Conffederate
Confederate

April 06, 2007

I Think They Have Pills For This

When Editor and Publisher first pimped Joe Klein's article yesterday, I thought it might be a serious indictment of a flawed Presidency.

Uh, no.

Klein's article reads like a comment thread on the Democratic Underground, over the top to the point of making Klein look roughly as credible as Rosie O'Donnell, if with a slightly better grasp of the English language. It is an exercise is excessive hyperbole, is poorly sourced, and highly speculative.

The Iraq War was solely predicated upon Saddam Hussein trying to killed George H.W. Bush? The 2000 election was "stolen?" Please.

I expect that from the same forthing fringe that insists "9/11 was an inside job," but I expect better from both Time and Klein.

All this rant firmly establishes is that Joe Klein has a deep, seething hatred for President Bush, and that he not above trashing his own credibility to display it.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at April 6, 2007 09:31 AM
Comments

I agree this piece by Klein is almost childish in its simplicity.

I think George W. Bush is a man who was completely unprepared, emotionally and intellectually, for the job of president, but PNAC and its architects are more to blame for the disaster in Iraq than Saddam's attempt to kill Bush 41.

And as Petraeus literally wrote the book on counterinsurgency, I still hope he can pull this off. I have my doubts, but the consequences of failure are too grim to contemplate.

But Klein's bottom line? Arrogant, incompetent and cynical? Yeah, I agree with that. Boy, do I agree with that.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 6, 2007 11:01 AM

"but PNAC and its architects are more to blame for the disaster in Iraq than Saddam's attempt to kill Bush 41."

Yeah, or the Iraq Liberation Act on 1998,
you know signed into law by that big NeoCon B
Bill Clinton:

The Iraq Liberation Act

October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998.

Posted by: Some Guy at April 6, 2007 11:07 AM

Oh, you can always tell you're reading nonsense
when someone accuses a politician of...
gasp*** partisanship. But in Bush's case HYPERpartisanship. OOh, you mean like No Child Left Behind with Kennedy.

Arrogance: Whine, whine, no one will listen to me!

Cynicism: Islamic radicals make war on the west, yet it's somehow Bush's fault? Talk about cynicism.

Posted by: Some Guy at April 6, 2007 11:10 AM

Noticed the same thing myself. You obviously have a higher tolerance for nonsense than I do. I never made it past the fourth paragraph which begins:

General David Petraeus has repeatedly said, "A military solution to Iraq is not possible." Translation: This thing fails unless there is a political deal among the Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds. There is no such deal on the horizon, largely because of the President's aversion to talking to people he doesn't like.

Even ignoring his obtuseness in not understanding part of the solution to the political process is the military's responsibility for providing a secure environment, Joe slides off into la-la land with his "it's all Bush's fault because he doesn't like them."

The man has become a joke and the fact that Time finds such tripe fit for print does not reflect well upon them.

Posted by: mindnumbrobot at April 6, 2007 11:12 AM

Guys like Klein are not journalists. They are DNC hacks employed as journalists. Oh, and I'm a journalist, though I cover completely different stuff, never politics, thankfully. I would be embarrassed to write something like this. I would.

This article comes across as a fifth grader's attempt to understand the world. The charges of incompetence are the most childish. Gosh, Joe Klein, I'm sure if you were president, it would be a world of rainbows and puppies.

No mention of the great economy. Yes, it is great. Look at the numbers. No mention that the M.E. has 2, TWOOOOOO, budding democracies whereas 7 years ago it had 0 Budding Democracies.

Yet, somehow Bush is incompetent, but Time can't keep its readership from falling off.

What a joke.

Posted by: Some Guy at April 6, 2007 11:28 AM

Some Guy,

I'm not sure what your point is by quoting The Iraq Liberation Act except that Clinton was smarter about how to contain and overthrow Saddam than Bush or his advisors, the architects of PNAC (none of whom ever saw a day in uniform).

Clinton had contained Saddam and, as the evidence shows, contained Saddam's WMD programs as well. Was it perfect? No. These things are always messy, as we see by the Oil for Food program. But, overall, Saddam was contained and we were in a far better place then than we are now.

