At one point during the civility discussion from Sunday, Paul DeMarco suggested that:
… if you posed some of your introductory columns as an either/or (i.e
should smoking be allowed or banned in public places) and allowed us to
vote (preferably in a way that the vote tallies were by name as in a
legislature) then we could get a better sense of the mood of the blog
as a whole rather than only that of the loudest contributors.
There’s something to that, although what interests me more than the idea of a "vote" per se is the debate that precedes the vote. That is what distinquishes the deliberative, republican approach from pure, government-by-plebiscite democracy. And that’s what I want to encourage here. A vote, by definition, is either-or, and therefore encourages simplistic, yes-or-no "answers" that usually lack the nuances necessary to address the complexities of real problems in the real world.
Real solutions — the kind that unite a community rather than dividing it — result from consensus, whether it is arrived at by a formal process or not.
So, just as an exercise, let’s try an issue. I see that in my absence my colleagues ran a sort of brief point–counterpoint on the fighting in Lebanon. The exchange was between very young people, and therefore engaged the subject along the lines of the sort of yes/no dichotomy that we’ve trained the present generation to embrace as the only approach.
Let’s see if we can take it to another level. For my part, I gladly defend Israel’s right — nay, duty — to protect itself and its citizens from forces that seek no practical end beyond killing Jews. At the same time, I recognize the moral as well as practical problems presented in trying to destroy an enemy who not only has no compunctions about hiding among noncombatants, but who gains what victories it can from the broadcast images of dead women and children.
What say you? What is the solution? Is there one?
Or should I start with something easier?
Related Posts
From the beginning, Zionism accepted the fact of violence in carrying out its objectives. David Ben-Gurion comments further on these objectives before 1948:
I am not trying to excuse Hezbollah, but I think we should see this conflict in its whole context. Israel should be held accountable to justice, just as much as Hezbollah. In fact, I am personally convinced that it is Israel’s use of force, rooted in the history of Zionism, that has been a big factor in breeding the Arab reaction of force. “He who takes the sword will die by the sword.” (Jesus)
What is the answer? Force both sides to the negotiating table, and read them the riot act. Including Israel.
That last paragraph was a bit too short. The issues are very complex, I realize. But to put it in a nutshell, both sides must be called to justice.
Brad, I’m not sure I’m sufficiently knowledgable on this issue to spell out an informed plan for this mess. Obviously Hezbolah bears much of the responsibility for the violence given their sneak attack to capture the Isreali soldiers. That was certainly provocative and warranted a response of some sort from Isreal. But what I don’t know is whether there was more provocation than that that involved 5 Isreali solders. Were there rocket attacks? How embedded are the Hezbolah soldiers within the Lebonese civilian population? Could that be exagerated by the Isralies for propoganda reasons? How supportive are the people of Lebanon to Hezbolah? Are there moderate factions within Hezbolah that could be approached? Were there other,less intense options available to Isreal short of the all-out assault that has so far claimed nearly 1,000 civilians?
The press should offer us a few more answers to these and other questions. Otherwise anything I might offer would merely be a shot in the dark.
As a provisional solution I would suggest a solution that would immediately stop the carnage. Then we should encourage a dialog among moderate factions to bring about a broad cease fire.
This isn’t much but since I so little about some important details. For now, I’ll mostly just sit on the fence, not take sides and wait for more information from the State and other media outlets.
Just a few facts:
1. Israel left Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza about 6 months ago. This didn’t stop Hezbollah and Hamas from continuing their very frequent rocket attacks and suicide bombings. What if Greenwood and Aiken shot rockets at Columbia every day. Would people in Columbia be expected to just sit there without defending themselves?
2. The stated cause for Israel’s action is the 3 kidnappings. If these are not sufficient cause for Israel’s actions (as Ms. Hassan asserts in the counterpoint piece), then why don’t the Hezbos and Hamas simply return them? That would fatally undermine Israel’s justification and force Israel to retreat.
3. All those “innocent” civilians very often aren’t innocent at all but murderous terrorists and all that “civilian” property being destroyed is heavily in use as terrorist staging areas. Here for example is video of one such “innocent”. Fortunately negative reinforcement is almost immediate.
4. [WARNING: Both links in this paragraph include photos of dead bodies. Don’t click if this might offend you] Here’s a great piece on how the Hezbos milk the destruction caused by their hiding behind dresses and diapers when carrying out their attacks. Don’t miss the follow-up piece either, starring Mr. Green Helmet doing exactly the same things 10 years ago.
5. Before believing everything the drive-by media show you on TV, anyone interested in the real truth should watch this video about Pallywood. 18 minutes with a broadband connection showing you exactly how those tearjerkers about those poor “victims” are really made. A real eye-opener. It’s a pretty safe assumption that very little showing the Hezbo side is not either staged or entirely made-up.
There really is no moral equivalency in this fight between the two sides. How many Israelis have been found to strap plastic explosives on a drugged up child and sent him into a crowded restaurant to kill Muslims? The Jews have, to me, been amazingly tolerant of the suicide bombers up to now. And also, this is not a fight between 2 sovereign nations. Hezbollah consists primarily of Iranian and Syrian paid troublemakers, trained to kill and sent by the Mullahs of Iran to attack Israel. Word has it that most of the wounded Hezzies are now in Syrian, not Lebanese, hospitals. This is so one-sided re: who has the moral high ground that even Arab nations have condemned Hezbollah. That is almost unheard of in modern history.
The moral equivalency crowd won’t like this but isn’t it amazing that Moslem nations, loaded with oil revenues, don’t spend their riches on improving the quality of life of their populations by building more housing, health care, schools, universities, let alone highways, auto plants (do the Arabs make a car?), and other venues of general need? No, they spend their riches on building and acquiring weaponry, and not weapons of defense, but weapons like long range missiles that are offensive. Given that their cultish beliefs call for the killing of everyone who does not practice their cult, this is not going to end soon or easily. What is happening in Iraq and Lebanon is analogous to the first and second inning of a ball game. When it’s over someday in the bottom of the ninth inning, we better make sure Israel wins and we win.
Herb –
I am holding back a blog entry on this topic while a shorter version is being considered for the dead-tree version of The State. In the meantime…
The Middle East has always been a rough one where justice is enforced by a spear, an arrow, or a bullet. The Jews are simply exercising their long-standing rights to establish a home in the area since their attempts to live elsewhere have not been really successful. That area has always been a rough one where justice is enforced by a spear, an arrow, or a bullet. Zionism is that move to create their homeland; that they had warriors and weapons to enforce their rights in 1948 is what allowed them to survive. You may recall that on their independence day they had to fight to secure the borders that the international community, through the UN, had agreed to.
You overlook the fact that negotiation is possible only when
Let’s look at some facts:
Dave and LexWolf have it right. Unfortunately, Israel won’t have the time to eradicate Hizbullah this time around either.
Finally, in 1968 Eric Hoffer, longshoreman philosopher, wrote a column for the LA Times in which he pointed out Israel’s Peculiar Position: Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world. It’s still true today.
There is no solution.
I do find the U.S. response to this situation confusing. We seem to be willing to go in and invade a country on the suspicion of
WMD’s being available (but not used). Yet, when one of our closest allies is being targeted daily with rockets, we basically sit on the sidelines cheering them on.
We have over Iraqi 5,000 chemical and biological weapons stored in warehouses awaiting destruction by incineration.
Over 50 of the SCUD missiles deployed with biological weapons in the 1990 Gulf War were never found by UN inspectors, so they are somewhere.
We know that Red China sold a complete uranium enrichment facility to Iraq in the 1990s, paid for with black market oil sales run through bribed UN officials.
Democrats sitting on intelligence and defense committees made floor speeches in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 which convinced 95% of Democrats to vote for war with Iraq to remove the WMD.
The WMD were there.
Saddam trained and funded Al Qaeda bombers of the WTC and hijackers.
Lee,
Would you be trying so hard to make Bush’s war a joint Republican-Democrat effort if things were going well? Just wondering…
Here’s today’s news on how well America is perceived by our grateful friends in Iraq:
8/4/2006 (AP) BAGHDAD, Iraq – Hundreds of thousands of Shiites chanting “Death to
Israel” and “Death to America” marched through the streets of Baghdad’s biggest Shiite district Friday in a massive show of support for Hezbollah in its battle against Israel.
