will be blamed, because rest assured we will be blamed either way. We were being blamed before we were in Iraq! The question is are we ready to be a part of the solution, or do we sit back and wait?

If we make no efforts, then what impact does that make?



I don’t think it’s at all that much different, except in that it emphasizes our departure from the immediate environment, a withdrawal over the horizon, and a getting out of the way of the Iraqis at the soonest possible date.

Not all that much different? Then by your own admission, besides being shrill, Murtha and Pelosi and Reid (et al) have basically lied for political purposes. Why put forward a ‘plan’ that resembles precisely what Bush has said is the exit strategy from day one, and say that Bush doesn’t have an exit strategy at all? The irony (if lies can be ironic) is Harry Reid saying Bush says nothing new

Immediately following the speech, Senate Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said Bush “recycled his tired rhetoric of ‘stay the course’ and once again missed an opportunity to lay out a real strategy for success in Iraq that will bring our troops safely home.”

The real strategy Harry is looking for being a quicker retreat? Or maybe a, “I am not a crook” speech? Maybe if Bush stepped down and installed Harry Reid as President he’d say Bush had a plan?

Whether we win or not, our military is broken. That’s not a vain bit of propagandizing, that’s just saying that we don’t have a deployable army ready for use if another conflict demands our attention. It’s saying our readiness is in the toilet. These are verifiable statements that if wrong can be rendered such for the world to see with a factcheck.

Of course… Saying our military is ‘broken’ is not extreme in the slightest. Saying there’s no way we can win is not propaganda (usually this is considered enemy propaganda). Saying that our troops are the enemy and all Iraqi’s are rising up against our occupation is…? oh, whatever.

What you seem to be concerned with is whether or not we get to continue this bit of military adventurism after Iraq. I’m telling you we can’t afford it, and we don’t have the fresh troops left to fight those battles. Your president has extended tours of duty, used National Guards and Reserves, and repeatedly called up units back to the front.

What I’m concerned with is getting on with winning a war against terror. Rather than demanding defeat because the President is of the wrong party.

We’re not being cowardly. We were asking for you folks to put more troops in, even suggesting the eventuality of a draft if necessary. If you folks were so bold, so unconcerned with appearances, you wouldn’t think twice. You would do what was necessary, and shame your rivals by your earnest, forthright manner in asking the sacrifices of our country. Instead, your people have more reasons not to expand forces than you have to do them.

1. The left is not asking to put in more troops. They are demanding we pull out. The further left, the faster the pull out. They argue that we should have went in with more troops only as a talking point to say we have been defeated and need to leave/should never have been there trying to steal their oil in the first place.

2. The draft and ‘calling for more sacrifice’ is a fake issue, as you well know. (Unless you’re not as smart as I think you are.) No democrat seriously wants to institute a draft or send in more troops. Or was Wrangel serious about his bill creating a draft?

That is the irony here: The Democrats are turning into the hard-nosed realists here, while the GOP becomes more ivory tower about its dealings with the military.

Realist deal with reality— positive and negative. Democrats have only one side of that equation because it does not further their political advantage. Like I said, the left has been working hard at undermining support for the war in Iraq. Congratulations.

The Bush plan, so far, has been more of the same. Why can’t you admit that what makes this admission news is its absolute rarity?

You’ve already admitted that the Democrats plan is basically the same as Bush’s with the exception of pulling out before the job is done.

I’m still waiting for the Democrats plan. So far they haven’t put forward one. They tried to copy Bush’s. With the exception of the defeat part. I mean, c’mon.

Posted by: esimonson at December 15, 2005 1:33 PM
Comment #102817

Pakistan has nuclear weapons; that’s why we didn’t go into Pakistan as opposed to Iraq. And, Bush has used the diplomatic approach with Pakistan and they are helping us in the War on Terror. Any sane person would agree that Saddam never would of helped us in capturing terrorists in Iraq had we invaded Pakistan or any other “threating” nation.

Posted by: rahdigly at December 15, 2005 1:35 PM
Comment #102818

There’s really quite a good op-ed piece in the New York Times about putting Iraq in perspective. It doesn’t subscribe to either the right- or left-wing analysis of the situation but rather provides data on a number of indicators over time. It notes, for example, that Iraq’s GPD, crude oil production, and average electrical power remain below prewar levels. Other indicators such as telephone subscribers and registered cars are way up.

Multiple-fatality bombings are way up over time but Iraq security personnel are spiking up also. Daily insurgent attacks are up but U.S. troop fatalities down from a year before.

So, are things getting better or worse in Iraq? Depends on your yard stick. Ask again around the same time next year and we’ll have a better idea. If GDP and electrical power finally exceed the levels of the Saddam era and if extra security personnel can stem the number of insurgent attacks, then things will be looking good. If not, then it’s likely that a kind of civil war will be to blame.

Posted by: Reed Sanders at December 15, 2005 1:36 PM
Comment #102824

Louis:

I understand that you think going into Iraq was a huge mistake. My point is simply that just because you think that does not in any way make it right. It just makes it your opinion. Thanks for being willing to admit you are wrong in the future if Iraq goes generally as Bush has hoped it will.

I bought stock in my brother’s biotech company. They just got FDA approval and the timing was perfect. Almost. Another company with a better solution also got FDA approval and my stock plummeted. I now have to eat crow in front of my wife who was against the purchase. Though I based my opinion on what I thought to be solid reasoning, I ultimately was wrong.

If Iraq turns out as Bush says it will, then those opposed to all this will have been wrong. You’ve been man enough to say you’ll admit it, if that happens. I wonder how many others opponents of Bush’s policies will have the courage to do so.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 15, 2005 1:50 PM
Comment #102825

Thanks JBOD for taking care of the light work. You’re right, there are people out there that hate Bush enough to route against us. Yikes!!
Posted by rahdigly at December 15, 2005 01:15 PM
============================================

Unfortunately, Bush has done a wonderful job of making sure that includes much of the rest of the world. Despite paid propaganda to the contrary, we used to be looked up to be the people of the world. No matter what was said about the government of the United States, we were (generally) liked as a people and were looked up to as a country.

Now, were are looked at being stupid for allowing the re-election of a glaringly incompetent leader. We are looked at as being evil for wantonly killing civilians and defending torture. We are looked at as fools for allowing ourselves to be led by religious dogma and rhetoric instead of reality. We are looked at as the ultimate hypocrites for these and other points.

Thanks to W. Even so: I root for US.

Posted by: Dave at December 15, 2005 1:51 PM
Comment #102826

Hi rahdigly,

“Bush has used the diplomatic approach with Pakistan”

Bush has given billions of dollars to a country that provides a safe haven for al Qaeda and sold nuclear weapons to terrorists.

Bush has to be a candidate for the lifetime appeasement award.

Bush clearly believes in appeasing nations who sell nuclear weapons to terrorists.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 1:52 PM
Comment #102827

Hi joebagodonuts,

“My point is simply that just because you think that does not in any way make it right.”

I’ve provided more than my opinion. I’ve supported my opinion with all sorts of relavant facts such as our troops are fighting and dying to support terrorists in Iraq.

“I now have to eat crow in front of my wife who was against the purchase.”

I don’t envy you. I’ve been in exactly that situation with my wife.

Here’s something that probably won’t work: “Honey, I know that the end result was bad but I want you to understand that my resoning was sound”.

I strongly recomend against the strategy I just mentioned. Wives don’t care if you think your reasoning was sound…..they have STRONG tendency to focus on the results.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 1:59 PM
Comment #102828

Dave:

Since you root for the US, I call you a patriot.

We have patriots in this country who disagree on how to proceed, which policies to enact, what we should want to accomplish. They can all be patriots but they cannot all be correct. There are some patriots out there who are wrong in a big way. There are others who are right in a big way.

Patriotism doesn’t have much to do with choosing the right strategies. Every football coach wants his team to win and every businessman wants his company to succeed. But despite that desire, some don’t have the skill to provide the right leadership to create the victory or success.

I’ll never call someone who disagrees with me unpatriotic or a traitor, simply because of our disagreement. I’ll reserve those terms for the people who want our country to lose.
Those who disagree with me, I’ll simply call wrong. (just kidding…cmon, laugh…you know you want to…it was a joke…)

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 15, 2005 1:59 PM
Comment #102830

Dave, people are going to make comments, about the US, no matter what we do or who we have as Prez. That’s just a fact! It all depends on whether you choose to believe it or not. I generally don’t listen to the negative spin; I heard it all before.

It’s good to hear that, even though you disagree with Bush, you’re still routing for the US. Good for you…

Posted by: rahdigly at December 15, 2005 2:05 PM
Comment #102834

All

Now come the mighty Sicilian Eagle glidding over Iraq and reports a very high vote today..probably in excess of 60% turnout…with very heavy Sunni participation.

That is probably a bad thing,right?

Go Kerry all the way!!!

Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 15, 2005 2:25 PM
Comment #102835

WHY ARE WE IN IRAQ?

This is why we are Iraq.

“>This is why we are in Iraq.

This is why we are in Iraq.

This is why we are in Iraq.

And this is why we are in Iraq.

Posted by: Jim T at December 15, 2005 2:27 PM
Comment #102836

Hi sicilianeagle,

“very heavy Sunni participation.”

They’ve been big Saddam supporters. I hope they don’t vote Saddam back in.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 2:28 PM
Comment #102837

20 MILLION DEAD - GIVE DICTATORS A CHANCE

SiNCERELY,

POl Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Sadam


PS Terrorism is not the answer

Posted by: MIKE at December 15, 2005 2:28 PM
Comment #102838

Touching professions of patriotism. But remember, you owe your loyalty to the country first. Many mistake loyalty to Bush with loyalty to the country. Many mistake loyalty to the country with loyalty to a war which should never, never have been waged in the first place. And many are hoping the ends will somehow justify the means, that somehow, despite many indications to the contrary, the new government in Iraq will be better for US interests than the previous one.

So ask yourself again: where do your loyalties belong? To Bush? To victory in war? Or to your country?

Because, my friends, they are not one and the same.

Posted by: phx8 at December 15, 2005 2:34 PM
Comment #102841

All

Voter participation today 67%…heavier that anticipated.

GOP response:A terrific first step for an emerging democracy.

Democratic response:Ya,but it wasn’t a 100% turnout.

Now what?

Last seen,John Kerry was going to challenge the election,saying that the chads were being blotted out by all that thumb ink.

Ted Kennedy said “What?There’s an election today?”

Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 15, 2005 2:43 PM
Comment #102843

Louis

As I explained, different kinds of threats. The “threat” from Pakistan and Saudi is that the current governments would become too unstable and fall in nasty ways, while the threat from Saddam is that he would not fall at all. You obviously don’t employ the same strategy to each. Syria was Saddam light. Some of the same things were present, but certainly not to the same extent. The current dictator is seriously incompetent and nobody will be surprised if the regime falls before the end of 2006 (put that down as one of my predictions. Give it an 80% probability. Care to get on the bandwagon or stand in front of it?) Iran is a serious threat, but Iran also is nearly impossible to deal with using the military tools we have at our disposal.

Bottom line is that in none of these cases was the use of U.S. force more justified.

Richard Clarke says lots of things now that he evidently didn’t say before. But I don’t recall him saying that Yemen or Somalia were greater threats than Iraq. If he did it is a good thing that he is no longer working for the government.

Posted by: Jack at December 15, 2005 2:46 PM
Comment #102844

My Patriotism is for my country first, which consists of GWB and “Winning” in Iraq. Saddam breaking the “Cease fire” agreement from the first gulf war (17 violations to be exact) gave us a right to go in and invade.