No, it was George W. Bush who decided to send our troops into war and why Cheney, a man who in 1991 rightly said that an occupation of Iraq would be a disaster changed his mind ten years later, is beyond me.

If you really want to look at someone who dropped the ball, look back at Bush 41. After driving Sddam from Kuwait, he encouraged the Shia in the south to rise up and overthrow the Baathists and when they did, Bush let Saddam use his helicopters in order to put down the revolt and did nothing to stop him. Those mass graves they talk about on Fox? Most of them were dead Shia who trusted George HW Bush.

But if you really think Clinton had a better grasp of this situation than George Bush, I'm with you there, partner.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 6, 2007 11:40 AM

>>These things are always messy, as we see by the Oil for Food program.

Yeah, whatever, dude. Get a clue: We only discovered stuff like this AFTER THE INVASION. Saddam was not contained. No one had a clue as to what he was up to.

No, the point of the ILA of 98 is to show that both Clinton and Bush thought he was A THREAT THAT NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. After 9-11, Bush decided on Military Action.

But let's just cut to the chase: how would the world be better off with Saddam still in power?

Posted by: Some Guy at April 6, 2007 11:50 AM

Some Guy: Islamic radicals make war on the west, yet it's somehow Bush's fault? Talk about cynicism.

Oh come on. No one's debating that. We're upset because Bush has us mired in Iraq, which turned out to be toothless. Joe Wilson and Scott Ritter and Dominique du Villepin were absolutely correct before the war, and you and Bush were absolutely wrong. CY's argument these days is that "we broke it, we've got to fix it", and I admit there's some merit in that, but it's a new front in the battle against jihad, one that Bush actually enabled. The previous jihadist elements are essentially untouched.

Most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan really has been selling nuke components, Iran really is pursuing nukes, North Korea probably has nukes. The Pentagon just disclosed that relations between Al Qaeda and Iraq were limited. Bush admitted that there is no evidence that Saddam was behind 9/11. Beyond the painful fiasco that is his signature issue, his other scandals are piling up so deep that we have trouble keeping track of them. Yet here you are, whining that we're being unfair to Bush.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 6, 2007 11:53 AM

Uh, no, Some Guy. We knew that the Oil for Food program was flawed before the invasion. Go read your history. We also knew the sanctions were flawed. Some of us, and I'm one of them, applauded Bush when he got the weapons inspectors back into Iraq.

But the difference, and this was my major point, was that Clinton did have Saddam contained, as we found out and, as much as he thought we would be better off without Saddam, he didn't go to war. Bush did. He ignored the advice of many people and threw us into a meat grinder that doesn't seem to have a good end.

But, as yu say, let's cut to the chase. How would the world be better with Saddam still in power?

1. We would not have lost 3000+ KIA.

2. We would not have tens of thousands WIA.

3. We would not be spending, what is the number now, $4 billion a month? (Remember, Wolfowitz, one of the PNAC geniuses, said this war wouldn't cost us a dime. Not one dime. I don't know about you, Some Guy, but I bounced a few checks in my day, but never for a couple trillion dollars. That is a big bag of wrong there.)

4. We might have actually succeeded in Afghanistan by now.

5. We wouldn't have created a major training ground for terrorists.

6. We wouldn't have handed Iran a major victory in expanding their influence in the Mideast.

All those are the fruits of Bush's poisoned tree. Was Saddam a great guy? No. But going to war to oust him, especially the way Bush went about it, has made us less safe, not more safe.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 6, 2007 12:01 PM

Some Guy,

Just a bit of rhetorical advice. When you respond to someone with

"Yeah, whatever, dude. Get a clue."

it makes you sound less than intellectually acute and thereby undercuts the seriousness of your argument.

Just a suggestion.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 6, 2007 12:07 PM

DT: are you telling me that you know EXACTLY how things would have turned out in the World had Saddam been let to remain in power? We had no idea what was going on in his regime. Why take the chance?