Protesters set fire to American and Israeli flags, as well as effigies of
President George W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, showing the men with Dracula teeth. “Saddam and Bush, Two Faces of One Coin” was scrawled on Bush’s effigy.
“…by building more housing, health care, schools…”
Dave, to a great extent, Hamas has provided these things, hence their popularity among rank-and-file Palestinians. But you are absolutely correct in that the regimes in many of these countries are propped up by oil revenues while letting their citizens suffer. Terror leaders in turn exploit this rage for their own ends.
Israel has the right to defend itself, and these arguments that keep popping up about the “proportionality” of Israel’s response are ludicrous.
Finally, I think Kathleen Parker’s column in today’s edition of The State is the clearest explanation I’ve yet seen for where responsibility for the carnage lies.
Hezbollah has two primary objectives:
1) Transform Lebanon into an Islamic republic
2) Combat the 1982 Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon
Which of those two objectives does anyone seriously believe can be halted via diplomacy?
What common ground could they have on which to negotiate?
More facts:
—
An Associated Press count shows that at least 530 Lebanese have been killed, including 454 civilians confirmed dead by the Health Ministry, 26 Lebanese soldiers and at least 50 Hezbollah guerrillas.
Since the fighting started, 72 Israelis have been killed, 42 soldiers and 29 civilians.
—
Killing nine civilians for every combatant is what has caused the tide of public opinion to shift against the Israelis. It certainly doesn’t make a peaceful resolution easier.
Glad to see Lee sticks to the issue at hand.
As an issue on this blog (Hizbollah/Isreal), we would have an easier time settling the old Carolina/Clemson argument before we could crack this nut.
The experts can make no progress, why should we try? It will only devolve into a shouting match.
Doug –
Tony Blair gave a speech Tuesday at the Los Angeles World Affairs Council describing the war we’re in, how and why we’ve been attacked for some time, and why we must prevail. In Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East in general. He even talks about what’s up with Lebanon.
I did a blog entry on it this morning. You can read it here.
Among his important points are that we didn’t start this war against Reactionary Islam, but we have to finish it if we are to survive as a culture, as nations, as free folks. He points out that to convert Moderate Islam to its worldview, Reactionary Islam cleverly seized upon the notion of attacking the West in hopes of provoking a response that would radicalize the Moderates.
What is the context of our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq? He notes “We could have chosen security as the battleground. But we didn’t. We chose values. We said we didn’t want another Taleban or a different Saddam. Rightly, in my view, we realised that you can’t defeat a fanatical ideology just by imprisoning or killing its leaders; you have to defeat its ideas.”
That’s why we’ve committed ourselves to supporting Moderate, Mainstream Islam. “In almost pristine form, the battles in Iraq or Afghanistan became battles between the majority of Muslims in either country who wanted democracy and the minority who realise that this rings the death-knell of their ideology.”
Blair puts Iran’s and Syria’s roles and actions into context before he turns to current events, particularly Israel and its neighbors. He warns that global terrorism means we can’t opt-out even if we wanted to. The world is inter-dependent. To be engaged is only modern realpolitik. But we only win people to these positions if our policy is not just about interests but about values, not just about what is necessary but about what is right.
It’s an important address that needs to be read in its entirety.
Mike,
I think it is difficult to promote a policy based on “values” while killing civilians
and blowing up bridges that were being used to deliver humanitarian aid.
My personal view is that to change hearts and minds, you need to use compassion and education, not bombs.
Mike C, the events in Isreal are far removed from what the U.S. is doing in Iraq. Sure Blair and Bush would like to link radical Islam with Saddam but the facts don’t support this view. Saddam’s regime was characterized by a brutal, but non-religeous mentality.
The current struggle in Lebanon is between Isreal and Hezbollah and we shouldn’t be dragged into it. My sympathy lies with Isreal (although I don’t think they are completely innocent). But one quagmire is quite enough. The Bush administration’s scare tactics, used to support his failed middle-east policy, have become tiresome.
Bud and Doug –
Did you read Blair’s speech? He does cover the Saddam angle.
I would add that if you’re going to deliver humanitarian aid, you’ve got to kill or capture the bad guys who are in the way.
Don’t fall into the trap of swallowing all the Hizbullah PR. We may well find that the infrastructure damage is bad as is being reported now. The bridges and buildings were targeted to destroy Hizbollah weapons and/or box them in.
BTW, here’s a great graphic where you can see the Hizbullah and Israeli strikes day by day by clicking on the dates on the left. You can also use the controls on the right to switch between terrain and population density views, and see the population by ethnic / religious group. You can see where the Hizbullah rockets hit the West Bank on August 2.
Mike, I am trying to emphasize one side, and one side that my fellow evangelicals often do not see. Too often it seems that they blindly support Israel and everything Israel does; I am not sure of all the reasons, though I suspect that I know some.
I won’t go further into the history of Zionism, but it is worth looking at. Again, as I suggested to Dave on another thread, Whose Promised Land?, by Colin Chapman, is an excellent resource, which also looks at the Biblical claims from a balanced evangelical perspective.
We cannot change history. We cannot, and should not, drive Israel out, any more than any of us are prepared to turn our houses and lands back over to the Native Americans who once lived here.
But we can, by understanding history, by understanding that the principle of self-determination that is so often invoked, but was not applied to Palestine, wronged a whole people. Most of them were put into refugee camps, where they still live today, including Jordan. It is not a pretty chapter in history, and Truman was not particularly happy with the Jewish lobby and the way things unfolded.
Dave and others seem to me (and I want to say this respectfully of their views) have a “cowboy” view of politics; just go in with guns blazing and shoot ’em up. We like Israel, hey they got together and just blew their enemies off the map. David against Goliath. We like that.
No question, Israel has done much more with the land than the Arabs did. But does that make their actions right? We have a powerful Jewish lobby in this country. Does might make right?
Of course, as an evangelical Christian, I am in the dilemma that, as one has put it, “what is good for America is not necessarily good for the kindgom of God”, and vice versa, I might add. Every move of support that the U. S. gives Israel puts pressure and makes life more miserable for my Palestian Christian brothers and sisters. It also makes life much more difficult for American aid workers in the Middle East, especially in the Arab world, and that is where I am involved.
I am in a “Zwickmuehle”, as the Germans say (I suppose that may be where the expression, “between a rock and hard place” comes from).
What I do not understand is why some people cannot have the least bit of compassion, (or at least they don’t seem to) for people who have not had the breaks that they have had. You have wisely differentiated between moderate Islam and radical Islam. Moderate Muslims simply want to live, just like we do. They do not want to kill everybody who doesn’t convert to Islam. In fact, when one gets to know them, most radical Muslims don’t want to do that either. For one thing, they only know what their leaders tell them. For another, they are angry at a system against which they seem powerless to work. I understand that. I AM ANGRY AT IT myself often. Men in our country are getting hooked on Internet porn, and the only thing we are told we can do is just to let the media do its thing. Can’t restrict anything.
Evangelicals cannot (or should not) react like radical Muslims; but we should at least understand where they are coming from. The Jesus way was not the way of power, but the way of service. We don’t do well when we have power, anyway.
Oh well, I am rambling. But I wish someone would understand the Arab suffering that has gone on here; I don’t have the impression that we are doing that. And as for negotiations, I think that the U. S. and the British governments are basically afraid to put pressure on Israel to do justly, because the Jewish lobby is too strong, and now the religious right has too often uncritically joined it. And, we have been working on worsening this mess for over 100 years. We won’t get out of it any time soon. But perhaps, just perhaps, we could try something different.
I may be confusing Luther’s two kingdoms with each other. If so, I retreat. But, as a Christian, I think Jesus has something to say to both sides. And no, I don’t think the Jews are being the better “Christians” right now. I tend to think, and forgive me if I am wrong, that they are as “hard-necked” as the Biblical prophets said they were centuries ago. I am hard-necked myself!
Herb, I have all the compassion in the world for the suffering children, who are cursed with parents who love them less than they hate Israel.
As for anyone who takes up arms in the service of Hezbollah, or Hamas, or al-Qaeda, I have come to the conclusion that there is only one thing to do: Kill them all.
Yes, it’s true, they may never have had much of an opportunity to learn that building one’s life upon hating another group of people is no way for a human being to live. In fact, they’ve had the precise opposite hammered into them for their entire lives, with as little chance to learn anything else as Winston Smith had in 1984.