Posted by: rahdigly at December 15, 2005 2:49 PM
Comment #102846

Hi Jack,

Iraq wasn’t much of a threat to us. I mentioned the other countries because they represented significant threats to us.

We’ve got most of our available military resources tied up in a country that wasn’t much of a threat to us. Going in there was an incredibly bad strategic decision.

Your logic about it not making sense to occupy the other countries in no way shows that putting most of our available resources into Iraq was a good idea.

In the pragmatic strategic world threats are relative. Relatively speaking Iraq wasn’t a threat.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 2:58 PM
Comment #102848

One interesting item I haven’t seen discussed is which side will represent the most favorable outcome for the US. Allawi relies upon a base of the Mukhabarat (Saddam’s former intelligence organization) and secularists. SCIRI has the backing of Shias. Which will be better for the US? A new Saddam Hussein, in the person of Allawi, fellow secularists, and the Mukhabarat? Or an Iranian allied theocratic democracy?

Posted by: phx8 at December 15, 2005 3:03 PM
Comment #102849

Hi phx8,

Allawi has been refered to as “Saddam lite”. He’s our only hope though.

He’s a bit of a tyrant and he’s corrupt as hell but he’s clearly on our side.

There is reason to think he’d use his military forces to go after everybody who disagrees with him rather than go after only certain sects as the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution guys do.

He’s the most non-terrrorist candidate and he’s the most likely to prevent civil war….the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution guys actually promote civil war.

One problem is that al Sadr has 30 of his guys on the Shiite ballot which is horrible to contemplate as Sadr is an unrepentent terrorist.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 3:11 PM
Comment #102850

sicilianeagle
And where was Je$$ie Jack$son while all this is going on?

LouisXIV
You did it again.
“Bush clearly believes in appeasing nations who sell nuclear weapons to terrorists”. Balderdash. Eigher it is a lie or it is the truth. You have no figment of any imagination of what Bush believes in whether you watched Brit Hume or not.

Posted by: tomh at December 15, 2005 3:18 PM
Comment #102852

Louis,
It’s a pretty crazy situation. Allawi has been the US backed candidate, but he did poorly in the previous election. He’s a thug, and I wouldn’t underestimate his ability to be just as brutally repressive as some of the others. It’s ironic that the US backed candidate depends upon Saddam’s secret police for his power base. Yet Allawi seems to offer the best chance for the various minorities to coalesce around someone who could oppose the fundamentalists.

Hold onto your hat! My guess is that the fundamentalists will win. They- SCIRI, al-Sadr, Chalabi, and Dawa- have already released a joint statement condemning terrorism, the US occupation, and Israel. Supposedly al-Sadr wanted this declaration, and managed to get the others to cooperate.

We’re deluded ourselves about the Iraqis for some time. Their interest in democracy is incidental to their interest in power, and the money that comes with it.

The death squads are already busy. The days of the US fighting a civil war as a proxy for the Shias against the Sunnis are near an end. At least we won’t have to spend one billion dollars a week anymore.

Let’s hope this country never is misled into doing something so stupid again.

Posted by: phx8 at December 15, 2005 3:24 PM
Comment #102855

Hi tomh,

“You have no figment of any imagination of what Bush believes in whether you watched Brit Hume or not.”

He certainly has appeased Pakistan. I assume he believes in doing what he’s doing.

If you have any evidence that Bush doesn’t believe in his own Pakistan policy can you please produce it?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 3:32 PM
Comment #102856

Hi phx8,

If I was betting on the election I’d bet on the Shiite fundamentalists.

Allawi did badly last time despite the fact that we rigged the election in his favor.

We’ll be paying for this neocon stupidity for a long time to come I think.

I don’t think these elections will help us get out any faster…..If Allawi wins he’ll need lots of help….If the terorists win I think we’ll be stuck there helping and fighting them.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 3:37 PM
Comment #102864

Louis

Missing the point again.

Pakistan and Saudi are threats because they could disintegrate. You can’t deploy military to stop that before it happens.

Syria - Saddam light. Yemen, Somalia not threats as countries.

Iran maybe big threat, but not able to deal with it at this time.

Once again, you mean well, but be careful not to act on your advice.

Posted by: Jack at December 15, 2005 4:01 PM
Comment #102867

boys and girls do we forget that this islamic nation cannot have a democracy their relgion is their government. the quaran dictates how they should run themselves a democracy would never work and i forsee that our own arrogance in this matter will blow up in our faces just like this iraqi conflict and the Bush Regime. plus with the iraqis knowing that we are only their for the oil and not their freedom another dictator will rise through the oil industry and take over once again and where will it all stop when bush has declared himself as supreme king of the world. the is a saying ” if injustice becomes law then it is the duty of the people to revolt and topple the wrongful government” this is just what should be done wtih the current “Capitalist” government that we are under right now thank you and good night bitches

Posted by: JONATHON at December 15, 2005 4:12 PM
Comment #102869

Hi Jack,

“Missing the point again.”

It is you who are missing the point of the discussion. We’ve been discussing whether Iraq was a threat….it wasn’t.

“Pakistan and Saudi are threats because they could disintegrate.”

Pakistan is full of al Qaeda supporters and they sold nuclear weapons to terrorists.

Saudi Arabia is full of al Qaeda supporters and many of those who attacked us on 9/11 were Saudis.

You still seem to be saying that because it’s not a good time to attack Iraq that means it’s a good time to attack Iraq.

If that’s what you’re saying then your logic is really bad.

“be careful not to act on your advice.”

Please tell me what “advice” I’ve dispensed that is bad. You’ve accused me of something and I expect you to support it.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 4:24 PM
Comment #102880

Hi Jack,

I meant to say “You seem to be saying that because it’s not a good time to attack IRAN than means it is a good time to attack Iraq”.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 4:46 PM
Comment #102881

Louis

Geez…chill out…I was being whimsical,not mean-spirited…just having a little fun,that’s all….

No need to get worked up and use the F word either.I think

As far as me being wrong….The last time the mighty Sicilian Eagle was wrong was he thought that he had made a mistake…

As far as who wins what there……rest assured that more blood will flow….this time however,the blood will flow creating a country …not in defeating it.

Amdit it:Bush was right.

All together now:Bush was right!

Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 15, 2005 4:46 PM
Comment #102882

From all of Louis XIV posts he has got to be a Sunni Baathist supporter. His one line day after day ” American troops supproting shia terrorists.” Louis drop a penny on the “tone arm” and move on.

Posted by: pige at December 15, 2005 4:52 PM
Comment #102883

Hi sicilianeagle,

“I was being whimsical,not mean-spirited…just having a little fun,that’s all….”

You were going in for the standard right wing spin attack on Democrats.

“this time however,the blood will flow creating a country …not in defeating it.”

Can you explain how that works? It seems to me that the blood will flow for the same reasons it’s been flowing.

Keep in mind that I’m well aware that the right wing has been wrong all along about the milestones in Iraq.




Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 4:53 PM
Comment #102884

Hi Pige,

“From all of Louis XIV posts he has got to be a Sunni Baathist supporter.”

You have me confused with your mother.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 4:54 PM
Comment #102885

Louis,

And you were the “sun” king?
Good luck showing the light to these guys :-) Their future’s so bright, they gotta wear shades!

Posted by: Dave at December 15, 2005 4:58 PM
Comment #102888

Hi Dave,

Why is it that the right tends to be so pre-enlightenment? What is the problem with reason here?

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 5:13 PM
Comment #102889

Louis

RE Advice. Goes back to an earlier post re missing the point. It is okay in discussions, but not good where real things are at stake. I suggested that while I enjoy the conversations, I would not take your advice on many things.

What I mean by Iran is that Iran is just not an option. Some problems you would address if possible in one way, but it is not possible.

We can stop talking about Yemen, Pakistan et al. We won’t agree on it. I think you are missing the point and I expect you think the same about me. A similar impass is when I orginally mentioned that I would not want to take your investing advice if it was similar to your political advice, but it was up to you.

Posted by: Jack at December 15, 2005 5:16 PM
Comment #102891

Louis et al.

Double-header sweep today for the president….first a wildy successful election…the a deal with McCain on torture…..next up a deal on the Patriot act and the president gets a head of steam up as the years closes…..


MOOOOOOmentum….Joe Mentum…..

I think the corner turned when Joe stood his ground with the president here.

Watch the polls zoom up 2 points these next 5 days….

Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 15, 2005 5:19 PM
Comment #102894

Hi Jack,

“What I mean by Iran is that Iran is just not an option.”

Why was Iraq an option? It’s not as if there weren’t a whole lot of obvious reasons not to go into Iraq. It looked like a really bad idea.

What I said about Pakistan were facts. They sold nuclear weapons to terrorists. They are full of al Qaeda supporters and have nuclear weapons which makes them very dangerous.

Back to the original point: Iraq wasn’t a significant threat compared to the countries I mentioned. You, or someone else, said that we went into Iraq because it was a major threat to us. I’ve shown that Iraq wasn’t a significant threat compared to other countries.

“Goes back to an earlier post re missing the point.”

You are the one who is missing the point here.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 5:24 PM
Comment #102897

Hi sicilianeagle,

“first a wildy successful election…”

That remains to be seen. If the terrorists win I don’t see how the electtion could be called a success unless you’re in favor of terrorism.

Are you in favor of terrorists winning the election?

Keep in mind that I’m aware that you guys have been wrong all along about the milestones in Iraq.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 5:31 PM
Comment #102899

“If you’re interested in honest discussion you’ll let me know?”

It’s a real simple question Louis…you say that Bill Clinton considered Usama Bin Laden a greater threat than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, yet in spite of the many Al Qaeda attacks (two US embassies, USS Cole, etc) spearheaded by bin Laden, Clinton spent two years dropping 1.3 million pounds of bombs on Iraq.

If he didn’t think bin Laden was hiding there, then why the bombs?

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at December 15, 2005 5:42 PM
Comment #102901

Louis

Rest assured my friend that the terrorist have lost….a democracy was born today…and you can’t see it…you’re so blinded that the president actually called this one that it doesn’t compute,does it?

No problemo,my friend…we still love you…we are,after all,a party of inclusion…

Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 15, 2005 5:47 PM
Comment #102910

Hi Luis,

“If he didn’t think bin Laden was hiding there, then why the bombs?”

If you care for honest discussion you know where to find me.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 6:30 PM
Comment #102911

Hi sicilianeagle,

“Rest assured my friend that the terrorist have lost….”

If they win the election they haven’t lost.

Are you so blinded by your right wing spin that you can’t understand simple concepts?

The logic isn’t that tough. There are three things you need to understand and none of them are difficult.

1. Terrorists are running in the election…..How are we doing so far?

2. The terrorists might win in the election….are you still with me?

3. If the terrorists win the election then they are running the government….is this the part that gives you fits? If so go back to 1 and 2 to get up a sort of running start.

If the terrorists win we lose.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 6:35 PM
Comment #102918

Jack,

Opposing condoms and actually killing people is very different.

As between being responsible of many deaths and being the killer itself.

First of all, not many people actually listened the JP on sexuality.

In north hemisphere, yes. But in african countries they are/were way more receptive to his opinions.

IF they did, you would have very little risk of getting AIDS anyway. People who are in monogamous relationships (gay or straight, BTW) have almost zero chance of getting AIDS from sex whether or not the wear condoms.