Yeah, that's right, we're less safe because a major supporter of terrorism sleeps with the fishes and there's 2 fledgling democracies in the ME. Yet, we're less safe.

So why hasn't the US been attacked if we're less safe?

Iraq is a breeding ground for al-qaeda now? Good! They're all in one place. They think it's the central front, our Military is there trying to kill them, and this is bad why?

I don't care who is president. Karl Marx could have been in office on 9/11 and I would have supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

You guys don't like Bush so you don't like the wars. Grow up.

Posted by: Some Guy at April 6, 2007 12:26 PM

Folks, I have strick posting rules against profanity, and just deleted several posts a ton of it.

Either learn to communicate your ideas without profanity (and preferably, without personal attacks), or run the risk of being banned.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 6, 2007 12:27 PM

Some Guy,

You say you're a journalist? I'm going to go out on limb here and say it's not for Highlights.

I'll tell you what. If you can, without looking, tell me why George HW Bush called Joe Wilson a hero, then I'll concede that you do actually read history books.

As it is, with your profanity, ad hominem attacks and all caps screeching, all you're proving is that you're a jerk.

But we knew that.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 6, 2007 12:30 PM

>>Bush admitted that there is no evidence that Saddam was behind 9/11. Beyond the painful fiasco that is his signature issue, his other scandals are piling up so deep that we have trouble keeping track of them.>>

Name some scandals. In fact, just one No, not made up ones like Joe Wilson and Val Plame or judges getting fired. But real scandals that involve actual legal wrongdoing. Scooter Libby and..... that it? That all you got. A clue: A SCANDAL IS NOT WHEN THE PREZ DOES SOMETHING YOU DISAGREE WITH. Got it?

Posted by: Some Guy at April 6, 2007 12:32 PM

And I'll make another guess here, Some Guy. As much as you say you support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm willing to put money on the fact that the closest you've been to a uniform is a Burger King paper hat.

That's just a guess. I could be wrong.

And your vocabulary and command of the language indicates you may just be in the right age group to volunteer.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 6, 2007 12:35 PM

Yeah, Highlights. Good reference. Remember reading that at my dentist's office when I was a kid.

>>If you can, without looking, tell me why George HW Bush called Joe Wilson a hero, then I'll concede that you do actually read history books.

What does that have to do with Wilson lying all over the NY Times?

Posted by: Some Guy at April 6, 2007 12:37 PM

>>>I'm willing to put money on the fact that the closest you've been to a uniform is a Burger King paper hat.

That's just a guess. I could be wrong.>>

Ah, the chickenh**k argument. So I guess, DT, I can't go to the doctor's office because I don't have a medical degree? May I call the police even though I've never been a cop?

My command of the language: Wow, aren't we so smug? So do you sit around sipping tea and munching on crumpets reading Jane Austen while pining for the pre-Bush days when the world was just one big rainbow? Yeah, thought so.

Posted by: Some Guy at April 6, 2007 12:40 PM

CY: Often read the blog. Rarely comment. I'm in a "mood" today. Sorry for the cursing, but these lefties...they drive me freakin' crazy, man!

Posted by: Some Guy at April 6, 2007 12:47 PM

Some Guy.

Call me old fashioned, but I was raised with the sense of obligation and duty that said you serve your country.

When I run into a young man who says he supports the Iraq war, especially as vehemently as you do, and yet he lets others do his fighting, I find that has a tinge of the blowhard and more than a bit of cowardice to it. So yes, the chickenh**k argument. It has nothing to do with going to the doc without a medical degree or calling the police even though you're not a cop.

It does mean sending other young men to fight in your place. I find that dishonorable. Apparently you don't. As Twain said, a difference of opinion is what makes a horse race.

And no, can't say I've ever had a crumpet or read Jane Austen. But I have eaten snake in the Darien Province and was shortlisted to write Tommy Franks' memoirs (I didn't get the contract, but it was a compliment to be considered). And I'm also invited every year (the only enlisted man to land this invitation) to shoot competitively at Fort Butner with graduates of the service academies.

Those guys don't care much for chickenh**ks, either.