But when they take up arms against innocent Jews, or Americans, or Sunnis or Shi’as or whoever happens to be walking by, they present a practical, immediate problem that cannot be solved without violence — effective, decisive violence.
They have made it amply clear that there is nothing that can be done to pacify or appease them. There is nothing ambivalent in their message. They will kill as long as they draw breath themselves.
They can throw down their weapons and become noncombatants at any time they choose. But I don’t expect them to do so. And as long as they bear arms with murderous intent, those charged with protecting innocents in Israel, the U.S., the U.K., Iraq or where have you have little choice.
I don’t like saying these things. I don’t like using the word “kill,” particularly not in an active, imperative way. But I’ve turned this thing over and over, and keep coming up with the same conclusion.
I don’t believe in capital punishment. If a prisoner is in your custody, you have the obligation to treat him decently and not kill him. I don’t believe society has the right to take a life under such circumstances. But if a policeman has his weapon drawn, and a criminal points his own gun in the direction of a hostage, the cop must shoot — and shoot to kill.
Almost every other situation is shaded with gray. Can you pass up an opportunity to kill al-Zarqawi because civilians are likely present? Tom Turnipseed would say yes; I would say no. (Of course, Tom probably wouldn’t kill him if he were standing in the middle of a desert alone, so maybe that’s a bad example.)
Anyway, I’ve said enough.
One other thought, Mike. Supposing you could eradicate Hizbollah, would that help? No, because something else will rise up to take its place. Why is that? Because Muslims are such bad people that they will be mean, no matter what? If so, then perhaps the “Final Solution to the Muslim Question” that others seem to constantly suggest, even when they deny it, is the answer.
Maybe the answer lies elsewhere. Maybe a lot, maybe even most, of the Muslim world is not as rotten as we think it is. Maybe a partial answer is that retaliation breeds retaliation that breeds retaliation, etc. Maybe they are rightfully angry at the way they have been treated, and their perception is, we like it that way.
Your piece on Blair and values is good. The problem is, a lot of what we are doing, and what the Muslim world is seeing, does not give a good impression of our values. I know that a lot of people who are blogging here have no problem with porn and its effects, etc. I think differently.
What values do we really communicate that the Muslim world wants? Playboy. Well that is just great. Congratulations to the wonderful West. We have contributed so much to civilization.
OK, we do have some values, which in my humble opinion go back to Christianity, but on the other hand, there are some values that we have that they do not want, at least not in their best moments, even when they do want to look at the same soap operas on satellite TV.
Oh well, I ramble. I don’t have time to do this properly. I just wish we would think beyond the usual standardized answers. Israel are the good guys, Hizbollah are the bad guys. The Israelis should all wear white hats, and the Hizbollah black imamahs on their heads. Then we would know who should get shot . . . .
Brad, the Bush Administration passed up at least two opportunities to kill al-Zarqawi after 9/11 but prior to the invasion of Iraq. He was a known jihadist terrorist operating out of a base in Kurdish controlled Iraq under the no-fly zone.
I don’t think that he was spared because there were civilians endangered.
Again, I urge you to hire an intern who can do proper research if you’re going to continue to write influential columns which will keep the country in a bloodbath.
Mike C. I won’t fall into the Hezbollah PR trap if you don’t fall into the Isreali PR. This just is not our fight. There are many radicals on both sides of the border. Yes, Hezbollah did stir the pot and created a situation that Isreal had to respond to. But Isreal is responsible for creating Hezbollah in the first place when it invaded Lebanon in the 80s. This situation is just too complicated for the U.S. to take sides.
Brad, there are plenty of evil people of all political and religious stripes. Our soldiers who apparently massacred innocent folks in Haditha are regarded by many in the Muslim world as an example of OUR radical culture. They want to kill all American soldiers as a result, in much the same way that you want to kill. This leads to a continuous circle of violence. I say it’s time to bring our troops home and show the world we really do value human life. By remaining in Iraq we simply appear as hypocrits.
Brad,
OK. Sigh. Final solution to the Hizbollah question. I guess just line them up and gas them, or whatever means eradicates them.
But we deal with the symptoms, not the cause of the problem, and whoever we elimnate, another ten will take their place, because we will not see both sides of the suffering.
I don’t know what I would do if we did that–the final solution, I mean. Probably just continue on with my office work. Or maybe go back to Germany and teach Bible, like I did before. I could just forget it.
What I would really like to do is to line up with the Hizbollah and go the gas chambers with them, but would I be identifying with their violence in doing so? Probably. So what do I do?
Nothing. Mary was right, I am a pompous hypocrite. More than he knows.
Meanwhile, heaven weeps.
Over and out, at least on this subject!
I dislike bullies too and abhor the murder of innocents; I hope that the instances of the latter are few and believe that the Israelis are doing their best to minimize the loss of life as they pursue their national defense.
As for Israel’s boundaries I think we have to accept them. For almost sixty years there’s been international agreement, blessed by the UN, as to the territory with minor modifications resulting from wars started by its neighborhoods. Jews have lived in the neighborhood for a bit longer. What we have is the old fait accompli.
Had you followed my link above to UNIFIL fiasco you’d have found that the Israelis have honored the agreement, but UNIFIL has been unable to get the bad guys in Lebanon to. As a result, Israel has periodically send troops across the border to clean up the mess. For a while they even had a mercenary force of Lebanese in the south to keep the riffraff down. When Israel voluntarily pulled out in 2000 in response to UN pressure, Hizbullah claimed it as a great victory, and many Lebanese agreed.
Why should Hizbullah be popular when it employs tactics like this:
Take a look at UNIFIL’s effectiveness and Hizbullah’s murderous tactics. May Jan Rotzanski rest in peace.
For those who believe that a government’s first duty is to defend its citizens, Israel’s actions are entirely correct and overdue. A lot of us believe that this latest incident is a prelude to the upcoming Iran / Israeli war, one that might go a little too fast. Iran owns Hizbullah and has apparently ordered that the long-range missiles not be used. Yet. Iran wants Israel’s destruction, as its current president has made abundantly clear. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has added the the twist of his devout belief in the return of the “occulted” or 12th imam and cataclysmic events that will hasten it.
What’s really a hoot is that some pundits have described former president Rafsanjani as a “moderate.” Moderate? He’s the first to have spoken on record of nuking Israel during a sermon on 12/14/2001. Here’s a quote:
I’m of the school that says you should believe what people, especially your enemies, say. Again, I don’t see how negotiation is possible.
What is possible is a third party, armed and dangerous, that would occupy a buffer zone in the south of Lebanon. But that would work only after the IDF cleans out Hizbullah’s nests.
I strongly urge you to take a look at the latest from VDH. I find that it clarifies a lot of issues.
Finally, I don’t find that your remarks are political at all, but am amazed what some will do in the name of politics. Take former Clintonista Sid Blumenthal, a guy who’s willing to disclose NSA intercept support to Israel to spin his web against Bush and crew. Why assure Syria and Iran that their communications are monitored?
Brad,
A little off subject, but what do you advocate we do in America about the theocrats who abound in the US. The hate being preached in the US is right in line with those who would bomb the US. The freaks at these “Christian” fortresses who endorse bombing abortion clinics and doing harm to homosexuals. What is the difference? They also preach harm to US citizens, but no one stands up against them, in fact, most pander to their hateful BS under the cover of two most overly abused symbols of our day, the Bible and “patiotism”.
I agree with you that Al-queda are bad dudes and should be erradicated. Why didn’t we round them all up when we could?
As for the argument I heard earlier, “we haven’t been attacked since 9/11”, we also weren’t attcked before 9/11. Does that mean Clinton did more to fight terrorism than Bush? Possibly, by the skewed logic of that argument.
The bottom line is the policies of the current administration are accross the board failures. To argue that is to live in another dimension.
Brad,
Is the 9:1 civilian:terrorist death ratio acceptable in your “kill ’em all” strategy?
How about 100:1? 1000?
And what would be the result of eradicating every single member of Hezbollah? unless you plan complete genocide, the cycle would spin back up again within a decade.
Your rationalization against the death penalty is, well, odd. I guess you think
Timothy McVeigh deserved life imprisonment after killing 167 people in Oklahoma
in 1997?
Isreal is responsible for creating Hezbollah in the first place when it invaded Lebanon in the 80s.
