« They Really Said It | Main | Declaring Victory »

Barbara Boxer Nuttiness Continues

Barbara Boxer is a loon. We knew that after she cried as Bush was confirmed but today set a new high in lows.

During Dr. Rice's confirmation hearing today she tried to make to case that Saddam had no ties to Al Qeada. As evidence she cited an interview with bin Laden's who said Hussian was "a bad muslim."

So not only did she read more into bin Laden's statement than he said, but she gave Osama bin Laden more credibility than she did the Bush administration.

Class act huh?

Yesterday was bad enough before she started hearing voices.

And I see Im not the only one who noticed. Capt Ed Steve L (Secure liberty) Airborne Combat Eng Right Pundit LGF

BTW her phone is busy : 1 (202) 224-3553

Update Only Boxer and Kerry voted no. It's approved, 16 Yeas and 2 bitter moonbats Nays

Clarification: It now goes to the full Senate, I might not have been clear. But it's a done deal.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Barbara Boxer Nuttiness Continues:

» La Shawn Barber's Corner linked with Condi Rice And The Squad Of Liberal Losers

» Jeremy-Gilby-dot-com linked with The Boxer Jihad

» Ramblings' Journal linked with Boxer gets caught in her own lie

» Swanky Conservative linked with That's Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice

» Knight Of The Mind linked with Barbara Boxer - She Has To Be A GOP Plant

» The Astute Blogger linked with BOXER ADMITS IGNORANCE AND ARROGANCE

» Slowplay.com linked with As Rice dominates her, Boxer goes to new low

» Smoking Gun linked with Dumber and Dumberer...The WMD meme....

» The Baron linked with MSM Media Bias in Pictures?

» Sisyphean Musings linked with The Politics of Forgetting Our Fallen

» Sisyphean Musings linked with Analysis III

» Petrified Truth linked with Barbara Boxer bulldog

» Ipse Dixit linked with Road To Nowhere

Comments (80)

Dr. Rice helped sell the fo... (Below threshold)

Dr. Rice helped sell the for-profit war in Iraq with a pack of lies, including WMDs that didn't exist and, yes, the fictional al Qaeda/Hussian links.

Sen, Boxer and I both give Octavia Nasr, the 9/11 Commission, and Army Intelligence more credibility than Dr. Rice---and they've all been telling us that there is NO link between the two except in the minds of GOP spin masters and their idiot thalls.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F7091EF838540C778DDDA80894DC404482

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_crime&Number=1468521&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1&t=-1

Sorry Don, you lost. Remem... (Below threshold)
Justin B:

Sorry Don, you lost. Remember that whole thing in November? Now keep being angry and keep saying what you will about things, but Sen. Boxer can complain all she wants and it won't change who the President is or the next Sec. of State is.

Sorry but intel was not 100%. Maybe when the Democrats get back in power they can make everything perfect the way the French have in the world, but your whining is just pouting over the ass whoopin' your guys received in the elections. Tell it to Tom Daschle.

Keep it coming Sen. Boxer! ... (Below threshold)
Jack Tanner:

Keep it coming Sen. Boxer! Was there a big picture of you crying on Sorryeverybody.com?

Don, you are an ill-informe... (Below threshold)
Tim:

Don, you are an ill-informed nitwit

see also

Dear cap Abnormal (Don to h... (Below threshold)
capt joe:

Dear cap Abnormal (Don to his fellow travellers)

Reality based means not real.

Please smell the coffee, the dream is dead, time to wake up

You might be interested in ... (Below threshold)

You might be interested in the article we did catching Boxer in a very flagrant lie on the Iraq War Resolution.

Click the link to read We Bust Buffoon Babs Boxer on Her Blatant Iraq Lie

People like Boxer cannot be... (Below threshold)
ridgerunner:

People like Boxer cannot be reasoned with. All that can be done is to let them rant place their "evidence" into the record and give a rebuttal and place your evidence in the record. Condi Rice did this beautifully . I think the best of all was the exchange at the very end. Boxer tried to compare Sadam to Miloshevik in asserting the whole war could have been averted just by "nabbing " Hussein in the same way Miloshevik was "nabbed". Condi replied in part "I doubt Sadam could have been "nabbed"."
I don't thin Boxer even knew she had been "B***h Slapped". Wonderful.

Justin, Tim, Capt' Joe, and... (Below threshold)

Justin, Tim, Capt' Joe, and Paul:

Snipe at me all you want---and I have no doubt that you will---but it doesn't change the facts.

Dr. Rice and the rest of the Bush regime repeatedly claimed that Hussain had WMDs and was linked to al Qaeda. Both these claims have been definately proven wrong.

Either Dr. Rice knew she was spouting untruths, in which case she is a LIAR, or she didn't know, in which case she is INCOMPETENT. Personally, I think she's both.

As a result, over 15,000 human beings are dead, goddess only know how many are wounded, raped, or homeless.

I don't expect you to stop cutting and pasting the latest Fox talking points, but I hope that you'll stop for a minute and consider the blood on Dr. Rice's hands before you swallow the party line.

Bush Lied?"He will... (Below threshold)
Terry:

Bush Lied?

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and
consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take
necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and
missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to
end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sense. Carl
Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9,
1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelisse (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building
weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his
cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of
State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has
invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate
that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status.
In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery
systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit
missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

Terry,Dammit, quit t... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

Terry,
Dammit, quit throwing around facts. You are screwing up Don's argument.

Don -- Who is Hikm... (Below threshold)
DrSteve:

Don --

Who is Hikmat Shakir?

Just askin'.