Yeah, right, like you could tell that your partner or previous one(s) never cheat on you because, after all, you’re now in a monogamous relationship, no need to worry…

Like AIDS inactive period can’t span over monogamous relationship(s)…

Sorry, maybe I’m bit emotional here because I lost two closed friends of mine, both hetero, from AIDS. The first discovered he was infected since years by HIV, most probably due to blood transfusion.
The other one were in a lovely monogamous relationship since years… with the first.

Monogamous relationship don’t protect from AIDS. Condoms and/or mutual HIV tests mixed with trust and responsability do offer a better, non virtual, protection.

I miss them, thanks to “almost zero chance”.

I think if we want to find the all time record killer it has to be Mao, but because of the decentralized nature of his murder it is harder to gage.

For me record goes to god(s).
But I guess I show my atheism here…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 15, 2005 7:10 PM
Comment #102928
The reason Theater Iraq is a part of the war on terror is that we could not allow these children to be the property of Saddam Hussein or his sons to rape and torture as they please.

Sure. Now they’re the property of the Shiite-controlled Interior Ministry, the “Wolf Brigade” and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq to rape and torture as they please. Hooray for us.

Posted by: American Pundit at December 15, 2005 8:18 PM
Comment #102948


Louis

Let me just ask you to be logical. Pakistan is a problem. Yes. But what reason would we have to invade Pakistan? Should we replace a friendly - if not completely successful - government with what? It is just silly. We have a threatening situation, but it is the best case scenario at this time.

And how do you believe you showed a place like Yemen was a greater threat than Iraq? Because there was Al Qaeda? They are lots of places. Zarqawi was in fact in Iraq. Glad you think you showed something. I hear there are trees in Canada and Lakes in Minnesota.

Philipe

Your friends, as you said, got AIDS through blood transfusion. Condoms would have done nothing for them. It was not passed by sexual contact.

I don’t know how you define monogamy. I have been married since 1982. For me that meant no other partners.

You can’t have it both ways. If people listen to JP they don’t use condoms AND they are not promiscuous. If you don’t listen to JP they can use condoms. Of course I agree that you have the problem with good people married to dogs who lie, cheat and endanger their partner’s lives. But what are the chances that people like this are going to use condoms with their wives and not generally?

BTW - Mao and Stalin - the world genocide leaders, claimed to be atheists. Hitler never professed any transendent religion. He seemed to believe in the Aryan Folk on this earth. I don’t think religion is a big issue in the central African massacres. Pol Pot had some kind of Rousseu/Taoism thing going. Killers figure out reasons to kill. When religion is available, they use it. If not, they think of something else.

Posted by: Jack at December 15, 2005 9:34 PM
Comment #102957

Eric-
Your argument is one of instant gratification rather than considered strategy. If we do this wrong, we save lives today, only to ruin them and destroy them later. My position is one of looking at things in the long term.

The irony is, one of the things that has made this war so difficult was the continued presence of al-Qaeda. Had we properly and permanently dealt with them when we had the chance, we would be in a far better position to dictate terms in Iraq. Conditions interlock and interact in the real world to produce results that aren’t immediately obvious from the parts of the situation by themselves. The failure to understand how one variable can change how another behaves in a system is the basic failure of Bush’s policy as a whole and Iraq policy in particular.

Murtha and Pelosi offered their plan first. Bush merely followed suit after having had surrogates roast the living hell out of the Democrats for even suggesting it. We’re not the ones flying false flags here. Bush’s policy seems to be him telling us we’re going to do whatever the polls say Americans most favor. He copied Murtha’s idea because he couldn’t beat it out in the public.

Of course… Saying our military is ‘broken’ is not extreme in the slightest. Saying there’s no way we can win is not propaganda (usually this is considered enemy propaganda). Saying that our troops are the enemy and all Iraqi’s are rising up against our occupation is…? oh, whatever.

It may be extreme to say it, but that’s our manpower position, because of the logistical demands of the war. As for Dean’s comments, I hardly think he was saying we want to lose. It’s just that in his opinion, he couldn’t see how we could win with a strategy like Iraqification. His doubts have some grounding. Even the Soldiers you praise, the ones who talk about the positive sides of Iraq, are concerned about the ability of the Iraqis to support themselves once they go. If that was what Dean meant, then his concerns are not so “enemy propaganda” as you would have us believe. They are instead the situations we should plan to prevent if we can. As for Kerry’s description of what goes on with our incursions into Iraqi homes, it’s probably apt, and for reasons that don’t signify that our forces are evil or terrorists. I challenge you to have a bunch of soldiers charge into your house and not have things get tense and scary for you.

This is what I mean about the whole Ivory Tower attitude. Confident that Iraqi’s should be thinking that this is all for their own good, you pre-suppose that if they were rational that they would calmly accept such an intrusion, when the reality is far different. You fail to consider that people on the other end of the rifles might have a different point of view on our actions.

You fail to consider that I have never myself demanded defeat. I demand the opposite, pursued with wisdom and skill. Whatever evil, cowardly positions you claim of me, I have probably fifty or more blog entries written that directly contradict you.

The Democrats have in fact asked for the troop increases. You just weren’t listening at the time when people thought that was a workable solution. A year of subsequent neglect has convinced many, unfortunately, that it might no longer help to increase the presence.

Being a Democrat, and a part of a party which allows debate on such points, I take the position that it is still necessary, and others take that position with me. As for the Draft, I think those who suggest it are generally serious about it. I can speak for myself, at least, and tell you that I am entirely serious about the possibility of conscriptions, even though that would cut right through my age group. If you think I’m a liar, come right out and say it. I’ll tell you the same damn thing.

Now tell me something: when have your people reacted to the bad news in Iraq by acknowledging the bad? When lawlessness broke out, Rumsfeld said it was people drunk on freedom. When the WMDs weren’t found, you guys implied Saddam hid them in other countries, including Syria. The insurgents, who have successfully escalated their campaign for the last two year, have been called dead-enders for most of the time. Victory has always been around the corner. We had enough troops when we only had about 85,000, even though we ended up raising that to almost twice that amount. We have gone into the reserves, the National Guard, and through just about every fresh set of troops we got, and still the president says we don’t have a problem.

Bush is not dealing with the negative side of reality, by any stretch of the term, but I would say he’s also failing on the count of dealing with the positive kind. Sugarcoating reports and claiming progress without something in the real world to justify it is not dealing with the positive side of reality. it’s dealing with the positive side of a figment of one’s imagination.

This isn’t about Postive vs. Negative. This is about the truth, good or bad, glamourous or ugly. The facts like they are. By not dealing with Americans or Iraq from the facts of the matter, the Bush administration has set up an environment that invites failure, and retards success. accurate information and understanding is crucial to good policy and decisonmaking. The same applies to the public. The fact of the matter is, we were sent to war on inaccurate information, and its Bush’s responsibility. That undermined support. Had Bush been more diligent and careful in working out our situation people could have trusted that he made a bonafide effort to be straight with us. Instead, we’ve gotten word games whose twisting meanings insult and befuddle our intelligence.

Welcome to the real world: You lose people’s trust and loyalty when you deceive them!

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 15, 2005 10:28 PM
Comment #102970

No Louis, there’s nothing honest about your discussion. I’ve posed a real question to your statement, now, you need to answer it.

Once again…and I’ll type slowly so you can keep up.

You claim that Clinton considered Usama bin Laden to be a far greater threat than Saddam’s Iraq, his statements to the contrary (posted) notwithstanding.

Given that bin Laden attacked the US on several occasions during the Clinton administration, why did Bill Clinton bomb Iraq, instead of spending time and money hunting down bin Laden?

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at December 15, 2005 11:25 PM
Comment #102977

rahdigly,

Great logic.

Saddam breaking the “Cease fire” agreement from the first gulf war (17 violations to be exact) gave us a right to go in and invade. Posted by: rahdigly at December 15, 2005 02:49 PM
So the US was right to ignore the UN and invade Iraq - because Iraq ignored the UN?

Luis Gonzalez,
Bill Clinton warned Bush that bin Laden and al-Qaeda would be Bush’s biggest challenge. Clinton administration officials presented the incoming Bush administration with a plan to fight global terrorism - the same plan (with the notable exception of the invasion of Iraq) that the Bush administration is now using.

You know what the Bush administration did with that plan and the multiple warnings about al-Qaeda? THEY SAT ON THEIR ASSES AND DID NOTHING.

Posted by: ElliottBay at December 16, 2005 12:07 AM
Comment #102983

The Clinton adminitration presented the incpming administratio with a “plan”?

Why did they not lead the fight if they had a “plan”?

Maybe you will answer…why was Clinton bombing Iraq if he thought that bin Laden was the greater of the two threats?

They presented a “plan”…

They did nothing, but wanted to dictate what the incoming administration should do.

What did Bill do about the attacks on the USS Cole?

Nothing.

What did Bill do about the attacks on the US Embassies?

Nothing.

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at December 16, 2005 12:38 AM
Comment #102984

“You know what the Bush administration did with that plan and the multiple warnings about al-Qaeda? THEY SAT ON THEIR ASSES AND DID NOTHING.”

The 9/11 atackers entered the United States during the Clinton Administration.

They trained during the Clinton Administration.

Their visas expired during the Clinton Administration.

The Clinton administration obviously did nothing…except bomb Iraq.

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at December 16, 2005 12:41 AM
Comment #103018

I wrote a blog and now I have been censored. I no longer have email addresses for yahoo. You Republicans are no better that Saddaam. I guess next I’ll have a phony car death.

Posted by: Gwendolyn Boyer at December 16, 2005 3:55 AM
Comment #103058

Jack

Your friends, as you said, got AIDS through blood transfusion. Condoms would have done nothing for them. It was not passed by sexual contact. I don’t know how you define monogamy. I have been married since 1982. For me that meant no other partners.

He got AIDS thru blood transfusion, but she got thru sex from him. And they were married. And they didn’t have others partners AFAIK. Jump to conclusions.

Mine is that monogamy didn’t protect her where condoms could have. If they did HIV tests when they entered in relationship, they would have discover he was HIV-1 positive and, most probably, would have chosen to still get married and, well, just use condoms…

It was already too last for him, alas. But not for her. My point is monogamy didn’t protect her. My point is even the full responsible and mutual trusting monogamy didn’t offer the same scale of protection that condoms could.

Like in worst terrorism spin speeches, “one hit is enough” for HIV. This “almost zero chance” due to monogamy is very relative, while the “almost zero chance” of condoms is statistical. Equaling them is very dangerous and seems to be behind the raise of newest cases of AIDS in western nations…

Anyway, I’m off-topic here.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 16, 2005 5:40 AM
Comment #103075

rahdigly,

Saddam breaking the “Cease fire” agreement from the first gulf war (17 violations to be exact) gave us a right to go in and invade.

Nope. These resolutions were UNSC ones. The violations gave you the right, as a UN member, to push for, under UN Charter, any action “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace.” (Article 1 of UN Charter).

Did you notice the “collective” word?
IIRC, a majority of UNSC members disagree(d) with your proposed actions.

Your country have its own rights and interests, but you really can’t legalize Iraq War by UN resolutions violations as you’re not acting in Iraq under any UNSC mandate and, actually, are in breach of your UN Charter ratification…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 16, 2005 6:43 AM
Comment #103092

“You Republicans are no better that Saddaam. “

That’s the kind of horsesh&t statements that get liberals in trouble.

Saddam murdered his own citizens, tortured them, raped them, gassed them.

You get booted off some electronic bulletin board, and immediately go off on some BS rant.

If your statement were anything close to the truth, tonight, in the middle of the night, you’d receive a visit from members of a secret police, your husband and children would be tied, and forced to watch you being raped repeatedly, before you were killed.

They would have their genitals burnt, their arms broken, and their eyes gouged out.