As for the question about Joe Wilson, if you knew anything about Ambassador Wilson you'd also know what he did during the first Gulf War, that's what makes my question relevant.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 6, 2007 12:58 PM

Great, so Wilson was a regular old Geo. Washington back in 1991. So what? Doesn't change recent events, does it?

Posted by: Some Guy at April 6, 2007 01:02 PM

Great, so Wilson was a regular old Geo. Washington back in 1991. So what? Doesn't change recent events, does it?

Here's a guy who went nose to nose with Saddam, made the dictator back down and freed people Saddam had taken hostage. A guy whose family has spent serving this country, sometimes at great peril, and all you can say is "What have you done for me lately?"

A real American, that's what you are.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 6, 2007 01:10 PM

David:

Please keep up with the facts. The facts are that before the war Wilson said that Sadaam had WMD. During his Senate testimony he said that Iraq had been seeking stuff from Niger. He kept the lies for the press and the campaign.

Posted by: davod at April 6, 2007 02:01 PM

davod,

I never said otherwise. I just hate when idiots rip a man who has served his country honorably and with courage (his critics would say grandstanding and I can believe that).

That Wilson testified to WMD before the war, well, I can believe that because that's what the intelligence was telling us, wasn't it? I haven't seen his testimony on the Niger yellowcake and would appreciate a link if you can provide one. It's not that I don't trust you, it's that I'd like to read the testimony myself. But I'm surprised as it goes against what he says he found when he went to Niger and what intelligence identified as a forged doc at the time. And the CIA did ask the administration to remove the yellowcake claim from a speech in December, a month before the SOTU speech, and they did. Why would they do that if Wilson said there was truth to the Niger story? And then, if he had testified, why would he say otherwise in the Times? Wouldn't he know that the transcript (see, kids, this is why transcripts are so important) would prove he'd said something else under oath?

It's not that I don't believe you, davod, it's just that this doesn't pass the smell test to me.

I read a lot, but I can't read everything so if you can, help me out here.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 6, 2007 02:17 PM

davod,

I've done an admittedly quick search for "Wilson testimony WMD" and "Wilson testimony Niger yellowcake" and could find nothing that backs up what you say are facts.

I'm not saying the transcripts, or even news stories, aren't there, I'm just saying that if he did indeed testify that Iraq had pursued yellowcake from Niger, that would have been a big story and I simply can't find anything to back it up.

Help me out here.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 6, 2007 02:41 PM

Oh, I did find one thing that I should correct in my own comment:

Apparently, George Tenet signed off on the yellowcake claim in the NIE of October 1st, but on October 7 asked the administration to remove the claim from a speech. I don't know what happened in those seven days, but it was enough for the admin to drop the claim from October's speech but not January's SOTU address.

And I did find that Colin Powell, in his presentation to the UN, refused to use the yellowcake story, calling it BS, if I recall correctly.

But that has no bearing on Wilson's testimony, so I wait for a link to the transcript.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 6, 2007 02:48 PM

But, overall, Saddam was contained and we were in a far better place then than we are now.

That would be decade+ long deployments with no end in sight correct?

How many decades of sitting on Saddam were you willing to accept?

Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 6, 2007 04:06 PM

Purple Avenger:

How many decades of sitting on Saddam were you willing to accept?

For 3,500 troops and $500 billion? When North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan are actively building or selling nukes? When the Iraq civil war was suppressed? When Saddam wasn't a threat to his neighbors, much less the US? When Osama is loose in Afghanistan? When the Taliban is hanging on in Afghanistan?

Yes, most of us would have been willing to sit on Saddam for awhile yet.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 6, 2007 04:29 PM

What Lex said.

And now that we're there, I have to ask how long should we stay? Another two years, three, ten? And at what cost? No one has told us this, just given lip service to victory, which seems to change day to day.