S

Terry don't provide any fac... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Terry don't provide any facts, all the moonbats hear is "wah wah wah wah wah"

I missed most of Boxer's vitriole yesterday, but I did get to hear the first 10 minutes or so of Kerry's. He basically launched into his campaign stump speech, I think he forgot he lost the election in November and thought he was still running. After about 10 minutes of his droning, I began to wonder if he was actually going to ask a question, I didn't get to hear it, since I had to go get my son from kindergarten, but I wasn't too hopeful when I left.

Don't worry, Steve---Terry ... (Below threshold)

Don't worry, Steve---Terry isn't throwing around facts. He's just cut-and-pasting irrelevant and out of context NewsMax boilerplate.

All his quotes are from BEFORE the UN sanctions and the Clinton Adminstation inspectors finished disarming Iraq.

I assume he wants to insinuate that these quotes absolve the Bush regime of any responsibility for their own lies and blunders, but that kind of idiocy only works on true believers and nitwits.

After about 10 minutes o... (Below threshold)
julie:

After about 10 minutes of his droning, I began to wonder if he was actually going to ask a question . . . .

Doesn't that drive you crazy? And do they have any idea how offensive it is to go on and on about how much they admire Rice, because of her background? What the hell does that mean? Can they be any more patronizing? I guess they can, because Kerry (the other one) did it at the 9/11 hearings and now these bozos, too.

Has anybody figured out the... (Below threshold)
TomB:

Has anybody figured out the tsunami "wonderful opportunity" quote that Boxer accused Rice of making?

I've looked through the transcript of the hearings and cannot find any mention of this, although there are news reports out that have a complete quote from Dr. Rice.

BTW, Don, there is no proof of a Hussein/Al Qadea link to 9-11 (but a lot of circumstantial evidence), but there is conclusive proof of an overall link between Hussein/Al Qaeda.

You moonbats continue to try and confuse the two.

TomB:Hit the "she ... (Below threshold)
julie:

TomB:

Hit the "she started hearing voices" link in Paul's article.

I am no fan of Rice or neoc... (Below threshold)
Rob Hackney:

I am no fan of Rice or neocons ( yes neo-cons are a small bunch and beleive slightly different things ) that betray my conservative beleifs, but the way the dems are cry babies truly takes the cake.

Bush will go down in history as a great man, but only after along period where people deride him.

We should have just been honest about the war in that he was a bad man, and yes, it will heklp us secure energy for the future. The Terror link was tenuous at best. Not a good sell. Still, at leas tthey tried to do something, instead of give the terrorists a free hand like the damn Dems.

Don,I wish we had ... (Below threshold)
Justin B:

Don,

I wish we had a little time machine and we could ship your ass over to 1990's Iraq to live in Saddam's little spot of paradise. WMD's or not, Al Qaeda or not, Iraq needed to be fixed.

Why don't you head on over to Daily Kos and see what the Dean regime has paid Kos to say this week about Condi or Bush? Don't accuse us of being boilerplate copy and paste hacks. I am sure there are other blogs that talk about how great Michael Moore is or Ted Kennedy is that you would be much more at home posting to. I am pretty sure everyone there will agree with you too on Bush being a liar.

News Flash though--The American People have spoken and re-elected him. We live in a Democracy and the people have spoken. Why don't you let the will of the people speak and STFU!

Between Boxer and Rice...it... (Below threshold)

Between Boxer and Rice...its personal. Boxer fears Rice because Rice still claims California residency, which means come 2010 Rice could run against Boxer for the Senate...

So, Boxer sees it as being in her best intrest to cut Rice off at the knees, by sowing "seeds of discontent".

Thanks for the reply julie,... (Below threshold)
TomB:

Thanks for the reply julie, but I already read that article and it doesn't give a definitve answer. To quote from the article:

Final Update: See the comments below for articles that have the quotation. As of 1:15 a.m. eastern, January 19, the transcript still doesn't have it. I'm resigned to confusion.

All his quotes are from ... (Below threshold)
Sean:

All his quotes are from BEFORE the UN sanctions and the Clinton Adminstation inspectors finished disarming Iraq.

Okay Don, let's look at dates:

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sense. Carl
Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9,
1998

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of
State, Nov. 10, 1999

Rep. Nancy Pelisse (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

The date that inspectors withdrew from Iraq because of Sodom's refusal to cooperate: October 31, 1998

All the quotes are from before the inspectors "finished"? No - two are from before the inspectors withdrew.

Now. Either you are a liar or you are an incompetent. Personally, I think you're both.

Let me translate Justin's p... (Below threshold)

Let me translate Justin's poorly-written Orwellian newspeak into English---

paragraph 1: "While it's true that Dr. Rice and the Bush regime sold the war in Iraq based on blunders and lies, it was still a good idea to let al Qeada escape and go to Iraq anyway."

paragraph 2: "Even though I'm completely wrong, other people are sometimes wrong too. Therefore it's completely acceptable for me to keep repeating whatever Bill O'Reilly says over and over until I truly believe it."

paragraph 3: "Might makes right. All dissent must be squashed."

I am glad I could be of service.

I missed this idiocy from D... (Below threshold)
TomB:

I missed this idiocy from Don:

"All his quotes are from BEFORE the UN sanctions and the Clinton Adminstation inspectors finished disarming Iraq."


A quote from UN Resolution 1441, November 8 2002:

Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security

Apparently you forgot to tell the UN that they already got rid of Iraq's WMDs.

So Don -- just how flat ... (Below threshold)

So Don -- just how flat is your home planet?

Sean:OOPS! You're ... (Below threshold)

Sean:

OOPS! You're right, I got the timeline wrong---good thing I'm not becoming the Sct'y of State or anything.

The INSPECTORS were pulled out in 1998 but the SANCTIONS remained in place---y'know, the sanctions that obviously worked because Saddam, as we all know now, had no WMDs.

'Dr. Rice and the rest of t... (Below threshold)
Jack Tanner:

'Dr. Rice and the rest of the Bush regime repeatedly claimed that Hussain had WMDs and was linked to al Qaeda. Both these claims have been definately proven wrong.'