Bud, would you care to inform yourself as to why Israel invaded in 1982 in the first place?
As for the argument I heard earlier, “we haven’t been attacked since 9/11”, we also weren’t attcked before 9/11. Does that mean Clinton did more to fight terrorism than Bush?
Preston,
no, it doesn’t mean that at all. Especially when we consider the attacks that took place on Clinton’s watch: first WTC bombing, Khobar towers, 2 African embassies, USS Cole. Clinton didn’t have the guts to respond effectively to any of them. Also don’t forget that planning for 9/11 was mostly complete before Bush was sworn in.
> Clinton didn’t have the guts to respond
> effectively to any of them
If Iraq is any indication of Bush’s “effectiveness”, then you must be grading on a curve. Yesterday, the top generals agreed that civil war in Iraq is a distinct possibility. I know, I know… it’s all of us anti-war traitors who are responsible.
This just in… 33 more civilian deaths
in Lebanon in another airstrike.
>One air strike hit a farm near Qaa, close to
>the Syrian border in the Bekaa Valley where >workers, mostly Syrian Kurds, were loading >plums and peaches on to trucks, local >officials said. They said 33 people were >killed and 20 wounded.
Maybe those plums and peaches were loaded?
Preston –
Er, there is this:
There was also Khobar Towers, killing 19 US military folks. Louis Freeh, FBI chief at the time, says Iran ordered the Saudi Hizbullah to do it and thinks that the president did a poor job on that.
Then in 241 US military personnel died in the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing. The Iranians were behind that too. They were probably were behind the April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing that killed 63. Don’t forget this
There was the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole that killed 17. I guess the Case of the shooter at CIA headquarters doesn’t count. But this list is a good start. And I guess we gotta blame Bush!
One has to distinguish among free speech, incitement, and action. I think that prosecutors generally understand the difference and take action against those that are planning crimes. It’s okay to say “Them there non-believers will burn in Hades.” But taking action to send them there is frowned upon.
Hate speech issue is generally in the eye of the beholder and is usually prosecuted only when accompanied by action. But I’m with you as long as you include the Jehovah’s Witnesses when they knock on my door. Do you recommend a shotgun or semiautomatic pistol?
Point taken, I was in a rush and not thinking clearly. Funny though, you mention Clinton by name on the attacks while he was in office, but I see no mention of Reagan in 1983.
Planning or not, Bush was in power and ignored the Memo “Bin Laden to strike US” while he was clearing brush in August of 2001. Hard to argue against that.
Did you read the Freeh link? The reference was to the follow-up to the one attack. I blamed no president by name for any attack, mainly because I didn’t assert that any president was responsible for any of the attacks.
Please provide a link to your assertion about the memo – it was a daily brief. You will find that it specified no time, no place, no specifics, no players. As I recall it mentioned that a domestic airline hijacking was on a list as one of the things that bin Laden had done historically.
Is Bin Laden not a player? His name was in the title. Also, give yourself more credit and please don’t split hairs over memo or daily brief. You know what I am refering to.
To clarify, LexWolf is the one who invoked Clinton’s name.
My point about all of this is that Clinton can only be invoked so long, otherwise the argument is nothing but a carp you are “pommeling” me with. It is impossible to stop terrorists entirely. They are of a different mindset than we are and are willing to die for some messed up beliefs.
The current administration has done nothing to quell the spread of anti-American fanaticism in the Muslim world, but rather has inflamed them passionately. That is what bothers me. I do not personally blame Bush for 9/11, I merely turn a tired argument on its head and return it to sender.
Funny though, you mention Clinton by name on the attacks while he was in office, but I see no mention of Reagan in 1983.
I didn’t mention Reagan because you didn’t. I was only responding to your Clinton/Bush comparison and didn’t include any earlier attacks.
Planning or not, Bush was in power and ignored the Memo “Bin Laden to strike US” while he was clearing brush in August of 2001. Hard to argue against that.
Oh, not hard at all to argue with that. Have you ever actually read that memo? There is nothing actionable in there at all but only some nebulous comments that Bin Laden would strike the US, maybe with airplanes. What exactly was Bush supposed to do about that? Ground all airplanes? Shut down NYC? Can you even imagine the cacophony if he had done so based on some vague memo? If you were Bush, what would you have done with that memo?
I don’t know Lex…. Jack up security in airports???? That seems a good place to start, but it might cut in to play time at the ranch to actually plan stuff.
Doing nothing obviously was no help. Vagueries aside, the memo was legit. We were hit with airplanes right? Or is that another “liberal” fallacy meant to make Bush look bad?
Jack up security in airports???? That seems a good place to start
Now there’s a likely plan. Why didn’t Bush think of that? Simply thoroughly search every Middle Eastern passenger and that should solve the problem, shouldn’t it? Ooops, that would be racial profiling though, wouldn’t it? That means that we would have to search all those old grannies and Medal Of Honor winners instead while the terrorists can stroll right onto the plane. Even if we caught a terrorist or two, there still wouldn’t be anything we could do though because they didn’t bring anything illegal on board, at least as far as I know. Even after 9/11 we still don’t concentrate on the most likely suspects – what makes you think Bush would have been able to do that before 9/11?
Vagueries aside, the memo was legit. We were hit with airplanes right? Or is that another “liberal” fallacy meant to make Bush look bad?
Allow me to let you in on a little secret. You can pick any disaster you want and there will ALWAYS be a memo or two from months or years before that warned against the disaster or something like it somehow somewhere, more or less vaguely. Never fails. It’s meaningless except as a gotcha. Now if that memo had said that flight XYZ on 9/11 at 8:20am would be hijacked and the Bushies didn’t take any action, then you would have a case. In fact, I would be the first to call for impeachment and criminal prosecutions. As it is there was absolutely nothing Bush could have done based on that useless memo.
How about “Hurricane Katrina will destroy New Orleans”. I believe that was said by the National Weather Service.
How ’bout that impeachment?
Preston,
here for example is another warning from 1995 and no, I’m not blaming Clinton for anything here. I don’t think he could have done anything either based on the vague information received. He even stepped up security and the OKC attack still took place, as did the airplane incident 6 years later. What should Clinton have done about the aircraft warning?
My point is that hindsight is always 20/20 but that in realtime things aren’t always as obvious as they look later on.
Warnings Before 1995 Oklahoma Bombing
Thu Jun 20, 5:12 AM ET
By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) – Just weeks before Timothy McVeigh ( news – web sites) bombed the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement received several warnings that Islamic terrorists were seeking to strike on American soil and that a likely target was government buildings, documents show.
The information, though it was never linked to McVeigh, was stark enough that the Clinton administration urged stepped up security patrols and screening at federal buildings nationwide, including those in Oklahoma.
The government, however, didn’t fortify buildings with cement barriers like those hurriedly installed after McVeigh detonated his explosive-laden truck at the curb of the Murrah building on April 19, 1995, officials said.
Islamic extremists are determined to “strike inside the U.S. against objects symbolizing the American government in the near future,” said one warning obtained by The Associated Press……..
Around the same time, the FBI received intelligence from the Philippines that two men later convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing had been arrested as they were plotting to blow up U.S. airliners. The men planned to hijack one airliner and crash it into the CIA, Pentagon ( news – web sites) or White House, documents show.
Herb, you can really be foolish sometimes. Hezboolah is not a race of people. It stands for Army of God. Is this what Jesus would want, a bunch of punks shooting thousands of rockets indiscriminately upon targets ( I shot an arrow into the air, where it lands I know not where) that are primarily civilian homes and farms. This subhuman scum (no, more like feces) deserves to be slaughtered as cruely as we can do it. And the faster the better. And yes, the more scum that take their place, lets slaughter all of them while we are at it. If a billion of these idiots want to be slaughtered, let’s do it until it’s done. Otherwise the alternative is to have our families subjugated to their brand of ruthless savagery. The world will be much better off the sooner this evil is scourged from the land. I am rooting for the Israelis to put a bigtime dent in this crowd, but we all know there are more out there. Next!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bombs away, Dave, bombs away.
There are times in which military force is necessary. There are times in which the parallel to Munich is helpful.
But to assume that every time is foolish, I think.