And before you succumb to the lefty stereotype that I'm some Kum By Ya peacenik, understand that I think the consequences of withdrawal are disastrous. I'm all for a surge, but I want to see a surge of 200K men, not 20. If this war is so vital, and I believe it is, I want to see young men like Some Guy drafted and sent to relieve those soldiers and Marines who are on their third and fourth tour. I want to see taxes raised in order to pay for the war rather than borrowing from China. I want to see the US committed to victory, not just hoping it'll all work out if Bush just talks tough.

That's why I'm angry. Once we decided to go, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, Perle, Wolfowitz, Kristol and others decided they knew more than our military - they ran Shinseki out, ignored the Powell doctrine, disregarded DOD plans for the occupation and put all their hope in Rumsfeld's transformation which meant fast, with few troops, and on the cheap. No sacrifices asked of the American people, oh no.

Now, because of their hubris, we're stuck with no good out.

You ask if we would have been willing to contain Saddam for another decade. From where we are now, containment looks like a cakewalk.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 6, 2007 04:46 PM

Yes, most of us would have been willing to sit on Saddam for awhile yet.

Nice dodge that doesn't answer my question. Precisely how many additional decades would "awhile" be?

One? Three? Five? Pick a number and defend it.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 6, 2007 06:30 PM

Purple,

You're asking a hypothetical question that has no meaning as to where we are today.

What you should really ask is this: "If the administration had told the American people that this war would take five or ten years, cost a few trillion dollars and thousands of KIA, would the American people have opted for war rather than containment?"

I think we both know the answer.

For me to pick a number and defend is, excuse me for saying this, just stupid. But if you asked me if I'd choose a diplomatic solution, backed by military, over all-out combat for an indefinite length of time, I would choose the former. I think most sane people would.

Of course, your mileage may vary.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 6, 2007 06:40 PM

Lex, you can make statements like this today: "When Saddam wasn't a threat to his neighbors, much less the US?" because we have gone in and confirmed.

Before going in to Iraq it the main question of the day. Did Iraq have WMD? Biologicals? Nukes? We still have not confirmed where the anthrax originated.

As I remember, the big fear of the day was, will Sadam give any of his weapons to the Jihadis? Any group? Al Qaeda? And, will they use them against us and/or any other western country?

Revisionist history, Lex.

Posted by: CoRev at April 6, 2007 07:34 PM

CoRev,

As I remember, the inspectors were in Iraq (thanks to Bush, credit where it's due) and finding bupkis.

As we look back at it, they were right, but Bush didn't want to wait. He warned the inspectors to leave and then went to war. So it's not so much revisionist history as it is selective. Lex chooses to believe what we knew versus what we suspected.

But we're talking actual war here CoRev, not a video game or cap guns in the woods. In my world, war is a last resort, not something you choose because you suspect someone is doing something. You have to have proof.

Think about it. If I suspect my neighbor is trying to kill me, in spite of all the other neighbors telling me it's not so, then I burn my neighbor's house down, I don't think the police will be sympathetic to my explanation that sure we know he wasn't trying to kill me now, but that's all revisionist history.

I think they'd lock me up.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 6, 2007 08:02 PM

CoRev:

There wasn't any compelling evidence of WMD or of operational ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Riddle me this: why did Bush and his crew start talking about Iraq all of a sudden in 2002? You can't name a shred of evidence that inspired this, because there is none. The Niger uranium hoax and the testimony of a known lunatic called 'Screwball' were the backbone of their case, and both were light as air. The testimony of Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, who was not crazy, flatly denied WMD, so they ignored it.

The facts were being fixed around policy.

As David T. pointed out, Bush also yanked the inspectors in the midst of indepth investigations. Why?

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 6, 2007 09:05 PM

Purple:

Nice dodge that doesn't answer my question. Precisely how many additional decades would "awhile" be? One? Three? Five? Pick a number and defend it.

Initially until Saddam passed away or was deposed, and longer if need be. Sitting on him was effortless compared to what we're doing now. You know my defense, it is the reasons I already gave you.