Only to dunces like you who live in the unreality based community. Saddam was found in material breach of the UN resolutions, had both illegal conventional and chemical weapons, including mustard gas and sarin. There are numerous confirmations of contacts between Saddam and AQ along with Saddam providing santuary and financial support to other terrorists and organizations.

'As a result, over 15,000 human beings are dead, goddess only know how many are wounded, raped, or homeless.'

Sorry you got your idiot talking points wrong, you were supposed to say that the US killed over 200,000 innocent Iraqis. Funny you didn't mention the hundreds of thousands of dead that have been found in Saddam's 400+ mass graves. As well as the fact that 25 million Irais were forced to live, until Saddam changed his mind and had any one who expressed any opposition killed, as slaves in Saddam's police state.

'I hope that you'll stop for a minute and consider the blood on Dr. Rice's hands before you swallow the party line.'

As soon as you acknowledge the blood on your own tyrant and terrorist sympathizing soul.

'All his quotes are from BEFORE the UN sanctions and the Clinton Adminstation inspectors finished disarming Iraq.'

Question then, if Saddam was disarmed why did he refuse the UN free access to inspect and request to have the sanctions removed? So he could continue to steal the oil-for-terror money and use control of the UN terror appeasement money and starve any opposition? So he could continue to run Iraq as a police state and murder any opposition? Why did he continue to employ scientists in both nuclear programs and chemical weapons programs if he didn't have any intention of resurrecting them? Only to provide cover so he could continue to put Iraqis in mass graves and steal UN funds to support both internal and external terrorists? Why did he pay the families of suicide bombers if he wasn't promoting terrorism? Just a nice guy?


Don,I'm still wait... (Below threshold)
TomB:

Don,

I'm still waiting for you to tell us why the UN voted for sanctions on Iraq in 2002 based on the presence of WMDs when they, according to you, already knew he didn't have them.

Don,How do you kno... (Below threshold)

Don,

How do you know Iraq didn't have an WMD's? What proof do you have that the sancations worked?

Oh, yeah, the press and others who's opinions you place value upon are telling you there aren't any there.

You know, that sounds exactly like President Bush, his entire cabinet, and most of Congress did. They listened to people (CIA, MI5, etc) who's opinions they trusted and valued on the matter and made a decision that Sadam was our next greatest threat.

Now, can you offer any proof that they lied without using the "proof is in the pudding" defense?

The Saddam WMD argument goe... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

The Saddam WMD argument goes back before Bush, that is pretty clear.

One of the major factors given for the urgency to go to war was the presence of weapons that were an immediate threat to the US. Thats what we were all told.

Now, there are no weapons, and the search is over.

The question is really about how much everyone (in both the Clinton and Bush admins.) really knew, vs. what they were telling us. At least the PNAC people come right out and say it, instead of cloaking it all in pretty PR. But Americans wouldnt go for it if they were told they had to go to war to "further our national interests" would they?

Certainly Iraq supported terrorism, but that isnt really a unique aspect of them. More than one state harbors terrorists.

To my knowledge, the links to AL Qaida were shady at best. But then my main source is the commission report. Any better sources? Strong evidence for a connection would be a major factor in me changing my take on this whole issue. IMO Afhghanistan was alot more on track, and justifiable, than the Iraq war.

Hussein's treatment of his people is legit, although I'm pretty sure thats not the number one reason we went in there...in that case we would have had to consider Saudi Arabia, among others, as well.

The attempted Bush assassination was a legit grievance, clearly. I'm not sure how that adds to the imminent threat aspect however.

I think that Tim's reason #7 is basically the primary motivation. National security interests. Hussein was challenging the US in a region where we have wanted more control/influence. We tried to align ourselves with him in the 1980s, but that didnt work because he's a brutal dictator, and brutal murderous dicators dont make good allies in the long run. Hussein was getting support from other nations in the region, not because he was a good leader, but because he was challenging the US's control/influence in the Middle East, and scapegoating the US to get more support for himself. He became a violent and delusional symbol of defiance for far too many people.

Hussein certainly wasnt a harbinger of freedom or democracy. He was a goddamn criminal. He didnt give a damn about his people, and he defied the US as much as possible. He was also the strongest power and biggest problem for us in the region, militarily speaking. He was a big roadblock.

However, I disagree with people who try to agrue that we went into Iraq to help the Iraqi people. IF our interests were with the people of Iraq then why the hell did we arm and aid Hussein in the 80s? Thats bullshit, IMO. We went there to further our national interests, so the move was primarily strategic, not humanitarian.

Some people might not like this but here goes: If Hussein had complied with the US, had obeyed orders, we wouldnt have invaded, human rights violations or not (IMO). If he had been a good little stooge, then we would have let him do as he wanted, like we do with Saudi Arabia, whose human rights record is fairly dismal.

What did Condi Rice know? I have no idea. Do any of you really know? Please fill me in. Reading the commission report it seems clear that GW himself wasnt too sure about the Iraq war move at the start, and had to be persuaded. He seemed to question the relevance in the beginning.

I know that some people might not like what I say, and thats fine with me. Can we please stay away from the insults, remain civil, and just discuss the issues? If some of my ideas suck, by all means give me your ideas or opinions.

r.a.,You said:... (Below threshold)
TomB:

r.a.,

You said:

"IF our interests were with the people of Iraq then why the hell did we arm and aid Hussein in the 80s?"

Arm with what? What exactly did we "aid" Hussein with in the 80s?

There's no doubt we supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war (primarily with intelligence), but I keep hearing we "armed" Iraq. Where are the terrorists with M16s and LAW rockets?