Yeah…Republicans are as bad as Saddam.

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at December 16, 2005 8:47 AM
Comment #103094

“Your country have its own rights and interests, but you really can’t legalize Iraq War.”

The only way that under our Constitution, war can be legally waged, is by Congress giving the approval to go to war.

They did.

In fact, Congress authorized use of force against Iraq in 1998…during the Clinton administration.

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at December 16, 2005 8:53 AM
Comment #103097

Hi Dave,

Why is it that the right tends to be so pre-enlightenment? What is the problem with reason here?

Posted by LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 05:13 PM
================================================
Hi Louis,

They’re not preenlightenment, they’re post realist. The reality of the world has nothing to do with what they believe. They believe what they’re told because it removes choice from the equation and stress from their lives. You don’t have to think if you have faith. The only thinking is “which pundit do I quote today?” Of course, if they actually tried to think from the other persepctive, they would see how insane their positions are and won’t take the risk.

For fun, is there a righty out there who would seriously care to argue from the left’s perspective? I promise to argue to the best of my ability from the right’s.

Posted by: Dave at December 16, 2005 9:09 AM
Comment #103098

Phillipe:

I’m sorry to hear about your friends who died of AIDS. It sucks. My dad died of cancer due to an improperly removed mole. It sucks. Unfortunately, with all the good in life also comes some bad things.

Regarding your comments about UN resolutions as a reason for war. I agree with you technically, but not in reality. The UN resolutions did give us the ability to go to the UN and not to go on our own. This was the technical process set up under UN rules. But in reality, with France saying they would never approve war, and with the UN dragging its feet for 12 years, going to the UN had little clout. My belief is they were never ever going to do anything substantive.

If you look at the UN’s history, there is a pattern of liimited engagement, where they try to mollify parties but do so without any real threat. With regard to Iraq, they showed themselves to be paper tigers.

Ultimately, I believe the US had two choices:
A) go along with the technical rules of the UN, which would lead to continued resolution after resolution, but little action, or,

B) Take matters into our own hands in order to have action taken.

I’ve likened Saddam to a rabid dog on a fraying leash, with the leash symbolizing the sanctions. Once freed of sanctions, the rabid dog is loose in the neighborhood, and dangerous to any who might encounter it. Read the Volcker report and you will see the fervor and tenacity with which Saddam was weakening the sanctions, and thereby breaking his leash.

Many now say that removing Saddam was a good thing. Our own Stephen Daugherty has said so, as has your Jacques Chirac. But they have yet to address HOW they would have removed him, if not militarily. Bill Clinton said Saddam never does anything unless forced to by military might, and he was right. It is the only thing that ever worked with Saddam, and the UN was never ever going to use it.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 16, 2005 9:10 AM
Comment #103102

Philippe

I feel bad for your friends, but JP had nothing to do with it. Married couples generally don’t use condoms except to prevent pregnancy. It is unlikely your friend would have used a condom anyway. IF he knew he had AIDS, he should not have had sex at all. There is no safe sex for someone with AIDS. Condoms fail. Sex with a person with AIDS is like playing Russian roulette. Nobody should do it.

Posted by: Jack at December 16, 2005 9:41 AM
Comment #103113

For fun, is there a righty out there who would seriously care to argue from the left’s perspective? I promise to argue to the best of my ability from the right’s.

Posted by Dave at December 16, 2005 09:09 AM
===============================================

No takers? Going Once…

Posted by: Dave at December 16, 2005 10:30 AM
Comment #103152

Morning All:

I thought we were in Iraq to…
a) Remove Saddam from power because he had WMD’s and posed a direct threat to the US Mainland.
b) Remove Saddam from power because he and bin Ladin were in cahoot’s to destroy the US Government.
I could go on but it only saddens me to realize that we have been fed so much Bushshit (aka BS)that the US as a Whole doesn’t know what to believe anymore.
And then to top it all off I read my computer this morning That Al Zarcowi was in custody last year and released because no one new who or what he was or what a threat he posed. So much for the Oxymoron…”Military Inteligence”.

As Always,
Wayne

Posted by: wayne at December 16, 2005 11:46 AM
Comment #103155

Just an addition to what Eric stated so well:

The War on Terror is simple. The United States military men and women are fighting for World Peace not world domination as some would have others believe. We don’t want or need the oil, we have all the oil we could ever use right here in North American. We are fighting for the freedom of people who couldn’t do it for themselves. Have we forgotten just what Saddam Hussein did to his own people? Torture, Rape, and Mass Murder! How dare anyone claim that this war is about oil? Not only are we fighting for other people’s freedom we are fighting to preserve our own. We take for granted all of the freedoms that so many died for so long ago and so many are still willing to die for today. Just remember while you’re protesting and degrading our efforts these men and women are fighting and dying for your rights as well. Be thankful for your freedoms and the people who so bravely go head first into danger to preserve and protect it.

Posted by: Elle at December 16, 2005 11:53 AM
Comment #103165
I feel bad for your friends, but JP had nothing to do with it.

I never said he has. I’m reacting to the “monogamy AIDS protection” myth.

It is unlikely your friend would have used a condom anyway. IF he knew he had AIDS, he should not have had sex at all. There is no safe sex for someone with AIDS. Condoms fail. Sex with a person with AIDS is like playing Russian roulette. Nobody should do it

They told me that they will have used condoms if they know fron start he was HIV positive. However, I guess the fact that they knows they were both infected when they stated this could have influence it.

But the point is, regarding AIDS, there’s no safe sex. Period. It’s all a matter of measuring the risk you run and pose. Love could influence your view as much as ignorance and inconsciency…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 16, 2005 12:08 PM
Comment #103179

For fun, is there a righty out there who would seriously care to argue from the left’s perspective? I promise to argue to the best of my ability from the right’s.

Posted by Dave at December 16, 2005 09:09 AM
===============================================

No takers? Going twice…

Posted by: Dave at December 16, 2005 12:36 PM
Comment #103202

Hey Wayne…if Saddam was not a threat, had no weapons, and it was all Bushit, why did Clinton drop 1.3 million pounds of bombs on Iraq?

Text of President Clinton’s address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff, February 17th, 1998

I have just received a very fine briefing from our military leadership on the
status of our forces in the Persian Gulf. Before I left the Pentagon, I wanted
to talk to you and all those whom you represent the men and women of our
military. You, your friends and your colleagues are on the front lines of this
crisis in Iraq.

I want you, and I want the American people, to hear directly from me what is
at stake for America in the Persian Gulf, what we are doing to protect the
peace, the security, the freedom we cherish, why we have taken the position we
have taken.

I was thinking as I sat up here on the platform, of the slogan that the first
lady gave me for her project on the millennium, which was, remembering the past
and imagining the future.

Now, for that project, that means preserving the Star Spangled Banner and the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and it
means making an unprecedented commitment to medical research and to get the best
of the new technology. But that’s not a bad slogan for us when we deal with more
sober, more difficult, more dangerous matters.

Those who have questioned the United States in this moment, I would argue,
are living only in the moment. They have neither remembered the past nor
imagined the future.

So first, let’s just take a step back and consider why meeting the threat
posed by Saddam Hussein is important to our security in the new era we are
entering.

This is a time of tremendous promise for America. The superpower
confrontation has ended; on every continent democracy is securing for more and
more people the basic freedoms we Americans have come to take for granted. Bit
by bit the information age is chipping away at the barriers economic, political
and social that once kept people locked in and freedom and prosperity locked
out.

But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in this room know very
well that this is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of reckless
acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and
organized international criminals.

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They
feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take
advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas.

And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We
simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. His
regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the
security of all the rest of us.

I want the American people to understand first the past how did this crisis
come about?

And I want them to understand what we must do to protect the national
interest, and indeed the interest of all freedom-loving people in the world.

Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf War, the United
Nations demanded not the United States the United Nations demanded, and Saddam
Hussein agreed to declare within 15 days this is way back in 1991 within 15 days
his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them,
to make a total declaration. That’s what he promised to do.

The United Nations set up a special commission of highly trained
international experts called UNSCOM, to make sure that Iraq made good on that
commitment. We had every good reason to insist that Iraq disarm. Saddam had
built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it not once, but many times, in a
decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons, against combatants, against
civilians, against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people.

And during the Gulf War, Saddam launched Scuds against Saudi Arabia, Israel
and Bahrain.

Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf
War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this
solemn commitment. Consider just some of the facts:

Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in
its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that
gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports.

For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14
months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each
of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam’s son-in-law, and the chief organizer of
Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that
Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build
many more.

Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in
significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied
the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law defected
to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?

It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability
notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of
anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly
understated its production.

As if we needed further confirmation, you all know what happened to his
son-in-law when he made the untimely decision to go back to Iraq.

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and
undercut UNSCOM. They’ve harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled
monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect
facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were
there observing it and had the pictures to prove it.

Despite Iraq’s deceptions, UNSCOM has nevertheless done a remarkable job. Its
inspectors the eyes and ears of the civilized world have uncovered and destroyed
more weapons of mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf
War.

This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 gallons of
chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles, 30 warheads specifically
fitted for chemical and biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons
facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other deadly agents.

Over the past few months, as they have come closer and closer to rooting out
Iraq’s remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to
thwart their ambitions.

By imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites
which have still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one
palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large by comparison, when you hear all
this business about presidential sites reflect our sovereignty, why do you want
to come into a residence, the White House complex is 18 acres. So you’ll have
some feel for this.

One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. That’s
about how many acres did you tell me it was? 40,000 acres. We’re not talking
about a few rooms here with delicate personal matters involved.

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of
this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to
produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed
stocks necessary to produce them.

The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and
biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to
restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.

Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. It is against
that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made clear our
preference for a diplomatic solution.

The inspection system works. The inspection system has worked in the face of
lies, stonewalling, obstacle after obstacle after obstacle. The people who have
done that work deserve the thanks of civilized people throughout the world.

It has worked. That is all we want. And if we can find a diplomatic way to do
what has to be done, to do what he promised to do at the end of the Gulf War, to
do what should have been done within 15 days within 15 days of the agreement at
the end of the Gulf War, if we can find a diplomatic way to do that, that is by
far our preference.

But to be a genuine solution, and not simply one that glosses over the
remaining problem, a diplomatic solution must include or meet a clear,
immutable, reasonable, simple standard.

Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to these sites
anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the
integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in place.

Now those terms are nothing more or less than the essence of what he agreed
to at the end of the Gulf War. The Security Council, many times since, has
reiterated this standard. If he accepts them, force will not be necessary. If he
refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and
deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences.

I ask all of you to remember the record here what he promised to do within 15
days of the end of the Gulf War, what he repeatedly refused to do, what we found
out in 1995, what the inspectors have done against all odds. We have no business
agreeing to any resolution of this that does not include free, unfettered access
to the remaining sites by people who have integrity and proven confidence in the
inspection business. That should be our standard. That’s what UNSCOM has done,
and that’s why I have been fighting for it so hard. And that’s why the United
States should insist upon it.