But I think you were too clever by half. Tell me, how long do you think it would have been worth sitting on Saddam, in lieu of the situation we have now? Pick a number and defend it.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 6, 2007 09:30 PM

David, don't presume to know my background. When you say: "But we're talking actual war here CoRev, not a video game or cap guns in the woods. In my world, war is a last resort, not something you choose because you suspect someone is doing something. You have to have proof." What part of the 9/11 attack are we forgetting? How long should we wait for the next one while sitting on Saddam?

Lex, we knew nothing then. We know it today ONLY because we sent to Iraq. There would have been doubts even today, if nothing would have been done to Iraq.

Rant and rave all you want, but we are there. That is history. Everything else is personal conjecture. Mine too!

Make serious suggestions for improving the current situation, today. Anything less is just carping AND revisionist history.

Posted by: CoRev at April 7, 2007 07:00 AM

CoRev,

I wasn't making any assumptions about you or your background. I was stating my position and mine alone.

If you'll look up at my comments, you'll see what I would propose. A few hundred thousand more soldiers, an across-the-board draft, and taxes raised to pay for this fiasco.

But since we don't seem to have the political huevos to do that, I don't see the purpose of staying the course and chewing up more fine young men and women.

And I don't see it as carping or revisionist history to suggest we hold those who led us into this mess accountable. This was a disaster from the get-go, and looking back at the mistakes that were made should, politics aside, make you deeply angry. If you think I'm casting this discussion as one of Democrats and Republicans, you've missed my point entirely.

And please don't bring 9/11 into a talk about Iraq. That's cheap emotionalism and irrelevant to the war. You know that and I know that. And I believe Bush knew that, too.

To think otherwise is to be played for a chump.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 7, 2007 10:50 AM

CoRev: Lex, we knew nothing then. We know it today ONLY because we sent to Iraq. There would have been doubts even today, if nothing would have been done to Iraq.

The invasion was the right plan because "we knew nothing then?" That is the worst defense I've ever heard. We were learning plenty from the inspections, at very little cost. We are currently uncertain about the WMD programs of several nations. Should we invade all of them?

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 7, 2007 01:07 PM

Want me to name two? Can you guess which two would be

Posted by: CoRev at April 7, 2007 02:09 PM

Pushed the wrong key!
Want me to name two? Can you guess which two they would be?

Your grasp pf history is astonishing. Ignoring the impact of 9/11 in planning and thinking is amazing revisionism.

What we were learning from the inspectors was a little suspect. We gave Saddam more credit than he deserved, but going back and pointing to bits and pieces of evidence after the fact, priceless.

You are dealing in logical fallacies, (i.e. Composition: because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property.) Cherry picking points to make a false conclusion that the whole was in error. Ignoring the impact of 9/11 in planning, and thinking of 01-03, naive or deliberate subversion of history.

Lex, your better than that.

Posted by: CoRev at April 7, 2007 02:38 PM

CoRev: Do I want you to name two of what? I don't understand.

Your grasp pf history is astonishing. Ignoring the impact of 9/11 in planning and thinking is amazing revisionism.

The DoD just released a document stating that there was no operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, which as you know was responsible for 911. So how do you figure 911 warranted the Iraq invasion?

What we were learning from the inspectors was a little suspect.

The initial WMD investigation results were dead on. There were no WMD. At any rate, you are justifying 3,500 soldiers and $500 billion. "A little suspect" is an insult to the soldiers who gave their lives in Iraq.

We gave Saddam more credit than he deserved, but going back and pointing to bits and pieces of evidence after the fact, priceless.

Who gave Saddam credit for what? It's hard to understand some of your writing. I'll be happy to reply if you can clarify. What bits and pieces of evidence did I give, and what did I leave out?

You are dealing in logical fallacies, (i.e. Composition: because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property.) Cherry picking points to make a false conclusion that the whole was in error.

What whole and parts do you mean? What am I cherry picking?

Ignoring the impact of 9/11 in planning, and thinking of 01-03, naive or deliberate subversion of history.

I addressed this above. Saddam had nothing to do with 911, so 911 does not validate the Iraq invasion.