I will still quote Colin Chapman (longtime lecturer on Islamics at the Near East school of Theology in Beirut). It is amazing how many people who really know the Middle East well, and who are not armchair theorists, would basically say the same thing. No one is going to listen to this, but I’ll quote it again for the sake of those who are willing to consider it, and have not already read it on Bob McAlister’s blog:
P. S. I have a much longer version, but it isn’t going to convince those who, like McAlister, consider me a terrorist sympathizer. Sigh.
Lex writes: “As it is there was absolutely nothing Bush could have done based on that useless memo”.
Since Bush did absolutely nothing I guess we’ll never know for sure. Of course the failures of the Bush administration prior to 9-11 go far deeper than the daily briefing memo.
Why people continue to defend this incompetent, Chickenhawk fool I’ll never know.
It is amazing how many people who really know the Middle East well, and who are not Some armchair theorists, would basically say the same thing.
You mean people like the Hezbo goons? Anyway thanks for the Hezbo view.
Some nagging little questions, though. Why did Israel ever seize those territories in 1967? Could it be because they were attacked by Syria, Jordan and Egypt – the aggressors in that war? Isn’t it Israel’s right to defend itself against such aggression. Isn’t it further accepted practice for victorious nations to reduce the geographic size of the losers? Why doesn’t this apply to Israel?
Of course the failures of the Bush administration prior to 9-11 go far deeper than the daily briefing memo.
You mean during those 7-1/2 months he was in office before 9/11? What about the 5 years since Clinton was warned about such an attack? Shouldn’t Clinton have solved this problem long before Bush was elected?
I’m not trying to place blame here on either one. As I said earlier, I don’t think either one could have done anything based on such vague warnings. However, it’s asinine to pillory Bush for 7-1/2 months while giving Clinton a pass for at least 5 years.
Preston –
If you’d read the Blair speech linked to above, you’d find this:
The context is that those wacky Wahabi’s had figured out that the way to get the moderate Muslims over to their side was to attack the West, something the Iranian Shia had started 25 years ago, and at the same time solve their real beef, the way that the moderates had been moving toward the West and secularism .
Thanks to Madrassas, which in the West were funded by the Saudis, the Wahabis had almost two generations of raw material to form. So the expansion of terror activities was always part of the game plan. Attacks would have increased no matter what we did. Blair and others celebrate our at first instinctual and then rationally chosen approach to make this a war of values – individual freedom and tolerance and all that. Why put another dictator in charge when we can tolerate some turbulence for a bit while the folks sort out a liberal (in a western, classical sense) society?
Blair’s not articulating something new; what he is doing is formalizing in foreign policy concepts that folks like Lee Harris, Victor Davis Hanson, Ralph Peters, Charles Krauthammer, Michael Novak, Jean-Francois Revel, and Philippe Roger have also thought and written about.
If you can put domestic politics and preferences aside for just a moment, you might see that we’ve embarked on what Lee Harris called a world historical gamble. Bush, in consultation with Blair, Howard and others, decided to pursue a new realpolitk that focuses on what Blair calls “values.” In other words, the US would not seek short-term stability in international affairs by supporting autocratic regimes, but instead would focus on long-term stability by trying to force conditions that would enable what we believe to be universal values, primary among which is individual liberty.
This is a classical liberal position that would appeal to Democrats were it not pursued by George Bush. And the fact that most Democrats seek political gain by opposing Bush’ foreign policy initiatives is sad.
But I digress. Two generations of Muslims have been subjected to intense radical religious training and are therefore susceptible to calls to action against unbelievers, the West. What should we do? If we ignore or coddle them, they will eventually develop the means to attack our homeland, leaving us with the Tancredo prescription, the old eye-for-an-eye that will kill millions. The logic and politics are straightforward: no matter who is president, what party he or she represents, if a nuke goes off in Vespucciland, Mecca, Tehran, Damascus, and Medina are toast. The American public will demand it and get it.
We’ve embarked on a risky gamble to protect the homeland. It will take time, but, amazingly, partisan politics is getting in the way. There are so many other areas in which the Republicans are vulnerable that I can’t help but think that the Democrats are making a serious mistake.
Unfortunately, the days of the loyal opposition and ‘politics ends at the water’s edge’ are long over. Nowadays, it’s hard to distinguish between our foreign enemies and the Left in this country. Even harder to tell who’s doing more damage to this country.
It appears it is going to take a massive deadly event, dwarfing 9-11, on US soil before the leftists either join the battle or get out of the way. A recent poll does show a large majority of Americans prefer the Republicans approach to the WOT but yet there is now Iraq fatigue. Why the apparent contradiction in attitudes. My guess is Americans are prone to quick action, quick solutions. We all liked the 3 week dismantlement of Saddam’s regime but no one likes the time it takes to launch a democracy. In addition, this administration has chosen to conduct a “nice” fight in Iraq. Embedded reporters, filming our own troops, hot food, showers, Korans, prayer mats for those captured. Precision bombing only where we drop one building and leave a neighborhood standing. Permission given for thousands of warriors to cross into Iraq to join the insurgency from Syria, Iran, etc. All of these things show how civilized we are but we are fighting the uncivilized. Then, because we are fighting with self imposed handcuffs on, the left screams quagmire, Vietnam II, “we can’t win this thing”, and other defeatist talk that only works against our own mission. I say clear out the reporters, terminate all cellphone communications, ban all vehicle traffic, and take one month to end this in Iraq. Anyone caught in Iraq who is not an Iraqi should be shot on sight. Pay the populace $10,000 for identifying all non-Iraqis, a bounty. After one month with the dogs of war on the loose, Iraqi military and American/British, this would be history. Next up, Iran.
I do not believe that the average western mind can ever comprehend muslim societies. I also do not believe that muslim societies and democracy are compatable, at least not in the sense in which we have become accustomed. I further believe that the Israeli’s have tunnel vision with respect to their association with the muslims. Unless all parties concerned can gain a good understanding of each culture in relation to their own, there is no solution.
Many people I have talked to think it’s a good idea for Israel to be killing all these muslims, to rid us of evil. Is it also a good idea to kill the christian populace in the same areas? Surely they don’t support radical islam.
If we could only come up with sources of non-petro based energy, this would all be a moot point. To all you assholes out there in your SUVs, I say thanks. You are responsible for terrorism.
The Middle East is nothing if we don’t fund them.
Lex writes:
“Nowadays, it’s hard to distinguish between our foreign enemies and the Left in this country. Even harder to tell who’s doing more damage to this country.”
Here in a nutshell is why you and Lee were taken down on the civility blog. Accussing the left of being the enemy.
Mike C writes
“There are so many other areas in which the Republicans are vulnerable that I can’t help but think that the Democrats are making a serious mistake.”
Yes, democrats have made a serious mistake. They haven’t oppossed the Iraq war vigorously. All good Americans should immediately demand withdrawl from this hopeless quagmire. Don’t you think this whole “Freedom is on the march” crap has been thoroughly debunked by now. The best way to achieve security is to go back to what Clinton was doing in the 90s – better intelligence gathering and diplomacy. We could also inject some money into the region to help moderate factions gain a foothold. The Bush/Blair approach (war, war and more war) has now been tried and it has failed. And failed miserably.
Mike C. You are quite articulate in basically re-hashing the same old scare tactics. I just don’t buy the nuclear bomb on every western city meme.
Lex writes:
“Nowadays, it’s hard to distinguish between our foreign enemies and the Left in this country. Even harder to tell who’s doing more damage to this country.”
Here in a nutshell is why you and Lee were taken down on the civility blog. Accussing the left of being the enemy.
Please tell us how the treasonous actions of the Left (e.g. the various leaks) are helpful to US rather than direct aid and comfort to our foreign enemies.
I can certainly understand that you personally wouldn’t want to be lumped in with our enemies but just look at the actions of the Left’s leaders over the past 3 or 4 years. Invariably their actions are harmful to US and helpful to our enemies. The truth hurts but it’s still the truth.
Liberal dementia blames the campaign of Muslim terrorism on the Americans who drive SUVs. How stupid. How typically liberal.
Lebanon and Palestine have no oil.
These terrorists are driven more by socialist ideas going back to the 1930s than they are by the Koran. What they hate about America is the cultural sewerage of Hollywood and New York which American liberals produce and praise.
Where does their money come from?????
Remember what the folks at Treasury Department said?
Let me guess, you live in some plastic house sprawled out in Lexington County somewhere and you drive your SUV to Columbia to work? Wonderful life. The American Dream, live in cheap crap with a white plastic fence sourrounded by all your very own plastic crap inside. I had to go to a store today. Now I know why I am not a mass consumer. It was thoroughly depressing.