Now, let’s imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to
act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more
opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and
continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the
solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He
will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of
devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal. And I think
every one of you who’s really worked on this for any length of time believes
that, too.


~~~snip~~~

Saddam Hussein’s Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and
warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this century, we learned
through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior
is firmness, determination, and when necessary action.

In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very
kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction
ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized
criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his
footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with
impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security
Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

But if we act as one, we can safeguard our interests and send a clear message
to every would-be tyrant and terrorist that the international community does
have the wisdom and the will and the way to protect peace and security in a new
era. That is the future I ask you all to imagine. That is the future I ask our
allies to imagine.

Saddam Hussein systematically violated 16 UN Security Council resolutions in the decade leading up to the American ground invasion of 2002.

The war however, began in 1998.

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at December 16, 2005 1:38 PM
Comment #103204

Three years ago Saddam falls. That is good and that is progress. This year there were three dates where the Iraqis voted. That is good and that is progress. A little over 2,000 American servicemen died. One is one too many, but they went to Iraq knowing the danger and were willing to put their life on the line for a foreigner with a very different spiritual faith than most of them. That showed compassion for their fellow man. We are and will continue to make progress in Iraq towards some stability in the Middle East. Iraq will never have the freedom, liberty, or peaceful level the United States has. The stability that will be attained in the Middle East will hopefully spread to Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Yemen, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan and much more even into Africa. That would be a tremendous achievement by the people in that region of the world. The bottom line is hope.

Posted by: tomh at December 16, 2005 1:43 PM
Comment #103212

Luis-
You better quit critiquing Clinton’s pre-9/11 peformance, and not just because Clinton did so much more than you give him credit for.

Fact is, though Clinton did not do enought, Bush did even less than Clinton, downgrading counterterrorism from its cabinet level position, and not holding one real meeting on counterterrorism until the bubble got shattered with 9/11.

As for the attacks, Clinton retaliated with a cruise missile attack on the Terrorists compound for the embassies, and the Cole investigation only completed during the Bush administration. It was Bush’s decision not to retaliate.

Although it can be said that the Bush administration didn’t take terrorism as seriously as the Clinton administration, I think it can be agreed that neither administration took the threat seriously enough. Who would have, in the days before 9/11.

Once we get past all this argument about whose fault it was, we still have the situation to deal with. We must deal with that, now, or face the consequences. The Bush administration, according to the 9/11 commission, has not improved our security in those regards. If we get hit again, he will not be able to excuse his past performance on these issues as a product of an age that had never seen an attack like 9/11.

As for the authorization to use force, I think you are mistaken. If you are refering to the regime change legislation, I would advise yout that it did not authorize the use of our armies to invade Iraq. It only “expressed the sense” that we should do something to get Saddam out of there. The authorization to use force that was required for Bush to invade Iraq was the one we passed in Bush’s administration, and that one did not mention the law you cited in its main body. It mentioned UNSC resolutions regarding Saddam’s WMDs, the War Powers Act, and the authorization to use force that congress passed against those who perpetrated 9/11 or who harbored them. The ‘98 resolution calling for regime change only gets mentioned in the “Whereas” clauses. Those parts of the bill mean very little, except the politicians wanting to hear themselves talk. Until you get to the part where congress resolves to do something, it really doesn’t count.

Joe-
I don’t think Saddam was much more than paper tiger himself. I said he deserved to be removed from office, but I felt it could wait, in the face of the terrorist threat we already had out there. We got to have priorities, and not forget about who has really done us damage in the past few years.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 16, 2005 1:53 PM
Comment #103215

“As for the authorization to use force, I think you are mistaken. If you are referring to the regime change legislation, I would advise you that it did not authorize the use of our armies to invade Iraq.”

It authorized Clinton to drop 1.3 million pounds of bombs on Iraq…I’d call that a war.

What would you call it?

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at December 16, 2005 1:59 PM
Comment #103219

So Stephen, you would compare what Clinton did over eight years in the White House, to what the Bush administration did in the eight months it was in place prior to the attacks on 9/11?

Let’s discuss Clinton’s actions in the aftermath of the attacks on the US embassies, or the attack on the USS Cole.

He shot missiles at two sites, not knowing whether they hit anything or not.

“the Cole investigation only completed during the Bush administration. It was Bush’s decision not to retaliate.”

Not to retaliate?

I guess the invasion of Afghanistan and the continuing was on terror is your version of “not” retaliating, and shooting blind missiles translates into retaliating.

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at December 16, 2005 2:06 PM
Comment #103223

I think it can be agreed that neither administration took the threat seriously enough. Who would have, in the days before 9/11.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at December 16, 2005 01:53 PM
==========================================

Stephen,

Clinton told Bush that the number one threat to the security of the United States was OBL. How is that not taking terrorism seriously?

Pre 9/11 the US would have had no world support to militarily persue OBL in sovereign nations, as Bush had in Afghanistan. Of course, Bush only began to look at terrorism after 9/11 and then only long enough so he could go after Iraq… But that’s another story.

Posted by: Dave at December 16, 2005 2:17 PM
Comment #103235

For fun, is there a righty out there who would seriously care to argue from the left’s perspective? I promise to argue to the best of my ability from the right’s.

Posted by Dave at December 16, 2005 09:09 AM
===============================================

No takers? Going going gone…

———————————————————————-

Despite all the bluster, I didn’t think there would be a single righty who could say they understood the lefts position but still disagreed with it. It’s more like the righties are saying “we’re too simple to be able to understand the left’s position”

Posted by: Dave at December 16, 2005 2:42 PM
Comment #103252

Dave-
I was arguing that no-one was serious enough about it because no attack had been that serious. I wasn’t arguing that the Bush and Clinton administrations were at equal levels of seriousness. I think the Clinton administration, despite its failings regarding terrorism, did a great deal to protect Americans from terrorists. It at least responded to the threat, even if it was sometimes wishy-washing on the wrong things.

Luis-
First, the 1998 resolution never authorized the use of force. Ari Fleischer, then spokesman for the president, admitted as much in this linked document As I recall it, Clinton bombed Iraq under the terms of the cease-fire agreement, which provided for military action to resume should Saddam violate the terms of the agreement.

If you recall your Neocon history, you will recall that in 1998, The Project for a New American Century, whose Neocon membership included many members of this administration sent a signed letter to the president protesting what they saw as a light attitude on Saddam.

Lastly, let me ask you this one question: If Bush hadn’t needed a new authorization for war, why did he draft and sign this new one? If he already had legal cover for his war, he didn’t have to do that step over. Trust me, he needed this particular 2002 authorization.

Now, if you have any doubts as to what the the main body of the bill (the meaningful part, legally speaking) says, then look through what I have quoted here, and tell me where you see regime change as an objective, or the 1998 resolution as a basis for this one:

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq”.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to—

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. —


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. — Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. — Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 16, 2005 3:17 PM
Comment #103269

Stephen,

I was just pointing out that debates concerning actions implemented in hindsight mean little. I think that Clinton telling Bush “the number one threat to the security of the United States was OBL” means it was among Clinton’s highest priorities. For example, most righties conveniently forget that 1/1/2000 went off without any terror attacks, despite numerous terrorist attempts. President Clinton spent alot of time on the middle east, too bad he had to waste so much time on a three year long GOP witch hunt because he cheated on his wife with a chubby intern.

Posted by: Dave at December 16, 2005 3:52 PM
Comment #103318

Hi Jack,

“Let me just ask you to be logical.”

If you can show where I haven’t been please do so.

“But what reason would we have to invade Pakistan?”

They posed a far greater threat to us than Iraq did. Right wing “reasoning” says that we went into Iraq becaue they were a big threat to us.

The fact is that Pakistan was far more of a threat.

“And how do you believe you showed a place like Yemen was a greater threat than Iraq?”

There are many military experts who said that Yemen was far more of a threat than Iraq was.

You aren’t willing to accept basic facts let alone accept basic logic.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 16, 2005 8:46 PM
Comment #103319

Hi Luis,

“No Louis, there’s nothing honest about your discussion.”

Please support or retract that Luis.

“You claim that Clinton considered Usama bin Laden to be a far greater threat than Saddam’s Iraq”

He said that he did. Others have said that he did. It’s a fact that Clinton considered Bin Laden to be the greatest threat we faced.

“his statements to the contrary (posted) notwithstanding.”

You have posted no statements to the contrary. You’re not at all honest.

If you’re interested in honest discussion you know where to find me.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 16, 2005 8:49 PM
Comment #103320

Hi Dave,

“They’re not preenlightenment, they’re post realist. The reality of the world has nothing to do with what they believe.”

That is very true and very scary.

Many right wingers are also pre-enlightenment as they pre-enlightnment reasoning with respect to science.

Posted by: l at December 16, 2005 8:51 PM
Comment #103393

Stephen:


Now, if you have any doubts as to what the the main body of the bill (the meaningful part, legally speaking) says, then look through what I have quoted here, and tell me where you see regime change as an objective, or the 1998 resolution as a basis for this one:


I’ll answer that simply by including what you posted above. Section 4 of what you posted refers back to Section 7 of the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998. In turn, Section 7 of the Iraqi Liberation Act refers directly to the removal of Saddam, and the democritization of Iraq. I’ve cut and pasted both Section 4 from the 2002 authorization as well as Section 7 from the 1998 authorization.

Upon reading, you will see that both documents clearly talk about removing Saddam and bringing democracy to Iraq.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).


Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

SEC. 7. ASSISTANCE FOR IRAQ UPON REPLACEMENT OF SADDAM HUSSEIN REGIME.

It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq’s transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq’s foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq’s foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein’s regime

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 17, 2005 2:11 AM
Comment #103423

LouisIVX, et al, re: countries that are threats.

Iraq as a country posed a far greater threat than Afghanistan ever did in it’s entire history.

This argument that Iraq was not a threat is without merit. What is a threat? Let’s set up some clear guidelines.

Threat = capacity + intent.

Was Afghanistan a threat in your mind before 9/11? I suspect not. Your position then is that we can only act on ‘imminent’ and ‘clear’ threats, which in the case of Afghanistan became clear on the morning of September 11th.

You continue to base your arguments on half-baked leftist allusions to the threats posed by any number of nations when you are afriad to come out and admit that there are no countries under your leftist definition that can be threats to the US.

Posted by: esimonson at December 17, 2005 4:13 AM
Comment #103442

Hi esimonson,

“Iraq as a country posed a far greater threat than Afghanistan ever did in it’s entire history.”