It was the MSM that blew th... (Below threshold)

It was the MSM that blew the WMD aspect into "the" reason for the war in Iraq. There were other reasons, as Boxer would have known had she actually read the resolution before voting against it. Yeah, it turns out Iraq DIDN'T have WMDs...but anyone who has read at least the key findings of the Duelfer report knows that 1) "Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999," and 2) "Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions
were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized..."

So instead of going in and taking out a Saddam in possession of WMDs we took out Saddam only shortly before he had possession of WMDs. Much better, in my opinion. There's no doubt in my mind that, had we not gone in, Saddam would have resurrected his WMD program.

TomB: Obviously, ... (Below threshold)
julie:

TomB:

Obviously, the online free transcripts are incomplete. I have no doubt the quotes of the exchange between Voinovich and Rice are accurate because I heard them, too. Not a shock that Boxer's mis-quotes and out of context statements get printed, but the actual statements by Rice and Voinovich do not.

For complete online transcripts, there is Federal News Service, but it requires a one year paid subscription. Maybe, if you contacted them, they would sell one transcipt if you are that curious.

You people have proven two ... (Below threshold)

You people have proven two me the two main attributes of the Bush Mind Thrall set:

1) You value words over actions, and
2) You truly beleive, in your heart of cold, black hearst, that Oceana is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has ALWAYS been at war with Eurasia.

Have a nice day.

And you, Don, prove the mai... (Below threshold)
TomB:

And you, Don, prove the main attribute of a moonbat:

When the questions get too hard to answer, either change the subject or run away.

Almost, TomB...but I think ... (Below threshold)

Almost, TomB...but I think it's more a problem of reading comprehension. Somewhere in his moonbat brain he actually thinks he made a coherent point. When he fails to comprehend the responses he declares victory THEN runs away. Just like Boxer.

Actually, TomB, it's "try t... (Below threshold)

Actually, TomB, it's "try to change the subject, and when that doesn't work THEN declare victory and run away."

Which is pretty much what Don just did.

Don,Here is one mo... (Below threshold)
Terry:

Don,

Here is one more quote for you, that does not go way, way back.

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

Try to keep up.

TomB wrote:Arm ... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

TomB wrote:

Arm with what? What exactly did we "aid" Hussein with in the 80s?

There's no doubt we supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war (primarily with intelligence), but I keep hearing we "armed" Iraq. Where are the terrorists with M16s and LAW rockets?

You're right. No m16s, no LAW rockets, just money, intelligence, and some naval protection assistance.

The arms went to Iran(Iran/Contra affair), and the aid and intelligence went to Iraq. We "aided" Hussein in by establishing diplomatic relations in 1984, by using our navy to protect his ships in the gulf, and also by providing military intelligence.

We also knew that Hussein had used, and continued to use chemical weapons, and we supported him regardless.

And then we started selling weapons indirectly to Iran. Basically it looks like we wanted to assist both sides in annihilating one another.

1) You value words over ... (Below threshold)
Justin B:

1) You value words over actions

Don,

Nope. Wrong on this one. "We will make no distinction between those that harbor terrorists and the terrorists themselves." Remember that? Saddam harbored terrorists... if not 9-11 terrorists, he allowed known terrorists to reside in his country and refused to comply with UN inspectors.

We TOOK ACTION IN IRAQ instead of using "resolutions" at the UN. Please explain hw the UN and the Democrats value "actions" over words when for 12 years they just talked and talked and talked about what a bad guy Saddam was.

Your sorry ass gets to live through the next four years of the Bush Regime and a republican house and senate, the appointing of several Supreme Court Justices, and as of today, Condi as Sec. of State. Enjoy Dick! Be as angry as you want and call us liars and hate the way things are. But all I have to do is point to reality. You think you are so smart, but if you are so wise and all knowing, why did your guys get their asses kicked? See ya in four years when we kick Hillary's ass for you.

Uh..."naval protec... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Uh...

"naval protection/assistance" works better above. sorry.

WOW, sorry I was late to th... (Below threshold)
LJD:

WOW, sorry I was late to the party.

I was wondering if Don could tell us who has been RAPED as a result of Condi's words?

"Goddess" only knows. (Speaks in volumes)

WOW, sorry I was late to th... (Below threshold)
LJD:

WOW, sorry I was late to the party.

I was wondering if Don could tell us who has been RAPED as a result of Condi's words?

"Goddess" only knows. (Speaks in volumes)

'One of the major factors g... (Below threshold)
Jack Tanner:

'One of the major factors given for the urgency to go to war was the presence of weapons that were an immediate threat to the US. '

To paraphrase - 'I'm not going to wait until the threat is imminent'

You're right. No m16s, n... (Below threshold)
TomB:

You're right. No m16s, no LAW rockets, just money, intelligence, and some naval protection assistance.

How much money?

We also knew that Hussein had used, and continued to use chemical weapons, and we supported him regardless.

Who is "we"?

jack wrote:To p... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

jack wrote:

To paraphrase - 'I'm not going to wait until the threat is imminent'

ok. i understand your point. preemtive attack. so in that line of thinking we should be invading pakistan as well...i mean they harbor terrorists, have a nasty dictator for a leader, and already have WMDs.

and then we should go after saudi arabia as well...terrorists, brutal leadership, human rights violations...right?

Whats the difference? Well, Saddam didnt follow orders, thats the difference. The others, though brutal and repressive, basically do what we say. Saddam didnt, so we had to go remove him.

I agree with you jack, it was a tactical move based on US perceptions of the situation.

Since the threat wasnt imminent I think we had more time to build alliances and go in with a more united front, so as to avoid all the negative america bashing, scapegoating, etc. IMO we jumped the gun, and created more problems for ourselves.

Ah, and when people don't j... (Below threshold)
Patrick Chester:

Ah, and when people don't jump on Don bandwagon he bleats at how they're "thralls" and tries stealing from 1984. Boy, what a shocking and unexpected development.