911 makes the Iraq misadventure worse, because when we should have been getting Osama we created a new front in the war on terrorism in the what was the only secular state in the region. Now we have to worry about it becoming another fanatical state.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 7, 2007 03:43 PM

Lex, reading is fundamental. I said: "Ignoring the impact of 9/11 in planning, and thinking of 01-03, naive or deliberate subversion of history."

So let me clarify. 9/11 is an event. Ignoring the impacts of that event, 9/11, in the thinking and planning leading up to our attack on Iraq is either naive or a deliberate subversion of history.

No where, at any time did I say 9/11 was linked to Iraqi actions or that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

Posted by: CoRev at April 7, 2007 04:49 PM

CoRev:

Lex, reading is fundamental

As is writing.

Ignoring the impacts of that event, 9/11, in the thinking and planning leading up to our attack on Iraq is either naive or a deliberate subversion of history.

No where, at any time did I say 9/11 was linked to Iraqi actions or that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

911 made the Iraq invasion appropriate, even though Iraq was uninvolved with 911? What kind of reasoning is that?

Iraq was largely unassociated with jihad, at least before we invaded. Saudi Arabia contributed most of the 9/11 hijackers, and the wife of the Saudi ambassador was caught writing checks to a person involved in 911. Pakistan has been selling nuclear bomb components. Iran is developing nukes. The only involvement of Iraq with terrorism to my knowledge is Saddam contributing money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

How do you figure Iraq was an important front in the war on fanatical Islam?

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 7, 2007 06:06 PM

CoRev,

I don't forget 9/11. If I'd been younger I would have reenlisted. As it was, I volunteered to clean up the Towers just as I had helped clean up after Hurricane Floyd flooded the eastern part of our state. The only reason I didn't go was because Guiliani asked us not to come. I still wish I had gone. I needed to do something.

I told my wife, "I want to kick some raghead ass."

But I was acting out of anger and outrage. Working from anger is stupid and leads you to do stupid things. Good foreign policy, especially committing a nation to war, is not something you should do in anger, but in the cold light of day, when you have the facts and you know there is no alternative.

So while 9/11 might have made us look hard at Iraq, all the intel at the time told us they weren't involved. I appreciate your anger because I share it, but using 9/11 to justify going into this war only illuminates this administration's petulance and criminal disregard for the people who serve in uniform.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 7, 2007 06:25 PM

Lex, your reality is not mine. Where did I say this? "911 made the Iraq invasion appropriate...", What I did say was 9/11 had an impact on thinking and planning. That's a long way from what you wrote.

David, did I say where I was on 9/11? I really don't remember because I have been on several of these threads the past few days. Just know it was REAL close to one of the sites. Regardless, you are reading motives into me and the administration that are not supported by anything I have seen. You may be xferring your own anger onto others.

I am not sure of what your motives are other than ranting about the administration. For what purpose. Goes for you also, Lex.

Posted by: CoRev at April 7, 2007 08:09 PM

CoRev,

I'm going to answer you honestly because I think you deserve it.

What's my agenda? Well, I have several.

1. To show up on an admittedly conservative site and demonstrate that not all liberals are Rosie O'Donnell moonbats. Far from it.

2. To inspire people to look at the facts and to hold this administration accountable for what I believe are monstrous crimes and misdemeanors. What you call ranting, I think of as a call for justice.

3. To have an honest exchange and debate. I don't know everything and, frankly, it hones my own argument to be challenged by people from another perspective.

4. It's shameful, I admit, but I enjoy kicking punks like Some Guy to the curb. But that is a minor reason for my soending time here. Very minor.

As for you, I wonder why you keep taking things I say personally. Did I question where you were on 9/11? No, and frankly, I don't care. Even the French on 9/12 expressed solidarity with the US.

No, I was responding to reaction to 9/11 with our decision to go to war with Iraq. I was saying that forming foreign policy based on anger was a mistake. I told my personal story to demonstrate that I was as angry as anyone.

This isn't a contest of who cares more. This is hashing out what is right and what is wrong, how you see things and how I see things. I think those who continue to apologize for this admin's SNAFU's are carrying water for people who don't deserve it.