Have you forgotten? We were attacked by people based in Afghanistan. Iraq didn’t attack us on 9/11.

“This argument that Iraq was not a threat is without merit.”

It’s axiomatic at this point. Nobody who has a clue would say that Iraq posed a signficant threat to us.

“Threat = capacity + intent.”

That’s true. 1. Capacity: Nill
2. Intent: Nill

Iraq had neither the capicity or the intent to attack us.

“Your position then is that we can only act on ‘imminent’ and ‘clear’ threats, which in the case of Afghanistan became clear on the morning of September 11th.”

My postition is that tying up most of our military resources occupying a country that wasn’t a threat to us is incredibly stupid.

Afghanistan had been warned by Clinton that if we were attacked they were going down.

Al Qaeda is a non-deterrable enemy. Saddam, for all his faults, was quite deterrable.

“You continue to base your arguments on half-baked leftist allusions to the threats posed by any number of nations when you are afriad to come out and admit that there are no countries under your leftist definition that can be threats to the US.”

Please retract those lies about me!

The threat case you just made is incredibly weak. In order to make up for having no case you lie about me and call me a leftist.



Posted by: LouisXIV at December 17, 2005 8:53 AM
Comment #103497

Luis Gonzalez,
The attack on the USS Cole happened in October, 2000, less than one month before the Presidential election. When you attack Clinton for “doing nothing” following the Cole attack, you are revealing your own ignorance. What President Clinton DID do was to direct Richard Clark to come up with a plan to get rid of al_Quaeda once and for all. Clark completed the plan in December, 2000. He presented it to the incoming Bush administration. They ignored it. These facts are all in the public record from the time they occurred.

Regarding the Embassy attacks. Perhaps you remember the Republican agenda in 1998? It was to focus the nation’s attention on the presidential penis, to the exclusion of all other matters. Remember when Clinton ordered the bombings on Kosovo, and the troop deployment there, in response to our NATO treaty obligations? The Republicans accused Clinton of trying to distract everyone from his dick.

Clinton’s military response to the embassy bombings was Operation Infinite Reacha series of cruise missile strikes on terrorist targets in Sudan and Afghanistan on August 20, 1998. Not Iraq. Sudann and Afchanistan. I guess your obvious hatred for all things liberal has caused you to be blind to the facts.

Elie,

The United States military men and women are fighting for World Peace
Welcome to the Brave New World of 1984. War is peace.

Louis XIV,
Don’t hold your breath waiting for Eric to retract a lie, because he has consistently refused to do so.

Posted by: ElliottBay at December 17, 2005 1:22 PM
Comment #103527

Hi Elliot,

I guess it’s an extreme form of hubris…..Many on the right seem to feel that lying a lot is their due or something.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 17, 2005 3:42 PM
Comment #103543

LoisIVX,

Have you forgotten? We were attacked by people based in Afghanistan. Iraq didn’t attack us on 9/11.

Yes, and you avoided my question completely. Was Afghanistan a country that posed an imminent threat before 3,000 people died? Yes or No?

It’s axiomatic at this point. Nobody who has a clue would say that Iraq posed a signficant threat to us.

Again, did Afghanistan pose an imminent, or even significant, threat before 9/11?

Are terrorist attacks like those of 9/11 significant threats? If so, then your assessments of what nations are or aren’t a threat need to be revised. The capacity to perform such terrorist acts are now ubiquitious.

That’s true. 1. Capacity: Nill 2. Intent: Nill

Again, you are incorrect. Every nation on earth has the capacity. Iraq certainly had the capacity to do so. In fact, much more so than Afghanistan and Al Qaeda.

If we are talking about WMD alone, without question, Saddam had the intent to possess WMD. If we are talking about Saddam’s willingness to ally himself with terrorists, he was proven to have done so. In fact, he funded terrorism against Israel.

When we talk about intent, we are talking about a man who attempted to assasinate a President of the United States, and in fact would have carried it out had the assassins not been caught.

We are talking about a man whose intent has been consistant for forty years. A man whose pathological adherence to megolomania and fascist aims is unquestionable.

12 years of sanctions. Undeterred. Oil for food program. Completely corrupted to his own benefit. Eventually sanctions would have been lifted and inspections stopped. Intent would then have been unrestrained by any authority and capacity would increase.

My postition is that tying up most of our military resources occupying a country that wasn’t a threat to us is incredibly stupid.

Afghanistan had been warned by Clinton that if we were attacked they were going down.

Al Qaeda is a non-deterrable enemy. Saddam, for all his faults, was quite deterrable.

Why invade Afghanistan then? Certainly if a country such as Iraq could be contained completely by sanctions and inspections then Afghanistan could be. Why invade at all? Afghanistan had no military to speak of. Certainly no military that could attack US soil. They barely had a handful of tanks, and absolutely no air force at all. Their entire military was composed of light infantry. Hardly a threat to the all powerful US of A. Even after 9/11.

Clinton did no such thing.

“You continue to base your arguments on half-baked leftist allusions to the threats posed by any number of nations when you are afriad to come out and admit that there are no countries under your leftist definition that can be threats to the US.”

Please retract those lies about me!

The threat case you just made is incredibly weak. In order to make up for having no case you lie about me and call me a leftist.

I do not deal in lies, Louis. Perhaps you could spend your energy addressing the case I actually made rather than the strawman you prefer to attack.

Under your definition, there is no nation on earth that can possibly be an ‘imminent threat’ until it attacks us.

If you feel that being called a leftist is an insult rather than merely a categorical label, then what you are possibly saying is that leftists have really really bad ideas that no one wants to be associated with.

Posted by: esimonson at December 17, 2005 4:48 PM
Comment #103545

Hi Eric,

“Again, did Afghanistan pose an imminent, or even significant, threat before 9/11?”

Obviously they did….that fact doesn’t do anything for your case here though.

“The capacity to perform such terrorist acts are now ubiquitious.”

Some countries are greater threats than others. You don’t have a grip on the situation here.

“Iraq certainly had the capacity to do so. In fact, much more so than Afghanistan and Al Qaeda.”

Pakistan was A FAR GREATER THREAT than Iraq…..it wasn’t even close.

“Saddam had the intent to possess WMD.”

Pakistan had WMD. Saddam didn’t. Pakistan sold nuclear weapons to terrorists. Pakistan was a far greater threat.

“We are talking about a man whose intent has been consistant for forty years. A man whose pathological adherence to megolomania and fascist aims is unquestionable.”

He had no intentions of attacking us. You’re spinning out of control here.

“I do not deal in lies, Louis.”

You lied about me I quoted you. Will you please retract your lies about me?

“Under your definition, there is no nation on earth that can possibly be an ‘imminent threat’ until it attacks us.”

There’s another lie. Will you please retract that as it’s not at all true?

“If you feel that being called a leftist is an insult rather than merely a categorical label, then what you are possibly saying is that leftists have really really bad ideas that no one wants to be associated with.”

I’m not a leftist. You’re obssessed with labels. You label people in place of discussing ideas.



Posted by: LouisXIV at December 17, 2005 4:57 PM
Comment #103554

“Clark completed the plan in December, 2000. He presented it to the incoming Bush administration. They ignored it.”

Clinton presented a plan?

Clinton ignored Al Qaeda for eight years, America’s attackers were already in the country, trained, and set to go by the time Bill left office.

Why was Clinton bombing Iraq from 1998 tom 2000 Louis?

Why will you not answer the question.

By the way, from Bill Clinton’s own mouth…he considered Iraq a greater threat than Al Qaeda.

Read it here.

Posted by: Luis Gonzalez at December 17, 2005 5:38 PM
Comment #103556

Hi Luis,

“Clinton ignored Al Qaeda for eight years”

That isn’t at all true.

Clinton said that Bin Laden was the biggest threat we faced. You are unable to deal with the facts of these matters.

I never disputed that Clinton bombed Iraq….OF COURSE HE BOMBED IRAQ.

Your dishonest was in repeatedly stating that Clinton bombed Iraq to get Bin Laden.

Bush has tied up most of our military resources occupying a country that, relatively speaking, wasn’t a threat to us.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 17, 2005 5:44 PM
Comment #103604

esimonson
It sounds like LouisXIV is either John Kerry or his clone. In either case flip-flop comes to mind.

Posted by: tomh at December 17, 2005 10:01 PM
Comment #103658

“Again, did Afghanistan pose an imminent, or even significant, threat before 9/11?”

Obviously they did….that fact doesn’t do anything for your case here though.

It’s my entire case Louis. Is the ‘fact’ that Afghanistan was an imminent threat obvious to you now- in retrospect, or was it obvious to you before the attacks on 9/11? Tell me truthfully, Louis, because you say I am lying about your definition of what nations are a threat to us.

You say that Afghanistan, a country with nearly no military capability whatsoever, was definitely an imminent/significant threat which justifies our invasion, but that Iraq with the largest army in the middle east, led by a maniacal dictator was not a threat at all.

You say instead that Pakistan is really the threat. Should we invade Pakistan then?

You lied about me I quoted you. Will you please retract your lies about me?

You’ll have to quote how I lied about you again, because it’s not clear to me at all how I’ve lied, except that calling someone a liar is easier than argueing your point on the merits.

“Under your definition, there is no nation on earth that can possibly be an ‘imminent threat’ until it attacks us.”

There’s another lie. Will you please retract that as it’s not at all true?

My characterization of your position on imminent threat is entirely correct. So far you have defined nations which pose an imminent threat as only those who have attacked us. Those who have not attacked us are not an ‘imminent threat’.

You are reading entirely from leftist talking points.

Posted by: esimonson at December 18, 2005 2:00 AM
Comment #103679

tomh,

It sounds like LouisXIV is either John Kerry or his clone. In either case flip-flop comes to mind.

But he’s not a leftist, let’s get that clear. Whatever you do don’t *LIE* about what he says— I mean… disagree in any way.

You know, Louis the XIV ‘reigned longer than any other monarch in Europe’? Quite inpressive.

He worked successfully to create an absolutist and centralised state; historians and political scientists often cite him as an example of an enlightened despot. Louis XIV became the archetype of an absolute monarch. wikipedia
Posted by: esimonson at December 18, 2005 2:25 AM
Comment #103831

Hi tomh,

“It sounds like LouisXIV is either John Kerry or his clone. In either case flip-flop comes to mind.”

Please support that or admit you’re lying.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 18, 2005 1:07 PM
Comment #103832

Hi Eric,

“You say that Afghanistan, a country with nearly no military capability whatsoever, was definitely an imminent/significant threat which justifies our invasion, but that Iraq with the largest army in the middle east, led by a maniacal dictator was not a threat at all.”

It’s a fact that Afghanistan was a threat to us. What is your problem with obvious facts?

Iraq wasn’t a significant threat compared to Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somolia.

“You’ll have to quote how I lied about you again, because it’s not clear to me at all how I’ve lied, except that calling someone a liar is easier than argueing your point on the merits.”

Here’s one: “You continue to base your arguments on half-baked leftist allusions to the threats posed by any number of nations when you are afriad to come out and admit that there are no countries under your leftist definition that can be threats to the US.”

That’s an outright lie. I’ve clearly stated that there are several countries that are threats to us and I’ve said so many times on here. I’m not a leftist Either.

Here’s another lie: “Under your definition, there is no nation on earth that can possibly be an ‘imminent threat’ until it attacks us.”

I have no definition such as that. You’re lying again.

“So far you have defined nations which pose an imminent threat as only those who have attacked us. Those who have not attacked us are not an ‘imminent threat’.”

I said no such thing. Why don’t you stop lying about my views?



Posted by: LouisXIV at December 18, 2005 1:15 PM
Comment #103833

Hi Eric,

” Whatever you do don’t *LIE* about what he says— I mean… disagree in any way.”

Why are you being so dishonest?

Why not go in for honest debate?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 18, 2005 1:18 PM
Comment #103835

Hi Eric,

“You are reading entirely from leftist talking points.”

I’m doing nothing of the sort.

You’re lying again. Are you afraid of honset debate? Is it that you have no case so you lie all the time instead of discussing ideas? Are your ideas so bad that you have to lie all the time to make up for them?

Please stop lying about my views. Is it unreasonable of me to request that you not lie about me every time you post to me?

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 18, 2005 1:21 PM
Comment #103930

LouisXIV,