Not.

TomB:How much m... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

TomB:

How much money?

Ok. Do you really want me to go try to figure that out exactly how much we credited Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war, or is this a roundabout way of you saying that you disagree with the fact that we assisted Iraq financially?

Who is "we"?

"Washington backed Saddam Hussein during the height of his repression in the 1980s, concealing Iraqi atrocities-such as the chemical weapons attack against Halabja and other Kurdish towns-and supporting Iraq in its invasion of Iran"
-Stephen Zunes from Iraq, Opposing Viewpoints p.70

"In April Iraq recaptured the Fao Penninsula, using chemical weapons extensively-a fact witnessed and confirmed at the time by the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency officers-while US warships blew up two Iranian oil rigs..."
-Hiro, Iraq p. 31

They used the weapons, and the US government knew about it. It was a problem that they tried to deal with, as the US was supporting Iraq in the war.

We=the US government.

"Since the threat wasnt imm... (Below threshold)

"Since the threat wasnt imminent I think we had more time to build alliances and go in with a more united front, so as to avoid all the negative america bashing, scapegoating, etc. IMO we jumped the gun, and created more problems for ourselves."

I agree with you there, but apparently those who actually have to make these decisions THOUGHT THERE WAS an imminent threat. I wish we had KNOWN there wasn't an imminent threat, but wishing doesn't change anything.

Since the threat wasnt i... (Below threshold)
TomB:

Since the threat wasnt imminent I think we had more time to build alliances and go in with a more united front, so as to avoid all the negative america bashing, scapegoating, etc. IMO we jumped the gun, and created more problems for ourselves.

Oh, for cryin' out loud r.a., that "build alliances" meme is DEAD. All the time in the world wouldn't have changed the fact that France and Germany were getting rich off kickbacks from Hussein, and therefore didn't have the slightest reason to act.

12 years is quite long enough.

Ok. Do you really want m... (Below threshold)
TomB:

Ok. Do you really want me to go try to figure that out exactly how much we credited Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war,

I figured since you made the accusation, you'd know the amount.

Sorry, my bad.

We=the US government.

Well, they never asked me.

Which is to say, all this hand-wringing is just so much mental masturbation. Face it, the world was a much different place back then and we were fighting a different war. The M.E. was one of the battlefields of that war, and if it doesn't fit into your 2005 worldview, tough.

Barbara Boxer is a loon.... (Below threshold)
Fritz:

Barbara Boxer is a loon.

How does appealing to her constituency make Boxer a loon? She's doing exactly what it takes to please most of her fellow Californians. Whether you agree with her politics or not, it would be crazy for her not to be the voice of dissent.

The woman just knows what side her bread is buttered on. She's all over the local news. There will probably be a parade for her down Market Street in San Francisco.

TomB:Oh, for cr... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

TomB:

Oh, for cryin' out loud r.a., that "build alliances" meme is DEAD. All the time in the world wouldn't have changed the fact that France and Germany were getting rich off kickbacks from Hussein, and therefore didn't have the slightest reason to act.

i know. thats why i think that it wasnt a good idea for us to invade, especially not a large scale invasion like this. we are going at it alone, and paying a severe price.

i agree with you that germany and france probably wouldnt have agreed to help. thats reality.

france and germany had economic interests in Iraq, and thats why they didnt want the place bombed to hell. they were worried about the big $$$. but, the US wouldnt want its overseas interests to be bombed either, and has acted to protect them in the past. both sides play that game. dont act like the US doesnt collaborate with dictators.

so we went at it alone. and its a high cost venture. certainly we are hoping for some economic and strategic gain, as everyone is in these kinds of ventures. the cost may or may not outweigh the benefits however. i dont know.

Elisa:I agree w... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Elisa:

I agree with you there, but apparently those who actually have to make these decisions THOUGHT THERE WAS an imminent threat. I wish we had KNOWN there wasn't an imminent threat, but wishing doesn't change anything.

That's what I question...exactly who knew what, and we probably will not know for a long time. Certainly some people were pushind for the invasion of Iraq more than others just after 9/11. And that agenda had been on the table for some time. They had waited 12 years, and suddenly the threat was dire? Doesnt make sense to me. I think that some people decided it was a good time, as the country was a bit in shock, and was pretty receptive to military actions.

Why was Iraq all of a sudden this huge threat? I think it was a timing issue, and that Cheney and Rummy thought it would be a good time to deal with the Hussein issue, that Americans would support it in the post 9/11 climate.

we are going at it alone... (Below threshold)
TomB:

we are going at it alone

To hell with Great Britain, Australia, Poland, Italy, ect.

I mean, really, you're hitting just about EVERY moonbat meme here. Can't you come up with something original?

First you say that we should have waited and brought more countries on board (France and Germany). And then you admit they wouldn't have come on board anyway.

Do you think these things through before you write them?

and paying a severe price.

"Severe"?

Any loss is great but please, let's try and keep things in perspective.

thats why they didnt want the place bombed to hell.

"bombed to hell"?

Once again, please, perspective. We didn't bomb the place to 'heck', let alone to hell.

With assertions like that, I wonder how serious you really are.

i dont know.

We finally agree.

They had waited 12 year... (Below threshold)
TomB:

They had waited 12 years, and suddenly the threat was dire? Doesnt make sense to me.

But it does to those of us who had a TV on and were paying attention on 9/11.

"How does appealing to her ... (Below threshold)

"How does appealing to her constituency make Boxer a loon? She's doing exactly what it takes to please most of her fellow Californians."