And yes, I hold all the simpletons that I have described above are responsible.
Still living in your fantasy world, Preston?
I used to live downtown and walk to work, until a succession of mayors butchered the downtown into a haven for criminals and the insane.
Now I live in an old city suburb, and drive 2 SUVs, not that it is any business of the liberal control freaks. I pay for my gas.
If you want an overpriced hybrid car that takes 14 years to recover its purchase costs, you had better hurry. Honda, Toyota and GM are cutting production. Besides, the same non-driving urban “environmentalists” to love these tiny deathtrap cars for everyone else, also oppose building the nuclear power plants required to charge up the dinky little rides.
Here’s a powerful article about 3 mothers who changed their views on the war in Lebanon:
This war is different
By Ari Shavit
Four Mothers was probably the most influential protest movement in the history of Israel. It was founded immediately after the ‘disaster of the helicopters’ – the collision of two Air Force helicopters carrying soldiers to Lebanon in February 1997, leaving 74 soldiers dead. The movement never amounted to more than a few dozen women (and several men). However, within three years it swept the country and fomented a shift of consciousness that led, ultimately, to Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000.
About two weeks after the outbreak of the second Lebanon War, as Katyusha rockets continued to fall across Galilee, and Israel Defense Forces brigades were immersed in slow and bloody fighting in Bint Jbail, three Four Mothers members met for a lengthy morning conversation in a shaded apartment in Kibbutz Ashdot Yaakov Ihud. Zohara Antebi, from Kibbutz Geva, a resident of Kahal and principal of a school in Upper Galilee, was in Four Mothers almost from the start. Bruria Sharon, from Ashdot Yaakov Ihud, joined the movement a few weeks after its creation. Orna Shimoni, also from Ashdot Yaakov Ihud, joined the struggle about half a year later, after losing a son in Lebanon.
Did Nasrallah’s offensive cause the mothers who vanquished the military establishment to engage in soul-searching? Are those who counted the dead of the IDF’s presence in Lebanon now counting the dead of the renewed entry into Lebanon and feeling some sort of responsibility? Do they support the antiwar struggle that is developing tardily in Tel Aviv? Do they have any oppressive doubts now about their burning faith in unilateral action? CLICK ON THE HEADLINE FOR THE REST
Preston – Are you the Unabomber blogging from your cell? Brad I know has 5 children, would you prefer him to have 3 mini coopers to drive his family around or 1 SUV? You make the call.
Preston: I drive a Cadillac Deville, 27 MPG and I have an SUV, 25 MPG. I’ve never thought of myself as an “asshole”.
What do you drive snd at what MPG Preston? and while I’m think about it, do you own a bike?
Viet Vet,
calm down. Preston was just engaging in liberal “civility”.
VietVet, you don’t understand Left Logic.
If they drive around alone in a Honda Civic at 35 miles per gallon, they are good.
If you drive 4 people around in an Suburban at 25 miles per gallon, you are bad.
bud –
You wrote –
If you don’t smoke now, why start?
Funny how the same people who see no problem in Iran having nuclear weapons are hysterically afraid of building new nuclear power plants in the US.
I thought the left wanted alternate energy generation until I watched what happened with the windmill farms off of Cape Cod. Teddy and Kerry (the guy who was in Nam for 120 days) have killed it so far. Yes, the left wants alternate energy sources, but only if their ocean views are not impacted.
Dave, Teddy and Kerry are wrong. We need the windmills. Denmark generates 20% of it’s electricity from wind. We could do that here as well. This lefty is a staunch believer in wind energy.
To change the subject again. The Democratic primary in Connecticut should tell us a lot about the mood of the nation. A big win by Lamont would confirm the polsters suspicions that the American public is sick and tired of the Iraq war and the whole middle-east debacle. Go Ned!
For the record, I drive a Subaru station wagon 30mpg. It comes in handy that I live 2.3 miles from work. Not a whole lot of driving, and yes I own a bike.
I seem to have struck a chord here with the car business. Who do you think profits from oil sales besides EOM, BP, etc… Could it be Saudis????? Who attacked us on 9/11???? Could it be Saudis?????? Who funds terrorists???? Could it be Saudis?????
You can’t have it all ways. Eventually we all must look into the mirror and realize we are all part of the problem. And sorry for insulting all of you that live in the ‘burbs.
Some Saudi individuals certainly back terrorists, but the Saudi government does not.
Saddam Hussein and the state of Iraq backed the terrorists and helped train and finance the 9/11 hijackers.
I don’t see a problem with consuming the oil from other countries, even at a high price, while preserving our own oil for the future.
Deporting the 22,000,000 illegal aliens would take a lot of junker cars off the road and reduce pollution more than some arbitrary tightening of CAFE standards, as well as solving a lot of other social problems and saving taxpayers $40 BILLION in costs for schools, prisons and welfare.
Windmills are ugly, just like billboards. Some small ones are economically feasible, and businesses have been using them for years. Most of the government projects are just pork boondoggles.
Lee, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. All that low-cost electricity is downright gorgeous to me. What’s ugly is the massive oil pollution in Alaska, smokestacks belching filthy smut into the air and coffins coming home with soldiers who die defending the middle-east oil resources. And besides, properly sited windmills don’t have to be an eyesore.
I actually support one conservative initiative, increased nuclear power. Right now it’s the lessor of two evils (fossil fuels vs nuke).
Saddam Hussein had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!!!!!!!!!!! Even Bush has admitted that.
Preston, ever heard of the Big Lie theory of propaganda?
As long as Rove can keep the media intimidated or bought off, the Bushies can feed the American public any BS that they desire. When they keep repeating the lie you get results as noted today by the AP.
Half of Americans believe WMD claims
Poll shows people tend to be ‘independent of reality’ on the issue
Do you believe in Iraqi “WMD”?
Did Saddam Hussein’s government have weapons of mass destruction in 2003?
Half of America apparently still thinks so, a new poll finds, and experts see a raft of reasons why:
• A drumbeat of voices from talk radio to die-hard bloggers to the Oval Office
• A surprise headline here or there
• A rallying around a partisan flag
• A growing need for people, in their own minds, to justify the war in Iraq.
[Remind you of any posters on this blog?]
People tend to become “independent of reality” in these circumstances, opinion analyst Steven Kull says.
The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900 million-plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.
Despite this, a Harris Poll released July 21 found 50 percent of U.S. respondents — up from 36 percent last year — said they believe Iraq did have the forbidden arms when U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, an attack whose stated purpose was elimination of supposed WMD.
Preston, for those of us who actually have a brain it is now well known that Saddam was not involved in 9-11. That fact is well established. For about 25% of Americans no amount of evidence will be sufficient. To people like Lee even suggesting this is tantamount to treason.
The scary thing is the 25% seem to be running the show. Even Cokey Roberts (ABC) suggested the Democrats will fail if they pursue policies that recognize the need to withdraw from Iraq. Cokey was specifically attacking Connecticut Dems for supporting Ned Lamont. Why a clearly rational postition, supported by 60% of the American public, is considered a “fringe” position by the media is beyond me.
RTH, saw that today. It really is sad, huh?
Sad is an understatement Preston.
It’s time for an Iraq war re-cap. Here’s how American war efforts stacked up after 41 months (our current duration in Iraq).
WW I (19), Korea (37), Iraq 1 (1). These three (and several others) were concluded by the 41st month.
WW II vs Germany (41 months). Ike was accepting the unconditional surrender of the Nazis about 41 months after Pearl Harbor.
WW II vs Japan (44 months). The battle of Okinawa had just recently concluded. Plans were under way for the invasion of the main islands.
American Civil War (48 months). 41 months after Fort Sumter Sherman captured Atlanta. Victory for the north was within sight.
Vietnam (90 months). The quagmire in Southeast Asia continued with no “light at the end of the tunnel” in sight during the 41st month.
Moral of the story: After 41 months if progress is not evident we’re unlikely to see any. It’s time to bring the troops home from Iraq. History shows this to be plenty long enough.
American Revolution – 172 months.
Any adult still claiming that Saddam Hussein was not involved in the Sept 11 attacks is truly ignorant.
We captured the training camps in Iraq right where the CIA told Clinton that they were, with documents and videotapes of hijackers being told by Saddam himself to, “kill the Jews, but attack America first!”