Please support that or admit you’re lying… That’s an outright lie… Here’s another lie… You’re lying again… Why don’t you stop lying about my views?… Why are you being so dishonest?… Why not go in for honest debate?… You’re lying again. Are you afraid of honset debate? Is it that you have no case so you lie all the time instead of discussing ideas? Are your ideas so bad that you have to lie all the time to make up for them?

Please stop lying about my views. Is it unreasonable of me to request that you not lie about me every time you post to me?

Actually, you seem to be rather fond of lies. Maybe you need to define what a lie actually is, because you seem to be fuzzy on the concept.

It’s a fact that Afghanistan was a threat to us. What is your problem with obvious facts?

Iraq wasn’t a significant threat compared to Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somolia.

Ok, you’ve proven that you can go around the point easily enough. I think I have been very patient in waiting for some honest debate from you so let me ask it once again: Did Afghanistan pose an imminent threat that would have justified invasion before 9/11? Yes or No?

Until you answer that question I will assume that I am perfectly correct in saying that your definition of Afghanistan as an imminent threat is based soley on the fact that they attacked us on 9/11.

Posted by: esimonson at December 18, 2005 5:23 PM
Comment #103937

Hi Eric,


“Actually, you seem to be rather fond of lies.”

I don’t suppose you have the integrity to support or retract that.

“Maybe you need to define what a lie actually is, because you seem to be fuzzy on the concept.”

That’s not at all true. I know perfectly well what a lie is.

What is your problem with honest discourse Eric?

“Until you answer that question I will assume that I am perfectly correct in saying that your definition of Afghanistan as an imminent threat is based soley on the fact that they attacked us on 9/11.”

I have stated several times that the threat Afghanistan posed was obvious. The Taliban had been put on notice that if anything happened to us in the way of terrorism on our soil they were going down.

Do you have a case or are you going to just keep asking me if Afghanistan was a threat?

Iraq was far less of a threat to us then Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Somolia, and Iran.

It’s axiomatic to say that Afghanistan was a threat.

It’s axiomatic to say that Afghanistan was a threat.

It’s axiomatic to say that Afghanistan was a threat.

It’s axiomatic to say that Afghanistan was a threat.

Can you aknowledge that Afghanistan was a threat and go in for honest discussion?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 18, 2005 5:55 PM
Comment #103973

LouisXIV,

“Actually, you seem to be rather fond of lies.”

I don’t suppose you have the integrity to support or retract that.

I fully stand behind it. As I understand your definition of what a lie is, virtually everything you’ve said about my position is a lie.

“Maybe you need to define what a lie actually is, because you seem to be fuzzy on the concept.”

That’s not at all true. I know perfectly well what a lie is.

What is your problem with honest discourse Eric?

Could you humor me by giving me a precise definition of what a lie is? Maybe with a specific reference to how I have lied? (Not just stating that I have but actually defining and explaining it.)

“Until you answer that question I will assume that I am perfectly correct in saying that your definition of Afghanistan as an imminent threat is based soley on the fact that they attacked us on 9/11.”

I have stated several times that the threat Afghanistan posed was obvious. The Taliban had been put on notice that if anything happened to us in the way of terrorism on our soil they were going down.

Do you have a case or are you going to just keep asking me if Afghanistan was a threat?

Cute. But I wonder if it qualifies as a lie? Maybe you could read the question again because you are demonstrating that you do not understand what I asked you.

Did Afghanistan pose an imminent threat that would have justified invasion before 9/11? Yes or No?

You don’t have to answer my question if you don’t want to but don’t lie about what I asked you.

Iraq was far less of a threat to us then Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Somolia, and Iran.

It’s axiomatic to say that Afghanistan was a threat.

It’s axiomatic to say that Afghanistan was a threat.

It’s axiomatic to say that Afghanistan was a threat.

It’s axiomatic to say that Afghanistan was a threat.

Can you aknowledge that Afghanistan was a threat and go in for honest discussion?

We cannot have an honest discussion when you refuse to be truthful about the discussion we are having. I didn’t ask you if Afghanistan was a merely a threat, I asked you if Afghanistan was an imminent threat that would have justified invasion before 9/11? How hard is that to understand?

You have maligned my character and accused me of lying because I said your position was that only countries that have attacked us are imminent threats which would justify an invasion. The least you can do is answer the simple question I put forward in this honest discussion, yet you keep avoiding it. I can’t help but think that your avoidance is due to the fact that you realize that you are completely and utterly wrong and caught in your own lies.


Posted by: esimonson at December 18, 2005 9:17 PM
Comment #103988

Eric,
I am still waiting for you to back up your baseless assertion about P Diddy’s get out the vote campaign. Either back it up with something resembling a fact, or be labelled a liar.

Posted by: ElliottBay at December 18, 2005 10:25 PM
Comment #104000

Hi Eric,

“I fully stand behind it.”

You can’t support it though can you?

“virtually everything you’ve said about my position is a lie.”

If that’s so then you’ll provide examples? It’s not true and you lack the integrity to retract it don’t you?

“Could you humor me by giving me a precise definition of what a lie is?”

A false statement with intent to decieve.

“Did Afghanistan pose an imminent threat that would have justified invasion before 9/11? Yes or No?”

It was an immenent threat. Attacking Afghanstistan was justified.

“I didn’t ask you if Afghanistan was a merely a threat”

Actually you did. Here is what you said “Was Afghanistan a country that posed an imminent threat before 3,000 people died? Yes or No?”

Before that you said “Was Afghanistan a threat in your mind before 9/11? I suspect not.”

You asked if Afghanistan was a threat before 9/11 several times and now you’re being dishonest. Dishonesty is a pattern with you.

“You have maligned my character and accused me of lying because I said your position was that only countries that have attacked us are imminent threats which would justify an invasion.”

I have done no such thing. You don’t seem capable of honesty. The fact is that you’ve been doing a considerable amount of lying about me.

“You continue to base your arguments on half-baked leftist allusions to the threats posed by any number of nations when you are afriad to come out and admit that there are no countries under your leftist definition that can be threats to the US.”

That is a lie. I am not afraid to come out and admit there are countries that are threats to us. I’VE LISTED COUNTRIES THAT ARE THREATS TO US MANY TIMES ON HERE.

Here’s another of your lies: ““Under your definition, there is no nation on earth that can possibly be an ⩭minent threat⠵ntil it attacks us.”

I have no such definition.

Here’s another of your lies: ““You are reading entirely from leftist talking points.”

I have not maligned your character. You have maligned your character by lying a lot. I merely pointed out the obvious.

Is it possible to have an honest discussion with you? Can you type a whole post to me without lying? I’m guessing that you can’t type an honest post but I’d be pleased if you proved me wrong.

Iraq wasn’t a threat to us compared to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Iran, and Somolia.






Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 12:03 AM
Comment #104070

LouisXIV,

“I fully stand behind it.”

You can’t support it though can you?

That you call all disagreement with you lies? It is a true statement that stands on it’s own.

“virtually everything you’ve said about my position is a lie.”

If that’s so then you’ll provide examples? It’s not true and you lack the integrity to retract it don’t you?

Why should I provide an example when you will not?

“Could you humor me by giving me a precise definition of what a lie is?”

A false statement with intent to decieve.

Ah, you mean saying something to lead someone to believe something is true when it isn’t? Like the following quote? (Quote #1)

“Did Afghanistan pose an imminent threat that would have justified invasion before 9/11? Yes or No?”

[Quote #1] It was an immenent threat. Attacking Afghanstistan was justified.

You see you have only partially answered. Is this an effort to deceive Louis? What is your intent here?

You have some sort of problem answering directly don’t you? Let’s see, you call me a liar for disagreeing with you and stating my opinion, then I ask you a question, which you still haven’t answered, and then you call me a liar again. Pretty honest discussion there huh?

Now your answer, while entertaining, is quite prevaricating in it’s dissemblance. For the sake of honest argument I will attempt once again to get you to be truthful.

Let’s focus on the before 9/11 part of my question which you refuse to answer.

You have replied in the affirmative that Afghanistan was an imminent threat. We’ve got that part, you don’t need to answer it again.

What I want to know is was it a threat before they attacked us? i.e. before 9/11? i.e. before 3,000 people died?

I didn’t ONLY ask if Afghanistan is a threat…

“I didn?t ask you if Afghanistan was a merely a threat”

Actually you did. Here is what you said “Was Afghanistan a country that posed an imminent threat before 3,000 people died? Yes or No?”

Before that you said “Was Afghanistan a threat in your mind before 9/11? I suspect not.”

You asked if Afghanistan was a threat before 9/11 several times and now you’re being dishonest. Dishonesty is a pattern with you.

I asked every time and yet you did not answer. Who is being dishonest?

ElliotBay,

I am still waiting for you to back up your baseless assertion about P Diddy’s get out the vote campaign. Either back it up with something resembling a fact, or be labelled a liar.

What no accusation of hatred? You will definately have to copy your comment so that I can read it, I don’t know what you said, Elliot. Honest. I don’t always have time to read every single comment. …or you could just keep calling me a liar. Personal attacks are ok too.

What was my baseless assertion about P. Diddy? I am not going to go searching throught the last four hundred comments in my last four or five posts.

If I remember correctly that was the ‘Vote or Die’ campaign. What does that mean exactly, Elliot? Since you know maybe you could enlighten me and if I am wrong I will admit it.

I think this thread will stay open a bit longer, as you can see Louis and I are playing tag you’re a liar. I’ll check a few more times. I promise.

Posted by: esimonson at December 19, 2005 5:29 AM
Comment #104076

Louis,

By your definition, here’s an example of you lying about me:

For your own good I recomend that you strive for clear thought. I suspect that all that extreme spin you engage in is rotting your brain.

Then here’s an example of you calling someone else a liar for essentially saying that you are spinning:

Hi Jay,

“Louis, accusing Eric of spinning for the right is a little like calling the kettle black, isn?t it?”

Please support or retract that statement.

If you have no examples of what you accused me of you’ll admit that you’re lying here?

Now what are you talking about here. Louis? Honestly. Exactly how did Jay lie? And how is what jay said a lie and what you said not a lie?

Well?

Posted by: esimonson at December 19, 2005 5:39 AM
Comment #104079

LouisXIV,

You have a habit of calling everyone you disagree with a liar. By your standard of what a lie is here’s a few more examples of you lying:

“Those who savagely and libelously castigated Bush”

“Savagely” and “libelously” coming from you is a bit ironic.

“Savage” and “libelous” are your middle names aren’t they?

Being a right wing spinmaster doesn’t give you much time for self reflection does it?

Will you be retracting these statements about me, Louis? By your definition, these are lies. In fact, the watchblog manager had to repremand you for engaging in personal attacks.

LouisXIV, dispense witht the personal attacks and observe our Critique the Message, Not the Messenger policy or lose your privilege to comment here.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at December 17, 2005 04:52 PM

All I have to do is stroll through the comments you’ve made in the last few days and — here again I find you calling yet someone else a liar for stating their opinion:

Hi Jay,

You haven’t supported your accusation. Will you please retract it?

I’m starting to doubt that you have the integrity to do either.

“How liberal of you.”

You accused me of something without any basis for doing so. What does “liberal” have to do with that?

Why not show some integrity and support or retract what you’ve accused me of?

Don’t bother calling me “liberal”, just show a little integrity.

And again questioning someone else’s ‘integrity’:

Hi rahdigly,

You think our troops should be dying to support terrorists and you’re telling me I should be ashamed.

Do you lack the integrity to tell me what I should be ashamed of?

Are these examples of ‘honest’ debate? Where you feel the need to belittle those who disagree with you and call them liars?

Are you seeing a patten here? Do you have the integrity to retract these statements Louis?

Posted by: esimonson at December 19, 2005 6:09 AM
Comment #104085

Hi Eric,

“Why should I provide an example when you will not?”

You accused me of something and you won’t support it. You don’t have enough integrity to engage in honest discussion.

“You have some sort of problem answering directly don’t you?”

No. You’re lying as usual.

“Let’s see, you call me a liar for disagreeing with you and stating my opinion”

No. You’re lying as usual. I did no such thing.

“What I want to know is was it a threat before they attacked us?”