I think that's what Boxer THINKS she's doing, but I also think (and hope) that it will come back to bite her in the ass. She won another term in November with 57.8% of the vote, running against a rival who barely bothered to campaign and wasn't much of a real contestant anyway. While 43% of Californians are registered Democrats (35% are registered Republicans, and 22% are either other parties or declined to state), only a minority are full-fledged moonbats. If Boxer keeps going the way she is, anyone will be able to beat her next time around.

Elisa, it's probably worth ... (Below threshold)
TomB:

Elisa, it's probably worth noting that CA's other Senator was sitting on the SAME side of the table with Condi, having formally introduced her to the panel.

Boxer is a loon.

Yep, one of the few times I... (Below threshold)

Yep, one of the few times I was not embarrassed to have Feinstein as my senator.

Personally I agree that Boxer is a loon, but I also think she didn't get elected yet again by being totally clueless. She either really thinks that the majority of Californians are barking at the moon or she's not planning to run again and so is dropping any pretense of being anywhere except on the far left fringes.

TomB wrote:I fi... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

TomB wrote:

I figured since you made the accusation, you'd know the amount.

Sorry, my bad.

Fair enough. I will look them up, and post what I find. The point is that we aided them financially, which you dont seem to disagree with.

Well, they never asked me.

I never got asked either, but I was only about 10. See how they are.

Which is to say, all this hand-wringing is just so much mental masturbation. Face it, the world was a much different place back then and we were fighting a different war. The M.E. was one of the battlefields of that war, and if it doesn't fit into your 2005 worldview, tough.

Here I strongly disagree with you. What happened in the 1980s lead up to what is going on today. We aligned ourselves with the very person that we went to war against in 1990, and then 12 years later in 2002. We did that in multiple cases, and have later had to deal with the consequences. Arming fundamentalists against the Soviets in the 1980s is another example. They were convenient at the time, but I doubt you would argue that they didnt come back to haunt us. Mabye we could apply some of those lessons today.

The current war didnt just come about from nowhere, it has context. Understanding past errors might make some sense. Or it does to me.

Your point is that it doesnt really matter what we did in the 80s, mine is that what happened then has created what we are dealing with today.

. . . running against a ... (Below threshold)
julie:

. . . running against a rival who barely bothered to campaign. . . .

Stop exaggerating -- he never campaigned at all. ;-)

She either really thinks that the majority of Californians are barking at the moon

This gets my vote. Like the Hollywood crowd, she is so insular.

Our aligning with Iraq was ... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Our aligning with Iraq was more of a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend/lesser of two evils" type thing at work. In hindsight, yeah we probably shouldn't have jumped into bed with them, but since when do we expect our presidents to be psychic?

Also, why do the moonbats all think that unless France and Germany give the go ahead, nobody else counts? I am so sick and tired of the phrase "going it alone" I think I might scream.

Mabye we could apply som... (Below threshold)
TomB:

Mabye we could apply some of those lessons today.

Yes, by all means, tell us what those "lessons" are and how that relates to the WoT.

The current war didnt just come about from nowhere, it has context. Understanding past errors might make some sense. Or it does to me

The context is that in the late 70s, the Shah of Iran was in trouble. He was being undermined by fundamentalist islamists who didn't want a pro-western leader in Iran. So, in the interest of "human rights" Jimmy Carter (NOTE: not "we") abandoned our one time ally to islamic radicals and thus gave them their first major victory and a base of operations to spread their poison over the region.

To hell with Great Brita... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

To hell with Great Britain, Australia, Poland, Italy, ect.

well, thats hardly a majority. we have hardly built the coalition that we had in the first gulf war.

First you say that we should have waited and brought more countries on board (France and Germany). And then you admit they wouldn't have come on board anyway.

i think we could have worked something out, but it would have taken a great deal of work to get germany and france on board. maybe they would have, maybe not. how do i know what they would have done if we aggressively tried to get them on board? i dont. but it would have been worth putting more time in, so we didnt take the brunt of the costs, and blame, etc. i think we could have tried harder diplomatically, and that we had the time to do it. you think that we did it the right way. point taken.

Any loss is great but please, let's try and keep things in perspective.

severe or great. ok we have suffered "great" loss. now you're splitting hairs. what are we going on, three years over there? thats a pretty great cost. 1300 US men killed, great loss. civilian deaths, how many are there? enough. great loss. financial cost to the US, pretty great. when will all that outweigh the proposed benefits?

Once again, please, perspective. We didn't bomb the place to 'heck', let alone to hell.

With assertions like that, I wonder how serious you really are.

ok. you dont like my wording. we have caused more damage through military means than i think is acceptable/justifiable. better?

I mean, really, you're hitting just about EVERY moonbat meme here. Can't you come up with something original

cut the shit and stick to the topics. its not like you're giving me the most original replies of all time. im not replying by saying "oh god thats what all the psycho conservatives say" even though you have the same basic conservative argument. im reading what you write, considering it, and responding. its your point of view, i listen. i may disagree, big deal.

Just me:cut the mo... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Just me:

cut the moonbat shit.

Our aligning with Iraq was more of a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend/lesser of two evils" type thing at work. In hindsight, yeah we probably shouldn't have jumped into bed with them, but since when do we expect our presidents to be psychic?

Reagan knew who he was dealing with in both Iran and Iraq at the time. The US knew it was aligning with an unstable murderous dictator. Bad call.

Also, why do the moonbats all think that unless France and Germany give the go ahead, nobody else counts? I am so sick and tired of the phrase "going it alone" I think I might scream.

look, they arent the end all. what we're talking about is building a coalition, partially for political reasons, partially to to spread out the costs. fuckit. france and germany didnt help. it sucks, and maybe i need to get over it. but i disagreed with going in there in a situation where we bear the brunt of the costs, in lives and $$$. not good for us. add to that the fact that we get all the blame for anything that goes wrong over there, as happens all the time. it sucks. we bear all responsibilty, so hopefully we can pull a relative success out of this.

i think we could have wo... (Below threshold)
TomB:

i think we could have worked something out, but it would have taken a great deal of work to get germany and france on board

And earlier you wrote:

i agree with you that germany and france probably wouldnt have agreed to help. thats reality.