Of “hijackers”????????? Are you a “hijacker”, even if you don’t hijack?????? Please enlighten my ignorance.
The real hijackers (from 9/11) were radical muslims. Saddam was a secular Arab. The two mix like oil and water.
Preston, the real question is where’s the proof?
Of course, then we’re told that the famous “liberal media conspiracy” is keeping the “truth” from the American people.
Even the vigilant and expert rightwing bloggers of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders can’t expose the story? These are the same guys who “exposed” the accurate but inauthentic Bush National Guard Memo within hours.
I had high hopes when some rightwing Hate Radio types visited Iraq to show their “support” for the troops. Apparently actually proving even a tangential case for invading Iraq wasn’t very important.
You’d think that it’d be a slam dunk for someone (the Iraq Support Group, for instance) to pull this administration’s chest nuts out of the fire. After all, apparently the CIA could give them a AAA triptych to find the alleged hijacker training camp.
Someone evidently claims to have seen the documents and video. Couldn’t one of our alert wingnut bloggers post translations or video clips?
Nope. And here’s where that troublesome “independent of reality” part crops up.
Nevermind. Pass the purple kool-aid.
Make that the “Iraq Survey Group.”
I’m starting to think Lee is getting lonely down in the bunker with Ole Dick Cheney. They are the only two people on Earth who still belive that crap.
RTH –
You’re going to be a lonely guy when Rove is gone. The Dems better start searching for a new scapegoat.
Regarding the WMD – we have found them, the American public is correct even if you, the AP, and WaPo don’t think so.
In mid-June Senator Rick Santorum and Rep. Pete Hoekstra revealed declassified portions of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) that said Coalition forces in Iraq have recovered several hundred munitions containing degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. The report also stated that “filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.”
In his
Washington Post article reporter Dafna Linzer covers the legislators’ press conference and adds that unnamed intelligence officials who said that these shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.
The issue was accountability, not age, and more WMDs do turn up, even in IEDs, according to Douglas Hanson’s well-sourced column at Douglas Hanson’s well-sourced column at The American Thinker.
Mike, were we really looking for 30 year old “WMDs”? According to UN weapons inspectors, you might experience slight skin irriation from the “WMDs” you sight. We really went to war to prevent skin irritation?
Santorum is a fool. After that speech, he has moved to 35 points behind his challenger. You won’t have him to quote for much longer.
There aren’t Republicans, save Santorum and Hoekstra at the National level, that will touch the ridiculous comments you fill this blog with.
Democrats, the party of fear!
Huffington Post’s lone conservative, Greg Gutfeld,, delivers the goods. Excerpt:
THE HUFFPO LIST OF THINGS TO BE FEARFUL OF!
There’s more…
Here, in plain English, WaPo’s reporter, Dafna Linzer, debunks the whole episode:
Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq afterthe 2003 invasion.
Read that first italicized paragraph over slowly. Even the governmental agencies who made the claim of WMD aren’t going to make such a transparently false claim.
Who would know better if these munitions fit the definition of what they were looking for?
Denial isn’t just a river in Africa, it’s a way of life for the rightwing.
Does the National Review’s token liberal columnist have a comment?
Wait.
The National Review doesn’t even have the cohones to publish a liberal dissent.
Wingnut Gutfeld sez: – Fear that liberals haven’t degraded the education system enough so most people still know that Abraham Lincoln and FDR suspended many liberties to deal with similar crises.
The US has dealt with international gangs of pirates before. (See Barbary Pirates and others.)
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, AQ was a relatively small, decentralized gang of violent Islamic ideologues. Now, courtesy of Bush’s incredible stupidity, AQ is a leading brand of terrorism inspiring free-lance Islamic terrorists the world over.
Only an ill-educated, non-critical thinking paranoic would have compared AQ’s jihad against the US to either WWII or the Civil War.
It’s still quite a stretch to compare a terrorist brand to nation-states with millions of people, armies, navies, and air forces. Even less apt is the comparison of numerous American states seeking to attack other American states.
But, what the heck, it’s a great talking point– if you’re counting on your audience’s ignorance and fear.
Note to self: research psycholigical roots of projection.
For a rightwing pundit to decry the Dems for fearmongering is rich.
–Do you think that, on Gutfeld’s planet, the administration instituted a color-coded fear index? (And, at strategic times, jacked up the fear quotient.)
–On Gutfeld’s planet, did the administration falsely report that the Iraqis had drone aircraft that could spread bio-weapons on the American mainland?
–On our planet administration spokespeople repeatedly referred to “a smoking gun in the shape of mushroom cloud over an American city.” Surely a responsible administration on Gutfeld’s planet wouldn’t do that.
Preston, obviously is completely oblivious to the fact that Saddam Hussein ran secular terrorist training camps for Muslims from all the Arab and Asian countries, Suuni and Shiite. He financed terrorist attacks, provided asylum to Zarquawi and other terrorists, and used his embassies to facilitate travel and banking for the 9/11 hijackers. We have the captured notes of meetings, cash ledgers, and photographs of some of the meetings.
No Lee, he did not facilitate the 9/11 hijackers in the planning or financing of the 9/11 attack. That is completely and demonstrably false. Dick Cheney won’t touch your assertions anynore.
No one ever said he wasn’t a bad dude, but again, HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.
Come on out and join us on planet Earth. Is the “we” you are referring to you and Rick Santorum? That is the only exlanation I can come up with.
the administration instituted a color-coded fear index? (And, at strategic times, jacked up the fear quotient.)
–On Gutfeld’s planet, did the administration falsely report that the Iraqis had drone aircraft that could spread bio-weapons on the American mainland?
–On our planet administration spokespeople repeatedly referred to “a smoking gun in the shape of mushroom cloud over an American city.”
RTH, could you please provide us with links for each of your assertions??
So the 550 shells don’t count as WMD because the administration didn’t assert that they did? If the administration asserted that they did, then would you accept them as WMD?
Actually, there are almost 5,000 Iraqi artillery shells and cannisters of chemical pathogens awaiting incineration.
The Bush administration has given up on mentioning the growing pile of WMDs found, because they know the leftist media won’t admit they were wrong, won’t report but a tiny fraction of the facts, and will try to spin those fewest facts away in a blizzard of expert “analysis”.
Mike C. I was starting to have respect for you, even though you’re wrong on the war issue. However, you lost me with this “Saddam did have WMD” crap. Even the White House and most Republicans have given up on that nonsense. At 41 months and counting the ball is in your court to explain why we should continue when virtually all wars (excepting the Revolution where we were the underdog) the US has fought in were basically won by the 41st month. Come on Neocons, let here it.
Lexie, here’s one…right here.
Iraqi Drones Not For WMD
Aug. 24, 2003
(AP) Huddled over a fleet of abandoned Iraqi drones, U.S. weapons experts in Baghdad came to one conclusion: Despite the Bush administration’s public assertions, these unmanned aerial vehicles weren’t designed to dispense biological or chemical weapons.
The evidence gathered this summer matched the dissenting views of Air Force intelligence analysts who argued in a national intelligence assessment of Iraq before the war that the remotely piloted planes were unarmed reconnaissance drones.
In building its case for war, senior Bush administration officials had said Iraq’s drones were intended to deliver unconventional weapons. Secretary of State Colin Powell even raised the alarming prospect that the pilotless aircraft could sneak into the United States to carry out poisonous attacks on American cities.
Wow, Mike, now you’re just getting silly.
MikeC sez: If the administration asserted that they did, then would you accept them as WMD?
Surprisingly, even the the Bushies are embarrassed to tell such a bald-faced lie. Evidently they think that there’s a limit to the gullibility of the masses.
Obviously, that’s not accurate for true-believers.
— – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.
Here’s another, Lexie…
CNN–September 8, 2002
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Top officials in the Bush administration took to the Sunday television talk shows to argue the president’s case that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is a global threat and must go.
With a former U.N. weapons inspector in Baghdad saying the U.S. position on Iraq is overstated, the vice president, two Cabinet secretaries, the national security adviser and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff pressed the point that a military intervention could be the only way to topple Saddam’s regime.