I have stated that they were a threat many times Eric. In one post I stated it four times in a row.

If you’re interested in honest discussion let me know OK? So far you’ve shown yourself compltetely incapable of honest discussion.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 7:55 AM
Comment #104087

Hi Eric,

“Then here’s an example of you calling someone else a liar for essentially saying that you are spinning:”

It’s an example of saying: “support or retract what you’ve accused me of”.

I was accused of spin. I requested that the charge be supported.

You don’t have a clue about the notion of having enough integrity to support accusations.

If you’re interested in honest discussion you’ll let me know?

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 7:59 AM
Comment #104088

Hi Eric,

“You have a habit of calling everyone you disagree with a liar.”

I have no such habit. You seem unable to post to me without lying about me.

“Will you be retracting these statements about me, Louis?”

No. You frequently engage in savage and libelous (by your definition) attacks.

“Are these examples of ‘honest’ debate? Where you feel the need to belittle those who disagree with you and call them liars?”

Those are examples of honest debate. I was asking people who accused me to support their assertions.

Honest debate involves supporting assertions and none of the people in your examples have done so.

If you’re interested in honest debate you’ll let me know?

Do you even know what honest debate is?

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 8:04 AM
Comment #104101

Hi Eric,

“I asked every time and yet you did not answer. Who is being dishonest?”

It is obviously you who is being dishonest. I’ve answered your question (was Afghanistan a threat) over and over and over and over.

It’s incredible that you’re still lying about this matter after all the times I’ve answered that question.

“You continue to base your arguments on half-baked leftist allusions to the threats posed by any number of nations when you are afriad to come out and admit that there are no countries under your leftist definition that can be threats to the US.”

That’s an examples of your lying Eric. You’ve tried to distort and deflect and lie your way around the obvious here.

“Under your definition, there is no nation on earth that can possibly be an ⩭minent threat⠵ntil it attacks us.”

That’s another example Eric. You’ve tried to distort, deflect, and lie your way around the obvious truth here.

“You are reading entirely from leftist talking points.”

That’s another example Eric. You’ve tried to distort, deflect, and lie your way around the obvious truth here.

If you care to engage in honest discussion let me know. So far you’ve shown that you have no interest in honest discussion.



Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 8:38 AM
Comment #104157

All:

Some are better left to debate with themselves.

Posted by: wisdom at December 19, 2005 10:24 AM
Comment #104238

Louis,

Instead of calling simonson a liar, reference the post itself as a lie. E.g. “Saying that I said “B” when I really said “A” is a lie or is it a lack of understanding?”
Maybe that will get you by. Of course why his posts aren’t getting commented on is a mystery…

Posted by: Dave at December 19, 2005 1:14 PM
Comment #104431

LouisXIV,

Heh. If you were interested in honest discussion you wouldn’t be accusing others of lying for repeating your statements back to you.

“Then here’s an example of you calling someone else a liar for essentially saying that you are spinning:”

It’s an example of saying: “support or retract what you’ve accused me of”.

I was accused of spin. I requested that the charge be supported.

You don’t have a clue about the notion of having enough integrity to support accusations.

If you’re interested in honest discussion you’ll let me know?

I am not going to let this go Louis. You accused jay of lying:

You said:

Hi Jay,

“Louis, accusing Eric of spinning for the right is a little like calling the kettle black, isn?t it?”

Please support or retract that statement.

If you have no examples of what you accused me of you’ll admit that you’re lying here?

Posted by LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 07:36 AM

Clearly, you did call him a liar.

The example for which you asked, your own statement, was this comment:

For your own good I recomend that you strive for clear thought. I suspect that all that extreme spin you engage in is rotting your brain.

Posted by LouisXIV at December 14, 2005 09:26 PM

In which you accused me of spin. Now if you can accuse Jay of lying for saying you were ‘spinning’ what does that make you for saying I was ‘spinning’?

The reason I will not just let this go is that your continous charges of ‘lying’ are not the same as saying someone is wrong. And it is not the same as saying someone’s ideas are wrong. You are free to attack ‘right-wingers’ and the ‘right-wing’, and my position on the war, even to say I am wrong and my ideas are evil, that I support fascism, et al, OR hopefully you argue about political details in particular, but your charges of lying are really just an attempt to bully. It isn’t an argument, it isn’t even about anything that is at issue. —and you are wrong to boot.

Let me repeat, the whole reason I am here is to engage in political debate, not be called a liar for doing so.

I don’t expect to be called a ‘liar’ again by you or anyone for stating my opinion, unless I personally attack you in a way that is offensive to the watchblog standards. In which case I would apologize to you personally.

And I have apologized before, by the way, when I have regretted some remark or felt I went over the line. So it’s not just an empty promise.

Posted by: esimonson at December 19, 2005 5:11 PM
Comment #104444

Hi Eric,

“Now if you can accuse Jay of lying for saying you were ‘spinning’ what does that make you for saying I was ‘spinning’?”

I asked Jay to support what he accused me of or admit that he was lying. He chose the latter not me.

“I don’t expect to be called a ‘liar’ again by you or anyone for stating my opinion”

I have not called you a liar for stating your opinion. I merely quoted examples of your lies and asked you to stop.

Here again are examples of your lies. I’m not saying your opinions are lies. I’m stating as a fact that these are lies:

“You continue to base your arguments on half-baked leftist allusions to the threats posed by any number of nations when you are afriad to come out and admit that there are no countries under your leftist definition that can be threats to the US.”

That’s an examples of your lying Eric. You’ve tried to distort and deflect and lie your way around the obvious here.

“Under your definition, there is no nation on earth that can possibly be an ⩭minent threat⠵ntil it attacks us.”

That’s another example Eric. You’ve tried to distort, deflect, and lie your way around the obvious truth here.

“You are reading entirely from leftist talking points.”

That’s another example Eric. You’ve tried to distort, deflect, and lie your way around the obvious truth here.




Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 5:25 PM
Comment #104449

Hi Eric,

“It isn’t an argument, it isn’t even about anything that is at issue. —and you are wrong to boot.”

Your lies aren’t an argument. Your lies are lies.

I’m not wrong about them. They are clearly lies. Here are some examples:

“You continue to base your arguments on half-baked leftist allusions to the threats posed by any number of nations when you are afriad to come out and admit that there are no countries under your leftist definition that can be threats to the US”

“Under your definition, there is no nation on earth that can possibly be an ⩭minent threat⠵ntil it attacks us.”

“You are reading entirely from leftist talking points.”

Why don’t you stop lying, retract those lies, or both and we’ll start over again?



Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 5:30 PM
Comment #104451

Hi Eric,

“It isn’t an argument, it isn’t even about anything that is at issue. —and you are wrong to boot.”

Your lies aren’t an argument. Your lies are lies.

I’m not wrong about them. They are clearly lies. Here are some examples:

“You continue to base your arguments on half-baked leftist allusions to the threats posed by any number of nations when you are afriad to come out and admit that there are no countries under your leftist definition that can be threats to the US”

“Under your definition, there is no nation on earth that can possibly be an ⩭minent threat⠵ntil it attacks us.”

“You are reading entirely from leftist talking points.”

Why don’t you stop lying, retract those lies, or both and we’ll start over again?



Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 5:31 PM
Comment #104528

LouisXIV,

“You continue to base your arguments on half-baked leftist allusions to the threats posed by any number of nations when you are afriad to come out and admit that there are no countries under your leftist definition that can be threats to the US”

“Under your definition, there is no nation on earth that can possibly be an iminent threat until it attacks us.”

“You are reading entirely from leftist talking points.”

Why don’t you stop lying, retract those lies, or both and we’ll start over again?

Well it’s too bad you cannot refrain from this kind of name calling. You have a double standard for calling ‘the right’ liars. It’s too bad.

You still haven’t answered my original question either and I think I know why. You realize that you are wrong and can’t admit it. It’s ok. You don’t have to. I release you of that burden. One day you will realize that it doesn’t matter that much and be able to safely allow others to contradict your beliefs without feeling as though you must suppress them. One day.

Part of what drives many ideological people, is this feeling that anytime someone attacks their ideas they feel as though they are being attacked personally. It’s natural. We are all human beings. But you have to learn how to separate your beliefs from who you are. For one thing you are incorrectly attributing the opinion of others.

When I ask you about whether or not Afghanistan was a threat before 9/11, you do not answer my question. Is there a reason for this? Do you not want to admit that Afghanistan was not an imminent threat in your opinion until 9/11?

Mull it over. I’m sure you can come to a decision to answer at some point.

You insist on calling me a liar for characterizing your views as leftist. This is my opinion. Thus you are calling my opinion a lie. I would gladly change my opinion, but you would have to give me more information that would contradict the assessment I have already made from reviewing your comments. I admit that the possibility exists that you are a not a leftist, but that would mean you are probably a far-right conspiracy theorist who also hate Bush and believe he is part of the illuminati etc. Otherwise, I have to conclude from your opinions that you hate conservatives and like liberals. Your comments continuously have bad things to say about Bush and conservatives, but not about the left.

Posted by: esimonson at December 19, 2005 7:19 PM
Comment #104536

Hi Eric,

“Well it’s too bad you cannot refrain from this kind of name calling.”

I have not engaged in name calling. I’ve pointed out where you’ve lied.

“You have a double standard for calling ‘the right’ liars. It’s too bad.”

I do not. I refer to lies as “lies”.

“You still haven’t answered my original question either and I think I know why.”

I have answered the question many times. I answered it 3 times in a row in just one of several posts in which I answered it. Why are you still lying about this matter?

“Part of what drives many ideological people, is this feeling that anytime someone attacks their ideas they feel as though they are being attacked personally.”

While there is truth in that it has no bearing on what we’re discussing.

“When I ask you about whether or not Afghanistan was a threat before 9/11, you do not answer my question.”

I have answered your question. I will quote myself answering your question: 1. “Obviously they did…” 2. “It was an immenent threat. Attacking Afghanstistan was justified.” 3. “It’s a fact that Afghanistan was a threat to us.” 4. “It’s axiomatic to say that Afghanistan was a threat.” 5. “It’s axiomatic to say that Afghanistan was a threat.”
6. “It’s axiomatic to say that Afghanistan was a threat.” 7. “It’s axiomatic to say that Afghanistan was a threat.”


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 7:39 PM
Comment #104538

Hi Eric,

“Do you not want to admit that Afghanistan was not an imminent threat in your opinion until 9/11?”

I have said at least 7 times that it was a threat before 9/11. Why are you still lying about this matter? Are you obsessed with telling the same lies over and over and over and over and over…

“You insist on calling me a liar for characterizing your views as leftist.”

That’s not what I used as examples of your lies. Here are the examples I used: “You continue to base your arguments on half-baked leftist allusions to the threats posed by any number of nations when you are afriad to come out and admit that there are no countries under your leftist definition that can be threats to the US⊊
╮der your definition, there is no nation on earth that can possibly be an iminent threat until it attacks us.⼯p>

♯u are reading entirely from leftist talking points.⼯p>

“I admit that the possibility exists that you are a not a leftist, but that would mean you are probably a far-right conspiracy theorist who also hate Bush and believe he is part of the illuminati etc.”

That’s complete bullshit. I’m not a leftist and I’m not a conspiracy theorist.

Would you care to quit posting bullshit about me and discuss issues?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 19, 2005 7:45 PM
Comment #104885

All:

Stirring cowpies increases the stink. It is best just to walk around quickly.

Posted by: Wisdom at December 20, 2005 12:44 PM
Comment #105201

Eric,

How typical. You refuse to acknowlege your own statements. Have you told so many lies that you can’t remember each one?

Posted by: ElliottBay at December 20, 2005 11:07 PM
Comment #105570

All,

>

HUH???? Good God!!!!!

Posted by: Lug at December 21, 2005 2:43 PM
Post a comment