Which is it?

Like I said before, this kind of "logic" is nothing more than mental masturbation. You aren't serious, your just repeating memes.

when will all that outweigh the proposed benefits?

There hasn't been another terrorist attack on the US or it's interest outside of a combat zone since 9-11. Sounds like a success to me.

ok. you dont like my wording. we have caused more damage through military means than i think is acceptable/justifiable. better?

That's just plain stupid. What damage are you talking about? And please take into consideration all the building we have done while we've been there.

We've done less damage that any military in history considering our victories.

The context is that in t... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

The context is that in the late 70s, the Shah of Iran was in trouble. He was being undermined by fundamentalist islamists who didn't want a pro-western leader in Iran. So, in the interest of "human rights" Jimmy Carter (NOTE: not "we") abandoned our one time ally to islamic radicals and thus gave them their first major victory and a base of operations to spread their poison over the region.

Ah...the Shah of Iran. Good old Shah. Do you know what he was? Well, he wasnt a democratically elected leader, but he was the friend of the west, why? because he obeyed orders. another one of those. know what dictators and autocrats breed? repression. know what that fuels? extremism, fundmentalism, terrorism.

didnt carter actually express praise or support for the revolution at first? that was really stupid. i might be wrong, but i think i read that about carter. ya...so after the shah things went from bad to much worse.

the context goes back further than that, but you can pinpoint the gas crises/OPEC bullshit as a decisive moment (72?). OPEC tried to flex their muscles, made a dent in the US, and then it was decided that we needed to get some control in the region so they couldnt play us like yoyos.

Like I said before, this... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Like I said before, this kind of "logic" is nothing more than mental masturbation. You aren't serious, your just repeating memes.

i dont have esp. i have doubts about what could have happened, but still i think it would have been worth it. we were able to get alot of support in the first gulf war, and it seemed that maybe we could repeat that. it would be stupid to say "it would have worked for sure" because thats not possible to know. we did it once, and i saw no reason why we couldnt have aggressively tried to form a broad coalition again. france and germany aside may or may not have gone along, but we should have gone after as much support as possible. i would have tried to go after them, but i have doubts about whether or not they could have been persuaded. mabye maybe not.

There hasn't been another terrorist attack on the US or it's interest outside of a combat zone since 9-11. Sounds like a success to me.

thats true. now its hard to say how relevant the war in Iraq is to that fact, isnt it? correlation does not equal cause. We're talking specifically about Iraq here. it has been sunny all week, and we have been at war with iraq, but that doesnt mean that the war efforts in iraq brought out the sun, Tom.

That's just plain stupid. What damage are you talking about? And please take into consideration all the building we have done while we've been there.

what are the civilian death estimates Tom? 10,000 or more? Too many. look, i dont think we needed the large scale invasion, that is if our goal was the removal of hussein. i understand that we also have been working hard to control the place and to rebuild it. i know. but alot of people are dead, and 1300 US men. thats alot.

We've done less damage that any military in history considering our victories.

how much less?

im kidding. that was humor.

Okay, no large scale invasi... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Okay, no large scale invasion to remove Hussein. How would you do it? Who would then be in charge? What kind of chaos would there be? Would they be better than Hussein?

You aren't making much sense, your positions seem to be everywhere.

You aren't making much s... (Below threshold)
TomB:

You aren't making much sense, your positions seem to be everywhere.

Heck, I'm just hanging out reading r.a. debate him/herself.

Just me:Okay, n... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Just me:

Okay, no large scale invasion to remove Hussein. How would you do it?

you're asking good questions.

i have to say that i was pretty against military action at that point, march 02, against iraq. i didnt see the relevance at that point.

but...if we had to resort to military action, i was in favor of going after hussein specifically with special forces, and minimizing civilian deaths. right now, to me, we are pissing alot of peolpe off and cofusing them by killing too many civilians.

Who would then be in charge? What kind of chaos would there be? Would they be better than Hussein?

we dont know who's going to end up in charge one way or another. thats the gamble with all this. the country is all split up as it is. if we had just gone in and taken out hussein, who knows what would have happened, or who would have taken control.

we dont know what the hell is going to happen with the new Iraqi government. the sunnis and the shiahs and the kurds are going to have to work together if there is going to be any peace, but how likely is that? i see a problem with the fact that most of the sunnis arent participating, thats not good. i dont see how the violence will cease if they dont take part in the new government...

You aren't making much sense, your positions seem to be everywhere.

sorry. i havent figured out all of the answers to 21st century political issues, but i am insterested, and do have my own opinions. sometimes i may have to change my view a bit, in light of new evidence. call me what you will. its a constant process, and i talk to all sorts of people in order to better understand what i think.

by the way, its nice that you and TomB have kept the debate here pretty civil. Thanks. I'm sure that some things I say might be really frustrating to you. It happens to me too, but its cool if we stay clear of the insults.

Talking with some of you guys helps me question some of my own bullshit.

Heck, I'm just hanging o... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Heck, I'm just hanging out reading r.a. debate him/herself.

thats funny. you should see me when i have noam chomsky books on one side and werner cohn on the other. or when i go through michael moore and ann coulter at the same time. fuck. BTW i find moore and coulter to be equally useless.

ive been posting on here in an attempt to better understand some of your arguments, and why you believe in them, and also to get other views on some of these things.

Tom, I may indeed contradict myself. Wait, no, i dont think i do.

lol

You don't get it, r.a., fir... (Below threshold)
Mark:

You don't get it, r.a., first you choose a side then you push that side as hard as you can, cherry picking every fact or quote you can find. Then you call the other guys "wing nuts" or "moon bats" just to make sure no one ever pays attention to the other side.