[…]
Rice acknowledged that “there will always be some uncertainty” in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon but said, “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
And, Here:
Cheney goes on offensive over Iraq
The Washington Post, Oct 10, 2003
[…]
Cheney made only one mention of evidence that Iraq had a nuclear program. The allegation had been central to the administration’s case for going to war, noting that the “smoking gun” from Hussein could be a “mushroom cloud.” Before the war, Cheney said Hussein had “reconstituted” his nuclear weapons program.
Kay’s testimony noted: “Despite evidence of Saddam’s continued ambition to acquire nuclear weapons, to date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material.”
Cheney did not dispute that finding, but noted the discovery of equipment in scientists’ homes “that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation.” Kay had said that despite interviews with scientists involved, “the evidence does not tie any activity directly to centrifuge research or development.”
The vice president’s speech had harsh words for Bush’s critics. He portrayed those who objected to the president’s “preemption” policy as opening the United States to attack. Bush “will not permit gathering threats to become certain tragedies,” Cheney said, adding that “weakness and drift and vacillation in the face of danger invite attacks.”
Dr. Strangelove becomes Dr. FearMonger.
We KNOW that Iraq had a nuclear program, because the bought a Soviet uranium enrichment facility from Red China, when the Chinese upgraded theirs.
Joseph Wilson lied in the NY Times about Iraq not seekingn to acquire uranium from Niger, when the CIA report actually details how the did seek to acquire uranium for Niger, South Africa, and Libya (who also had a nuclear weapons program ).
Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology – 2002
The Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) hereby submits this report in response … Iraq has withheld significant details relevant to its nuclear program, …
https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/jan_jun2002.html
We also know that Iraq had a chemical weapons program right up to our invasion, because some of the weapons and chemicals found are SO FRESH, that they were made in 2002 or even in 2003, after the invasion. All you need is a small facility to manufacture chemical agents. It is not necessary or even wise to have them stored together in large stashes.
Iraqi Chemical Stash Uncovered
Post-Invasion Cache Could Have Been For Use in Weapons
By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, August 14, 2005; Page A18
BAGHDAD, Aug. 13 — U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said Saturday.
Monday’s early morning raid found 11 precursor agents, “some of them quite dangerous by themselves,” a military spokesman, Lt. Col. Steven A. Boylan, said in Baghdad.
Materials found in a warehouse in Mosul could yield an agent capable of
Materials found in a warehouse in Mosul could yield an agent capable of “lingering hazards” for those exposed to it, according to a U.S. military spokesman. He said the lab was relatively new, dating from some time after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. (Photos By Department Of Defense)
Combined, the chemicals would yield an agent capable of “lingering hazards” for those exposed to it, Boylan said. The likely targets would have been “coalition and Iraqi security forces, and Iraqi civilians,” partly because the chemicals would be difficult to keep from spreading over a wide area, he said.
Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Lee, I resisted responding to your last post because it seems unfair to counter something with such an obvious flaw in logic. It’s kind of like shooting over a baited field or shooting fish in a barrel. It’s just not sporting. But I just can’t resist.
Lee writes:
“Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.”
Now what stands out about this statement? The key word is AFTER. If what you say is true then our invasion actually served as a catylist for the manufacture of WMD. And it is yet additional proof that Saddam just wasn’t any significant threat to the U.S.
Yes, the reason I posted this one example of many chemical weapons captured is to show that there are people in Iraq who can build a chemical weapons laboratory even under military occupation.
* They obviously knew how to do so before the war, because they were doing it before the war.
* They obviously had the equipment and an chemical supplies before the war.
* They obviously don’t need the huge buildings with neon signs flashing “WMD Factory” that idiot liberals must see in order to admit that Iraq had a WMD program.
The only three people on Earth who believed there was a WMD program in Iraq were Bush, CHeney and Saddam. The scientists were lying to him so they wouldn’t be executed.
It’s funny that the dumbass right can’t pick up on this. They retread the same old BS arguments that have been proven false by everyone.
Only the right wing-hate machine and shrill freaks dare dredge up such obviously false crap to spew from their rotten mouths as truth. That may fly on Rush and Hannity, but we live in the real world, and are not high and numb. WAKE UP!!!!!
Preston, you need to learn to accomodate new facts which contradict what you want the truth to be.
All the Democrats on all the House and Senate Intelligence and military subcommittees saw the evidence that Iraq had WMD. Hillary and Bill Clinton said they had seen the evidence when they were in the White House.
Then we captured piles of it, a little at the time, but thousands of cannisters of nerve gas and other poisions, some of which remain deadly as long as they are contained. We know that, because some of these weapons date from World War I, and are still being unearthed in Europe, and are still deadly.
We are now capturing labs and little factories manufacturing more chemical weapons, using the equipment which the UN failed to find.
It really doesn’t matter if you either of you want to go around and around about WMDs until the gamma-irradiated cows come home.
The truth is that Bush authorized the dropping of payloads of thousand of pounds of bombs on Iraq, and this was at least 6-9 months before war was declared.
Constitution 101 proves that to be criminal…or at least frowned upon in polite circles. The WMD non-debate is just a smokescreen for this crime…and both sides’ eyes are burning.
I don’t care if it “benefitted thousands of Iraqi children and their kittens.” The Constitution was sold down the river for the greed of an administration…and a personal family grudge.
If that document is supposed to dictate “how we roll,” we’re going to have a lot of embarrassing explaining to do to future generations as to why we sat there (dumb as stones) while over half the nation gave its support to compromising our core beliefs.
Constitution 101 proves that to be criminal…or at least frowned upon in polite circles.
Hmmm… so is it criminal or just frowned upon? The former could put one in jail while the latter will just get you excluded from some tedious dinner parties. Fortunately we don’t have to wait for your answer because you’re wrong about the constitutionality in toto. The president clearly has the power to order military action when he deems necessary. Nothing criminal or unconstitutional about it at all.
Even though WMD has been found in Iraq, the administration knows it cannot win getting into a Yes there is, No there wasnt, argument with nitwits who don’t want to know the facts. Saddam buried fighter jets in the sand but the left thinks they wouldn’t hide chemical or bio weapons. Go figure. Anyway, who cares if he had WMD or not, we’re there now, and there to win. Is anyone against winning? If yes, raise your hand please.
If Saddam had all these terrible weapons why didn’t he use them when we invaded? You folks on the right just simply have no ground to stand on here. Iraq’s military capability was virtually non-existent. They had no credible chemical or biological weapons, and certainly no hope of nuclear weapons. Meanwhile the U.S. is spending as much money on weaponry as the next 20 nations combined. The threat from Saddam did not exist. Even the Bush Administration has conceeded this. Our troops are dying for a lie. It’s that simple.
And no Dave, I really don’t care if we lose. We lost in Vietnam and nothing bad happened.
Except for at least 2 million dead Cambodians and Vietnamese but hey, “nothing bad happened”!! Those werent’t “real” people anyway.
Bud, I have posted this before but you need to sit back and imagine ALL of the Arab nations under one ruling philosophy, with all of the oil dollars and the subsequent weaponry. If we sit in the free world and permit that to happen, we would eventually suffer much larger conflicts against nuclear armed nations. Intervention in Iraq and next Iran and elsewhere is done expressly to prevent the above.
Bush went to Congress and Congress told him he had their permission to bomb Iraq under the same nearly unanimous resolution sponsored by the Democrats in 1998, under which President Clinton dropped 80,000 tons of bombs on Iraq, “to destroy their chemical, nuclear and biological weapons.”
Apparently, Clinton failed.
Most liberals and socialists just want to divert defense spending into their own pockets, via social welfare programs. They figure by the time Iran and North Korea hit America with nuclear bombs, they (the liberals) will have lived their good life off the backs of taxpayers. And they don’t believe in Heaven or Hell, except to say, “To hell with the next generation.”
News photography and Photoshop
August 8th, 2006, filed by Emily Church
http://blogs.reuters.com/2006/08/08/news-photography-and-photoshop/
(Editor’s note: Reuters.com asked Gary Hershorn, News Pictures Editor for North America, to discuss some of the tools photojournalists have used in the past — and what they use now — to produce pictures. On Monday, Reuters withdrew all 920 photographs by a freelance Lebanese photographer from its database after a review showed he had altered two images. You can see the images and reactions from readers here. Reuters, also the publisher of this report, tightened procedures for photographs from the conflict between Israel and the armed group Hizbollah and apologized for the case. You can read the company’s statement here. You can send a comment to Hershorn from the link below and read his interview with NPR today