Why you constantly see my posts as somehow questioning your past, your present or your future bona fides is a mystery. Step back a bit and take a breath. This isn't personal.

But, if you want to get personal, you've made cryptic comments about your backgropund and your physical closeness to the Towers. I have no reason to question those things nor have I. Quite honestly, I don't care. But I have to say, it's easy to posture under a pseudonym. You know my name. you can Google me and verify the basic facts. I can't say the same for you. Not that you're under any obligation, but if you keep being coy about your background, it does make that part of the discussion.

It's you who keeps injecting your personal story into this dialogue, not me.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 7, 2007 09:56 PM

David said: "...I think those who continue to apologize for this admin's SNAFU's..." Where in my discussion have I apologized for this admin's snafus?

David, how am I to interpret: "But we're talking actual war here CoRev, not a video game or cap guns in the woods." Is it personal? Is my name associated in a snide remark? Is it a snide remark?

And I am being coy by using a pseudonym? So be it. I am coy.

Posted by: CoRev at April 8, 2007 06:42 AM

CoRev:

"...I think those who continue to apologize for this admin's SNAFU's..." Where in my discussion have I apologized for this admin's snafus?

Wow, and my family has on its crest "The Movie Is About Me" but your finding a personal assault in every other sentence takes home the trophy for blind egocentrism. This is not all about you, CoRev, as much as you'd like to frame this as a personal attack, it's not. I don't know you, I don't care where you've been, what you've done, if you have two legs or four, I just don't care. I care about this issue. If your background gives you a certain insight into the subject, by all means, that's relevant, but you haven't offered up anything but cryptic chatter and some sort of aggrieved victimhood.

But we're talking actual war here CoRev, not a video game or cap guns in the woods...

That's the quote. Now, if I'd said, "We're talking a serious dinner here, CoRev, not just cupcakes and ice cream" would I be criticizing your culinary skills? No.

If I'd said, "This is a real marathon, CoRev, not just a jog around the park" would that be a slam on your lack of exercise? Not a bit.

If I'd said, "This is serious country music, CoRev, not a formulaic piece of overproduced Nashville crap" is that a critique of your tastes in music? No, it's not.

"But we're talking actual war here CoRev, not a video game or cap guns in the woods" was meant to convey the seriousness of what we've done. If you're so sensitive that you see that as somehow a reflection on you, a person I don't know a thing about (except being amazingly self-absorbed), then I suggest your problems don't lie in what I've written, but in what you think you've read. To paraphrase Big Bill, our trouble lies not in our stars, CoRev, but in ourselves.

And I don't mind you being coy. But if you have relevant experience, bring it up. Just hinting at your background tells us nothing except that, well, you're being coy. Not very interesting or relevant, is it?

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 8, 2007 09:01 AM

David, interesting gambit this personal thing. What happens when we stop feeding you?

Posted by: CoRev at April 8, 2007 12:45 PM

CoRev: Where did I say this? "911 made the Iraq invasion appropriate...", What I did say was 9/11 had an impact on thinking and planning. That's a long way from what you wrote.

I don't understand what your justification for the war is then. If you tell me what it is, I'll be happy to respond.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 8, 2007 05:59 PM

Lex, buddy, you still don't get it. I don't have to justify the war to you. I didn't cause it. I wasn't part of the decision process, and neither were you. I can't nor won't take responsibility for it.

I'm outta here!

Posted by: CoRev at April 8, 2007 09:39 PM

And the beat goes on.Its Dubya's fault,naw slick
willie caused it.Folks only history will judge
if it was worth it or not.Basicly Iraq was a line
in the sand,do it there not here.85% of Americans
don't have a clue that we are fighting for our
way of life as we know it and for the Western
world.Check out the inroads Islam has made in all
western countries,go on check it out.And then
remember the words of Ayman al Zawahiri" Convert
to Islam or die" words to remember..Iraq,we have
been held to screwed ROE and political correct-
ness you, don't fight that way!!And you can't fight with a JAG officer watching your every move.
We need to win no if's or buts period...

Posted by: Jack Sparrow at April 8, 2007 10:59 PM