Your actually trying to think. That isn't allowed in the blogosphere.

mark:sorry. i kno... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

mark:

sorry. i know. no thinking.

the funny thing is that the first reaction by most people when they hear a different viewpoint is an angry or insulting remark. that happens on both sides, and i cant stand it. nobody listens to each other, they just keep yelling.

personal insults dont bother me. i dont give a damn what some person says to me online. i get pissed off because flinging insults deflects actual discussion. nothing gets accomplished. its a way of avoiding the debate.

peole also dont like it when the "echo chamber" is interrupted, you know. on dkos when a conservative chimes in people flame the hell out of them for speaking up, for disagreeing. stupid. here the same thing happens, as liberals are flamed with moonbat, wingnut, whatever. just as bad.

they think its fun, and maybe it is to them. to me its stupid, if you really give a shit about whats going on in this country then you wouldnt be going around insulting other americans just because they dont think or act like you. both sides.

i know alot of republicans, some very conservative people, and i like them. we may disagree about some things, but we can still respect each other and eat dinner together. they're not THAT different, and they are like anyone else with things they believe in and want. we're all just humans. same with "liberals", although it may be hard to convince people on here of that. im over the whole "divide" meme that is being reinforced by all this bullshit.

reducing people to stereotypes is a big step toward dehumanization. i hate it.

I also enjoy real discussio... (Below threshold)

I also enjoy real discussion. I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge of history and politics is lacking (hey it's that California public education!), so I really appreciate it when someone disagrees with me and tells me WHY instead of just calling me an idiot.

I may, in fact, BE an idiot. But can you support that opinion with actual FACTS?!

Heh, Fritz made a funny:</p... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Heh, Fritz made a funny:

"How does appealing to her constituency make Boxer a loon? She's doing exactly what it takes to please most of her fellow Californians."

OK Fritz she represents loons too... Happy now?

So when would have been a g... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

So when would have been a good time to remove Saddam?

Assasinating Saddam or removing him with special forces still leaves a leadership vacuum, and one a couple of special forces teams from the US can't fill. Lots of people on both sides have criticized the administration for not having enough troops in Iraq to keep the peace. What kind of peace would a couple of platoons of special forces be able to keep? And once again, who would take over, if Saddam was killed in a hit by a SF team? My guess is one of his guys would have gotten the job-and that doesn't do much to help the Iraqi's who were being buried in mass graves and the people who were in prisons for no reason than they somehow offended Hussein. Remember this man had toddlers in prisoned, and there were bodies buried in mass graves with Teddy Bears. So I am not seeing how your solution is any better, or any more peaceful or kills any less Iraqi's than the current one, other than when this is all over there will hopefully be a democracy in place, rather than a terrified populace.

Just Me:i mentione... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Just Me:

i mentioned the SF because one of my old professors was in SF in vietnam, a really smart guy. i had some talks with him about iraq when it all started up, and he was pretty straight forward and pragmatic about it all. he talked about the SF and how they went about things, working with groups in the country, training them, etc. and they blend in, thats their deal. they work in smaller numbers, and arent as apparent.

anyway, if it has to happen i can appreciate the more concentrated approach. to me the more broad violence is working against us, as is our overwhelming presence.

you make good points about the power vacuum created, and the possibility that someone worse could get into power.

my main issue is how do we avoid being viewed as the enemy by the people of iraq? how do we avoid being viewed as the foreign occupying force? i think that perceptions are really working against us, and that "democracy" isnt looking too different from hussein at this point. it all looks like war.

dont take me wrong there. i just think that from the perspective of the iraqis it all may be terrifying and confusing...i could understand it if they were angry, or if they didnt trust our motives.

anyway. your questions are making me think, and my brain is worn out from class tonight. more later.

again, thanks again for keeping things civil.


'Assasinating Saddam or rem... (Below threshold)
Jack Tanner:

'Assasinating Saddam or removing him with special forces still leaves a leadership vacuum'

It wouldn't have - it would have left Uday in power.

Just Me:We are get... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Just Me:

We are getting strong resistance. I have a hard time believing that all of those people are foreign terrorists, or Saddam loyalists. It seems logical that a good amount could be Iraqis who dont know really who or what they are fighting. I wonder how many people have taken up arms against the US thinking that they are fighting for their country, or against occupation or whatever. What a mess.

Thats the main problem I see with this full on invasion, we get all the responsibilty, all the blame for what goes wrong, and we are perceived as the enemy (at times) by the very people who we are seeking to help. Now, I know that there are people who are happy to see us, but I wont lie and say that I know exactly what the split is...how many people dont want us there vs. how many do. If you have info on that please send it my way.

Sure the Shiite population is for the most part working with us, but they clearly have no love for us, let alone the Sunnis and the Kurds. The Kurds have been shafted multiple times in the past 20 years, by all sides. The Shiites got pounded hard after they rebelled against Hussein in gulf war I, when we left. The three major groups in Iraq dont have much trust in the US. And they hate each other.

I cant lie and say that I have a perfect solution; I dont. I didnt think it was the greatest idea to invade the way we did, as we now get to play the role of the big bad aggressor, regardless of our true intentions. I expect that people who normally wouldnt support one another are fighting against a perceived common enemy, thats us.

I would like to believe that the situation is like WWII when the allies marched into towns and the civilians basically knew they were there to help. I dont think the same is true today in Iraq. I think that many of them probably dont know what the hell is happening, or who is they enemy.

Elisa wrote:...... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Elisa wrote:

...so I really appreciate it when someone disagrees with me and tells me WHY instead of just calling me an idiot.

me too.

I may, in fact, BE an idiot. But can you support that opinion with actual FACTS?!

lol





Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy