« Gee, who'd'a thunk this might not work? | Main | Cary, Audrey, and Me »

Terror Double Standards

For some reason, today, I was thinking about Oklahoma City. Specifically I was thinking about the terror attacked on the federal building in that city planned and executed by Timothy McVeigh and his associates. In the post-9/11 world the Oklahoma City bombing doesn't often get included when we talk about terrorism, but that's exactly what the attack was. McVeigh and the monsters who helped him had an agenda which they thought could be fulfilled, at least in part, by blowing up a government building filled with innocent men, women and children.

After the bombing Americans (with the possible exception of a few fringe lunatics) united in condemning the actions of McVeigh and his associates. There was no excuse valid enough to justify what they did. Which was as it should be.

Now fast forward to today's world. America was hit nearly four years ago this September by foreign terrorists with an agenda aimed at bringing this country to its knees. In response to that attack America attacked two rogue, terror-sponsoring countries in the middle east, which was the region where these terrorists came from.

In the time directly after the attacks most Americans united in condemning those who had launched them. Since that time, however, things have changed. Those who opposed attacking Afghanistan and Iraq have taken to doing all but excusing (and in some instances actually excusing) the 9/11 attacks, if not outright blaming them on the government of the United States itself. People like Ward Churchill tell us that its our fault we were attacked because we're fascists. People like Cindy Sheehan tell us that the Americans and Jews are the real terrorists in the middle east. Anyone trying to reason with these people by pointing out that spreading democracy to the oppressed regions of the middle east is a pretty good way to stop terrorism is met with a stinging deluge of moral equivalence. "Blame America First" is the ideal these people cling to and they aren't letting go.

Yet after McVeigh bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City did we take to hatching conspiracy theories to "prove" that he was justified in his actions? Did we blame an "evil" American domestic policy for his deeds? Did we point to the country's economy for making him poor and unemployed? Did we point to the country's education systems for making him ignorant? Of course not. We blamed Timothy McVeigh and his cohorts. That's it. Nobody said "Oh, poor Tim had it tough growing up so of course he blew up that federal building." And if people did say that they were denounced and outed for the morons they were.

So why doesn't the same thing happen to the anti-war protesters who accuse the President of being murderer? Why no wide-spread denouncement of the anti-war folks who declare solidarity with the terrorists in Iraq? How about some criticism for people like Cindy Sheehan who blame terrorism on the Jews and accuse the President of murdering soldiers instead of the Islamic jihadists who really killed them? How about some criticism for people like Saddam-apologist and Hizbollah ally Michael Moore?

Heck, I'd settle for a little bit of criticism for Howard "They Were Better Off Under Saddam" Dean.

I'm not saying there aren't well-thought-out and perfectly acceptable reasons to oppose the war in Iraq, but why does so much of the opposition to that war seem to come from fringe lunatics?

Why are we expected to take these people seriously?

By Rob Port of Say Anything.


Comments (45)

Rob, here's another differe... (Below threshold)

Rob, here's another difference: after OK City, liberals tried to smear conservative talk radio and other conservatives as being responsible for McVeigh's actions.... to them, conservatives = McVeigh; McVeigh wasn't an anomaly and all conservatives were suspected of being closet McVeighs. Compare that to the days after 9/11, when conservatives never returned the favor by equating liberals (or liberalism) with the terrorists themselves. Sure, we blamed liberals for not taking terrorism seriously, but we never, never held up a placard that read "Ted Kennedy = Bin Laden". For all of our disgust with the likes of Ward Churchill, he's never been accused of being a terrorist.

And, unsurprisingly, liberals weren't criticized by the MSM for their hate speech, any more than conservatives get credit for focusing on who the real enemy is today.

To Rob Port:I thin... (Below threshold)
Jack:

To Rob Port:

I think you'll find little opposition on either side of the political spectrum for the war in Afghanistan, which could be directly and unambiguously tied to Al Quaida and the attacks on 9/11.

However...

I have not yet, even in the years since the conquest of Iraq, seen the same level of evidence for a connection between Iraq and the attacks on 9/11.

This is the disconnect that is causing the cognitave dissonance among the thinking moderates who don't drink the right-wing party kool-aid unquestioningly and is giving ammunition to the far left-wing who would support NO miliarty action regardless of how justified.

So...

In the end, the question arises, after Afghanistan was taken care of, how *truly* important was the war in Iraq.

I suspect we will have to wait years for the answer to become apparent, but I fear the answer will be to the negative for the future of the United States.

republicans blow up buildin... (Below threshold)
billy:

republicans blow up buildings and bomb abortion clinics. that is why they are terrorists.

next time a liberal does something like that let me know and ill condemn them too. im waiting . . .

Because when one merely poi... (Below threshold)
j oldfield:

Because when one merely points out to these people in the anti war left that perhaps their anti American rhetoric might provide greater motivation to militant Islamic terrorists to continue thier assaults you are accused of questioning their patriotism. "How dare you question our patriotism, you have no right" they say. Well not quite. I do have that right and I do question your patriotism as well as your sanity. The prior post by billy is all the evidence one needs regarding the questioning of sanity.

"American rhetoric might pr... (Below threshold)
billy:

"American rhetoric might provide greater motivation to militant Islamic terrorists"

i dont givew a damn if osama cums in his pants when he hears this. provide proof this has caused anyone to die moron. You are the enemy. dont you get it you right wing terrorist abortion bomber?

Now if billy would only app... (Below threshold)
John:

Now if billy would only apply that attitude toward Bin Laden, Saddam, & Hizbollah, Rob wouldn't have had a point.

Which Republican blew up a ... (Below threshold)
Cardinals Nation:

Which Republican blew up a building and which Republican bombed an abortion clinic?

i have two enemies. teroris... (Below threshold)
billy:

i have two enemies. terorists. and the domestic terrorists like j oldfield who are more concerned if osama listens to fox and gets an erection, than providing proof of his treasonous statement towad americans

And there we have it, Ladie... (Below threshold)
Cardinals Nation:

And there we have it, Ladies and Gentlemen. Liberal logic and intellectual prowess at its finest. Keep talking, you make our point very nicely.

if there really was a doubl... (Below threshold)
billy:

if there really was a double standard one of you right wing terrorists would have come up with some evidence of when and where a liberal caused terror. i have come up with several terrorist republicans from mcveigh to eric rudolph.

your best response? billy said something mean, therefore osama was happy and jerked off. thats pathetic. there obviously is no double standard because the entire neo-con crowd cant come up with one actual example of a liberal causing terror other than "sheehan is sitting in a ditch". no womder the majority of the country doesnt support your party anymore.

Were Timothy McVeigh and Er... (Below threshold)
Mark:

Were Timothy McVeigh and Eric Ruldolph republicans? Or were they just extreme right nutcases?

I only have a second, but I can easily come up with a few liberal terrorists. Seems to me the Unabomber was pretty damned liberal. Black Panthers? Weathermen?

How about the people who bombed, burned, shot at and just plain vandalized republican offices shortly before the last election? Maybe the democrats who slashed tires on the republican voting bus?

So much has already been sa... (Below threshold)
MichaelC:

So much has already been said to explain the importance of removing Saddam before Iraq became the refuge of every one of the uprooted terrorists fleeing from Afghanistan, not to mention the benefit of attracting terrorists to our armed warriors there instead of to our unarmed citizens in the streets of America, that I hardly know what to add to the honestly held convictions that people like Jack have about the Iraq war.

But immature, pubescent crybaby ranters like Billy who, as has been proven time and again is only one of many, continue to demonstrate where the lack of brain power and cogent reasoning resides. People like Billy never realize what fools they show themselves to be and will only continue to spit and fume mindlessly thinking that somehow it shows something strong about them. Poor little Billy, hoping to compensate online for what he lacks in person.

Truly Pitiful.

Billy, There are t... (Below threshold)
Cardinals Nation:

Billy,

There are two keys on your keyboard called "Shift." If you press either one of them at the same time you press a letter, you will be able to properly capitalize those words in your sentences that require such treatment.

This brings me to an example of systemic liberal violence perpetrated on our society; your education.

My second example of systemic liberal violence perpetrated on our society is your being allowed to vote.

Cardinals Nation--do we eve... (Below threshold)
Mark:

Cardinals Nation--do we even know whether Billy's old enough to vote? It certainly doesn't sound like it.

billy, I think you miss the... (Below threshold)
j Oldfield:

billy, I think you miss the point. I am not accusing you of having said something "mean". Sticks and stones, mate. I am accusing you of the sort of uncivil, seditious, demagoguery that the terrorists hope to incite. You seem all too willing to oblige. Then again you may not be in complete control of your own thoughts or actions..in any event thank you for making my points for me..keep it up.

Excellent point.... (Below threshold)
Cardinals Nation:

Excellent point.

Billy illustrates my point ... (Below threshold)

Billy illustrates my point quite nicely: to people like him, Republicans blow up buildings and kill people. Or maybe for Billy, it's as simple as: if a person blows up a building, then they must be a Republican....

Well, for a battle that is ... (Below threshold)
whocares:

Well, for a battle that is based almost solely on fear to get our war juices flowing, what kind of sophisticated argument do you need to oppose it. With your fake ass red herring terror alerts and mostly unsabstiated reasons for killing people, raping little boys and girls in front of their parents, and torture in Iraq, how dare you even question liberals for whatever reason that they oppose the war. Yes, I know our soldiers are getting the same kind of treatment now and, I hate it, but I don't remember America being invited to Iraq, so boo fucking who to you. We're not like you, so get over it man. It's sad that you can't see that Bush is pulling the Michelangelo effect on you people to support a war on terror. You know, Michelangelo was paid to paint white pictures of Jesus because some stuck up white folks felt that they were closer to God, so they got him to paint some quite beautiful propaganda. It's going on now as we speak. The KKK, abortion clinic bombers, white Christian kids who bring bombs on planes, and even McVeigh won't be associated with terrorists by this organiziation because they're busy trying to keep you afraid of liberals and dark skinned people to perpetuate a war for oil. They're doing their absolute worst to equate SUV painters, peace activists, and those Iraqis over there to terrorists so you have something to hate; something to fight against and to rally with the Grand Ole Phuckhead party. What reason do you want me to say for not supporting this war? Trust me, I would be sucking the president's little shriveled cock like nobody's business if he would have taken care of Osama without all of this bullshit pussyfooting through the oil fields. Just face it, Mr. Uniter Not Divider has spent a whole presidency trying to make liberals and neocons like black and white, which will never be the case no matter how much you pull arguments out of your ass to that effect, and the world views him as a loathsome moron for it, as well as for this stupid war that somehow most of the world has finally seen through the facade of. I guess you have a lot of catching up to do to the rest of us. Oh yeah, if you don't like my opinion, fuck you, I never asked you to.

Rob:"Why are we ex... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Rob:

"Why are we expected to take these people seriously?"

What a great question! Can and should we are also two other great questions to ask. The immediate answer to your question is obviously no. People like old billy here, prove that they are incapable of discussing the issues at an adult level and with any amount of seriousness. There is absolutely no way to reason with people who exist on any fringe level—be they far right or left. It is tragically hopeless.

Can and should we take them seriously? With as much influence as the fringe left is having on the Democratic party these days, I certainly think we should. We should, however, attempt to appeal to the better instincts and people of the Democratic party to ignore and/or limit the influence the Ted Ralls, Ward Churchills and Cindy Sheehans who are greatly undermining their own party and their country. Trust me, I could give a hoot if they undermine their own party, but when the Democratic party and its sympathsizers begin undermining this country in a time of war, I take great issue with that. John F. Kennedy would NOT have sided with liberals in the War on Terror; he would have done what is right, necessary and just. (And, yes, I believe he would have gone into Iraq.) Three values of which the far-liberal left has completely lost sight.

whocares:Thank you... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

whocares:

Thank you for making my point.

Is it just me or do liberal... (Below threshold)

Is it just me or do liberals all seem to be obsessed with the president's cock? I still can't tell if it's penis envy or a gay thing, probably a little of both. Maybe a little more on the gay in the case of whocares, but who cares?

RE: bullwinkle's observatio... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: bullwinkle's observation (August 15, 2005 07:18 PM)

Is it just me or do liberals all seem to be obsessed with the president's cock? I still can't tell if it's penis envy or a gay thing, probably a little of both...

Curious with these two, isn't it? Not that there's anything wrong with that...

billy prefers Osama's nether regions while whocares prefers the President's. Maybe they only respect top dogs enough to include them in their repartee. Anyway, has anyone ever seen the two in the same room at the same time? They seem eerily similar.

My first instinct is that t... (Below threshold)

My first instinct is that there's no way billy and whocares could be serious in these little juvenile tirades. Sadly, I'm afraid they might be, after all.

My second reaction was to wonder if a trite little "yo' mama!" would rattle them at all. Facts certainly have no discernable effect.

Really makes me wish Stupidity was a capital offense.

Oh yeah, if you don't li... (Below threshold)
mesablue:

Oh yeah, if you don't like my opinion, fuck you, I never asked you to.

Just another feel good compassionate lib.

For the folks that are supposed to be so "caring" they sure are an angry bunch. I haven't met a happy liberal in about five years. Which makes me VERY happy, I love watching them do the moonbat dance and screw their face all up getting ready to spew venom all over me when they find out I'm a retired Marine who actually believes in what we are doing in Iraq.

no womder the majority of the country doesnt support your party anymore.

That is as clueless as the idiots who can't comprehend why someone who's actually seen what is happening in Iraq instead of reading about it at DU or Kos thinks we are doing good work there. I also guess that is why Kerry/Edwards won?

Oh yeah, btw, clueless billy and whosnuts, it's time to remove the bumper sticker and replace it with your old Nader and Green Party crap.

BoDiddly:"Little j... (Below threshold)
Mark:

BoDiddly:

"Little junenile tirades" are all they are. From their writings, it sounds as those this last election was the first they ever witnessed. Every evil on Earth is blamed on Dubya, and they came to that realization last Fall.

These morons have no historical context. They don't remember 1993 when Osama bombed the Trade Center. They don't remember the decades of terror during all the liberal and conservative administrations of modern history. They don't remember how Reagan rescued this country from all the economic and international harm bestowed by Carter. They have no clear understanding of Vietnam, because very little honest analysis reaches the textbooks or classrooms.

I read a recent letter to the editor that exemplifies current liberal thinking. It claimed the "liberals" brought down the Soviet System. Excuse me? The free-market tenets of capitalism are "liberal" in comparison to the socialist/communistic system created by Lenin and Trotsky in 1917? It claimed that Castro jails "liberals." Huh? The socialist dictator is more conservative than the capitalists he jails? It claimed that "Liberals" freed the slaves, while I thought it was the Southern Democrats who fought to retain them.

The vocal liberals tend to be too friggin' young to view the world in any realistic context, or they're amnesic as hell. Or, they're so dishonest they make Clinton a pillar of credibility by comparison.

No, I'm not making excuses for them. As McGehee told me to do yesterday, I wish they would all go play in traffic.

Whocares: Do us all a favor... (Below threshold)
Madfish Willie:

Whocares: Do us all a favor. Grab your butt cheeks and pull hard. Then get your head out.

It's a wonder you can remember to breathe. Intelligent ideas bounce off your head as if it were coated with teflon. Creative thoughts take alternate transportation in order to avoid even being in the same state as you. If you had an original thought it would die of loneliness before the hour was out. On an intelligence scale of 1 to 10 (10 corresponding to the highest attainable IQ) you're rating is so far into negative numbers that one would need to travel into another quantum reality in order to even catch a distant glimpse of it. Your powers of observation are like that of the moths who keep slamming into the bug zapper trying to get to the light at the end of the tunnel. You are walking, whining proof that you don't have to be sentient to survive, and that Barnum was thinking of you when he uttered his immortal phrase regarding the birth of a sucker. When Ghod decides to send in the four riding pipers you'd better have saved up a fortune twice that of the Sultan of Brunei to keep them from banging down your door.

And you probably dress funny, too.

BoDiddly"Stupid... (Below threshold)

BoDiddly

"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can’t help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and the execution is carried out automatically and without pity."

~~ Robert Heinlein

If God is compassionate, He won't let billy or whocares reproduce before their Darwin moment.

It's mid-August and school ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

It's mid-August and school hasn't resumed. Thus, the results recently in Wizbang comments...

Best I can hope for.

Mark,The Unabomber... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

Mark,

The Unabomber was vehemently anti-liberal. I wouldn't consider a conservative in the mold of Reagan, but his rhetoric is similar to some of the stuff I've read on Conservablogs. From his manifesto:

The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

As for the Weathermen, they were Communists. I know a lot of Bush Republicans like to conflate Liberal Democrats with Communists, but that doesn't make it true. Also, the Weathermen were never charged with murder.

I don't know if the Black Panthers ever conspired to commit terrorist acts. I'd be interested to read anything you've seen on it.

Earth Liberation Front is m... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Earth Liberation Front is most definitely among the liberal/far left, for starters.

A guy in a hospital recently who is HIV+ recently sprayed the nurses near him with his blood because he didn't like "how they were treating" him...and law enforcement, all first responders, have to deal with similar retaliations by those who are HIV+, at least be prepared for the irrational responses...and most are certainly not "conservatives" in the realm of politics.

Terrorist attacks upon a neighborhood or a nation, still terrorism, and most terrorism by "liberal" affiliated tend to occur on more personal, interpersonal terms. Like in media.

Lest anyone allege that the... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Lest anyone allege that the more interpersonal affiliated assaults, that are the territory of many among the Left upon others, are not responsible for or capable of taking the lives of others, think again. Destroy five hundred by fatal infection or by a bomb, still the same effect upon the lives of others, if not worse.

Is <a href="http://www.wsbt... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

Is this the story you're referring to, -S-?

I don't see any details of the man's ideological bent.

I would definitely consider the Earth Liberation Front an extremist organization with some terrorist elements. But it's so loosely organized and since no one has been killed from their actions, I don't think they're even close to being considered a "domestic al Qaeda" or something similar.

Re:Rob "I'm not saying the... (Below threshold)
Fran:

Re:Rob "I'm not saying there aren't well-thought-out and perfectly acceptable reasons to oppose the war in Iraq, but why does so much of the opposition to that war seem to come from fringe lunatics?"

My quess would be that it's a counter balance against the fringe lunatics of the right.

The neo-cons sold the country a bill of goods to start the war. They then changed the premise of the war when no WMD's were found. And now the timetable for withdrawel is being fixed around the 2006 election.

If this war is as important as we have been told...then let's fight to win.

Listen to McCain or Biden, or even the generals who stated the need for more troops.

Bush and Co sold everyone on an easy victory, especially themselves.

The neo-cons sold the co... (Below threshold)

The neo-cons sold the country a bill of goods to start the war.

So Fran, you agreeing with "Mother" Sheehan that 9/11 was the Pearl Harbor for "neo-cons"?

Just how far do you want to stretch that Xtian/Zionist conspiracy?

Re: Fran's post (August 15,... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Re: Fran's post (August 15, 2005 11:30 PM)

The neo-cons sold the country a bill of goods to start the war. They then changed the premise of the war when no WMD's were found. And now the timetable for withdrawel is being fixed around the 2006 election.

No, that's the argument that the Left has glommed on to. At a minimum there was a concern for WMD based on incomplete data (and a knowledgebase of uniform agreement, however erroneous, from everyone on the planet), the delay of action upon which could have resulted in catastrophic consequences, the removal of an odious regime, the enforcement of numerous U.N. resolutions, the eradication of a new nexxus of terrorism, and the hope of stabilizing one of the least stable regions on Earth. Those are for starters but each one of those on their own were enough for our engagement despite the last reason posited by me as the most arguable. As far as the withdrawal of troops, when would be appropriate that would not appear political? Leave now and Iraq is "abandoned" for expediency. Leave next year and it is to coincide with '06 elections. Leave in three or more years and the administration is wasting American capital on foreign lands. There is no timetable that will not elicit political caterwauling from opponents. Bush would be wise to ignore them and carry out his plan on his timetable with the advice of his military commanders and the financing allocated by Congresspersons representing their respective constituencies.


If this war is as important as we have been told...then let's fight to win. Listen to McCain or Biden, or even the generals who stated the need for more troops.

Why is it that only McCain or Biden's opinions or a few other generals are correct? Who is to say that the administration is not fighting to win and that they have not listened to numerous commanders both civil and military to fight this war in this most appropriate manner? War is imperfect and we rightfully have debate on how best to wage it. I trust that Mr. Bush has elicited enough opinions from experts and coallated enough information to strike the proper balance. Anything by we the people is expressed out of ignorance. We should temper, not abandon, our criticism appropriately in view of our limited access.


Bush and Co sold everyone on an easy victory, especially themselves.

Who could have believed that this would have been easy? Mr. Bush's father was afraid of doing what his son has had to do, so don't think anyone went into this with some sense of ease and comfort. The son is correcting the father's mistake and I'd bet that he has told his son as much. Obviously, I cannot know this... call it a hunch. Mr. Bush announced before hostilities that this war would be difficult, long, and often hidden from view. How sad it is that our collective memories are so short, or our positions so disingenuous.

Ryan:Hah! That's ... (Below threshold)
Mark:

Ryan:

Hah! That's what I get for posting on massive doses of Vicodin! If I come out of the fog tomorrow, and if I remember, I'll try to figure out where I was coming from. Whatever I said was making sense to me, I think. Although by the end of each sentence, I was stuggling to remember what I was trying to say.

Bad leg injury--hope it didn't spread to my brain.

Ryan, others, whomever...ye... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Ryan, others, whomever...yes, that one individual, that story, came to mind as forefront example for the premise I described earlier but that one fellow is just one in a long line of similar incidents by similarly infected gay males (almost all in aggressive, intentional efforts to infect others with HIV) as a "retaliatory" effort based upon ideology: the hate for conservatives, particularly Catholics. I realize that there are some homosexuals who are not liberals, but they are rare among socio-political groups with which most affiliate, as with membership in those groups.

That one story (link by Ryan) was just one of many others I've both read about and heard about, certainly the reason that first responders have been instructed for a while now to take additional precautions against just such assaults (as in, it's not a new problem).

But, it's an element among the liberal Left, is my point, the ideology that is demonstrated.

Another thing, Ryan...after... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Another thing, Ryan...after reading many communist and marxist individuals on the internet (not by choice or for amusement), I do know with a certainty that none of them align with conservatives, certainly not with the GOP.

They tend to disdain the DNC, too, but their premise and purpose is forceful socialism and in the case of marxists, forceful military actions to achieve their forceful socialism. They are anything BUT conservatives, certainly not similar in any way to Republicans.

Last thing, no one's yet mentioned, is that the KKK is a Democrat grouping. Years ago, after segregation (among other things), their numbers moved to the DNC and have remained there. You're not going to find the KKK in the Republican Party, but you will find them among Democrats.

I think Liberals are just grabbing at straws with this theme, that (so they allege), Republicans, conservatives terrorize, while liberals are innocent of those actions.

It's quite the contrary, in reality. Unfortunately, liberals tend to perceive anyone who doesn't align with them as "causing problems" or "attacking" or "threatening" while what it is more accurately is most liberals don't respect other people's boundaries. You don't like being told "no." So, your own terrorist aggression upon societies becomes justified and rationalized in your own perspective. Again, the example of Cindy Sheehan comes to mind here, alleging that she is being "attacked" by independent media, while I've watched and read and can find no example of that, not even a shred. Sheehan just can't handle being questioned, thus, her demands, her tirades, her tears, her threats and more, it's the behavior of a very badly behaving two year old. And, from what I've read, by the way, Tim McVeigh was a Democrat.

-s-:You're 100 per... (Below threshold)
Mark:

-s-:

You're 100 percent correct here:

"Another thing, Ryan...after reading many communist and marxist individuals on the internet (not by choice or for amusement), I do know with a certainty that none of them align with conservatives, certainly not with the GOP."

Communism is a notch left of most US liberals--toward the opposite of of the spectrum from Republicans. It is disingenuous for Ryan to suggest that communism is not a liberal ideology.

Ryan,I stand corre... (Below threshold)
Mark:

Ryan,

I stand corrected. I had erroneously confused the Unabomber with anarchists. Thanks to you, I now know he's closer to a libertarian like me. So, now I've got that to be proud of.

Re - AnonymousDrivel... (Below threshold)
Fran:

Re - AnonymousDrivel
I wrote:
"The neo-cons sold the country a bill of goods to start the war."
You counter by saying that WMD is just an argument that the left has glommed on to.

I suggest you read what VP Cheney said about WMD's on Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: Many Americans and many people around the world are asking one question: Why is it acceptable for the United States to lead a military attack against a nation that has not attacked the United States? What’s your answer?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Tim, we have, I think admittedly, a new and unique set of circumstances we’re trying to deal with here. If you think back to the way we were organized in the last century, the 20th century, to deal with threats to the United States, or to our friends and allies, we had to deal with large states, significant military forces, intercontinental ballistic missiles, the kinds of threats we dealt with throughout the period of the Cold War, all of that changed on September 11 of a year and a half ago. Since that time, we’ve had to deal with the proposition that truly deadly weapons could be delivered to the United States by a handful of terrorists. We saw on 9/11 19 men hijack aircraft with airline tickets and box cutters, kill 3,000 Americans in a couple of hours. That attack would pale into insignificance compared to what could happen, for example, if they had a nuclear weapon and detonated it in the middle of one of our cities, or if they had unleashed weapons of mass destruction, biological weapons of some kind, smallpox or anthrax, on a major attack on the United States. That’s a whole different proposition for us to think about, how we deal with that.
CLAIM: "We know where the WMDs are.”
– Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/30/03
CLAIM: “Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program…Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.” - President Bush, 10/7/02
CLAIM: “[Saddam] is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.”- VP Cheney, 3/24/02
CLAIM: “We believe Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” - VP Cheney, 3/16/03
CLAIM: “We do know that [Saddam] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.”- National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 9/10/02
CLAIM: “Iraqis were actively trying to pursue a nuclear weapons program.” - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 7/11/03

There are many more quotes but I think that should suffice. If you want more go to:
http://www.americanprogress.org/AccountTempFiles/cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/PRIRAQCLAIMFACT1029.HTM

Point 2
If this war is as important as we have been told...then let's fight to win. Listen to McCain or Biden, or even the generals who stated the need for more troops.

McCain's, Biden's or the other generals opinions count are because they have advocated that the war be fought with the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force.
Articulated by Gen. Powell when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War, the Powell Doctrine was designed to avoid, as Powell once put it, "halfhearted warfare for half-baked reasons that the American people could not understand or support." The Powell Doctrine held that military force should only be used if there was a clear risk to national security; that the force used should be overwhelming; and that the operation must have strong public support and a clear exit strategy.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-22-03.html

Point 3
Bush and Co sold everyone on an easy victory, especially themselves

Just a few quotes from our leaders:
Press Secretary Ari Fleischer: “Well, the reconstruction costs remain a very -- an issue for the future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.” [Source: White House Press Briefing, 2/18/03]
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: “This is not Afghanistan…When we approach the question of Iraq, we realize here is a country which has a resource. And it’s obvious, it’s oil. And it can bring in and does bring in a certain amount of revenue each year…$10, $15, even $18 billion…this is not a broke country.” [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “If you [Source: worry about just] the cost, the money, Iraq is a very different situation from Afghanistan…Iraq has oil. They have financial resources.” [Source: Fortune Magazine, Fall 2002]
State Department Official Alan Larson: “On the resource side, Iraq itself will rightly shoulder much of the responsibilities. Among the sources of revenue available are $1.7 billion in invested Iraqi assets, the found assets in Iraq…and unallocated oil-for-food money that will be deposited in the development fund.” [Source: Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Iraq Stabilization, 06/04/03]
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense…[Reconstruction] funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it. [Source: Senate Appropriations Hearing, 3/27/03]
BUDGET DIRECTOR MITCH DANIELS

 On September 15th 2002, White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay estimated the high limit on the cost to be 1-2% of GNP, or about $100-$200 billion. Mitch Daniels, Director of the Office of Management and Budget subsequently discounted this estimate as “very, very high” and stated that the costs would be between $50-$60 billion [Source: WSJ, “Bush Economic Aide Says Cost Of Iraq War May Top $100 Billion,” Davis 09/16/02; NYT, “Estimated Cost of Iraq War Reduced, Bumiller, 12/31/02; Reuters News, “Daniels sees U.S. Iraq war cost below $200 billion,” 09/18/02]

President Bush
"this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome except victory."
- President George Bush, addressing the nation 20.march 2003

BUSH: The best way to take the pressure off our troops is to train Iraqis to give them a chance to defend their country. We'll have 125,000 troops trained by the end of this year. (2004)I remember going to say thanks to the reservists and Guard that were headed overseas. Some of them had been there before. The people I talked to their spirits were high. They didn't view their service as a back-door draft. They viewed their service as an opportunity to serve their country.
Where are the 125,000 troops???

BUSH: I remember going down to the basement of the White House the day we committed our troops, as last resort, looking at Tommy Franks and the generals on the ground, asking them do we have the right plan with the right troops level? And they looked me in the eye and said, yes, sir, Mr. President. Of course I listened to our generals. A president sets the strategy and relies upon good military people to execute that strategy.
Source: Second Bush-Kerry debate, St. Louis, MO Oct 8, 2004

In reality Bush already had his mind made up to attack Iraq.

Paul O'Neill: Bush planned to overthrow Saddam before 9/11
Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said he never saw any evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction-President Bush's main justification for going to war.
In a new book chronicling his rocky two-year tenure and in an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes", O'Neill said removing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was a top priority at Bush's very first National Security Council meeting-within days of the inauguration and eight months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
O'Neill told CBS the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later and that he was given internal memos, including one outlining a "Plan for post-Saddam Iraq."
"In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction," O'Neill told Time magazine in a separate interview. "There were allegations and assertions by people... To me there is a difference between real evidence and everything else."
Source: [X-ref O'Neill] Adam Entous, Reuters, on AOL News Jan 11, 2004

Don't let the issue become either I hate Bush, or I love Bush.
If you can't get past that, try imagining Clinton as president. Maybe that will free your mind from it's rigid sectarian position.

The whole thing in a nutshe... (Below threshold)
stan25:

The whole thing in a nutshell is that Timothy McVeigh was a white Christian male, while the terrorists of 911 were people of color. That in itself is an invitation for the liberals to support the terrorists. It was the same thing before the Germans attacked the Soviet Union. The extreme left (the Communists mostly) were the most ant-war. When ole Hilter turned on his best bud (Joe Stalin), the people on the left were practically the first ones in line to beg Franklin Roosevelt to attack Germany

RE: Fran's post (August 16,... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Fran's post (August 16, 2005 12:49 PM)

Regarding your response to point one and the WMD meme, you did not include my whole thought. I'll present the most relevant portion again:

"No, that's the argument that the Left has glommed on to. At a minimum there was a concern for WMD based on incomplete data (and a knowledgebase of uniform agreement, however erroneous, from everyone on the planet)..."

I'll repeat, the administration believed that WMD existed as did every other intellligence agency in the world and has been addressed extensively. One acts on the information one has and believes to be true. Unfortunately, getting such intelligence is difficult and imperfect. Trusting Hussein who was manifestly untrustworthy, who had used WMDs, who thwarted U.N. investigations, who violated U.N. resolutions, and relying on the IAEA investigations after it missed the North Korean WMD program and the Libyan nuclear program would have been foolish. Bush and his administration acted rationally, and anyone in his shoes responsible for American safety and with the backdrop of 9/11 would have done the same thing. Clinton, for example, promoted a war in the Balkans. How, exactly, was that a bigger threat to America than Hussein? I'll append that WMD may still exist - chem and germ - but that they may remain buried in the vast territories of the country. Recall, American soldiers still discover vast repositories and bunkers concealed in strange places. It's still premature to proclaim that land free of such weapons or weapons precursors.

WMD, obviously, was a major concern of this administration. The glomming upon which I refer is that the other rationales presented have been dropped since the anti-Bush crowd thinks the WMD argument is the administration's weakest hand... in hindsight, of course. And don't we all wish we had the foresight to predict the hindsight. And how about all of those Democratic Senators and Clinton administration officials who believed the same research? Somehow their "belief" which coincided with "Bush's" is conveniently ignored. Not unsurprising. However, I'd agreed with the Democratic hawks of the Clinton era just as I agree with the hawks of today in matters Iraqi.


Gen. Powell and his "doctrine of overwhelming force" - You do remember that while he had this vast army to overwhelm his enemy, he did NOT want to take it to Baghdad and eradicate the regime. I don't know if the motivation was purely political due to U.N. restraints or because of a fear of numerous other blowback that no one wanted to address. Nevertheless, he halted General Schwarzkopf's march and never fully tested his doctrine. In Desert Storm, American forces (with coalition support) advanced at an historic pace to complete their objectives. They still feared WMD during the assault and quick, force multipliers was a better tactical approach to this particular threat. Also recall that the 4th ID was stuck outside of Turkey when Turkey refused our transfer of armour over their territories. That was the most hardened and heavy unit that was, as had been reported, the army that was to strike central Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle. No doubt that effected the overall tactics and gave some anti-American forces a bit of refuge. Anyway, that the police action required after invasion has not been perfect does not diminish the accomplishment or validate the Powell Doctrine in any way. [Incidenatally, why is Powell considered the father of this doctrine? Many past military leaders believed in this concept of warfare. Oh, well.] Powell would still have lacked the personnel to secure the land against the likes of homicide bombers and guerillas. That is the nature of asymmetric warfare and one in which traditional engagement cannot succeed. Conquering Hussein's heavy armour and WMD capabilites was first priority and quite logical. The police action post-mission accomplished can never be predicted though many try. At that point of conflict, winning hearts and minds is the best weapon - overwhelming force isn't.


As for the extension to easy victory, I never believed it though the administration may have hoped for it. I don't believe they really thought it would be easy... but I don't think anyone could have predicted exactly how post-war Iraq would be. In view of the concern of WMD at the time, post-Saddam regime was of secondary concern. Ensuring he couldn't employ WMD was primary. However, I don't see how the costs relate to the success or rate of failure in the endeavor. I would like to see Iraq repay this country for the rebuilding of infrastructure. Obviously, the direct costs of war are our exclusive burden and we cannot hold their oil hostage for balances due. But how is the cost of peace now an indictment of the success? What is the appropriate price to define it?

O'Neill was damaged goods and had his own agenda. His revelations have been heavily scrutinized and criticized by numerous people much more intelligent and in the loop than I. You might as well present Joe Wilson's report and offer me some mint tea.

Finally, who is being sectarian here? Recall that you feel the adminstration's actions in Iraq are purely domestic politics. I don't for a moment though war is intrinsically political. Bush waged this war to secure this country... period. That is a fundamental truth whether your political leanings will allow that consideration or not. I supported Clinton on Bosnia though I felt, because of the timing, that it was a case of wag-the-dog. I supported the cruise missles at empty tents though I wish they had been filled. I supported cruise missiles at critical nodes though I'd have preferred that they had been fired during the working day and not after hours when key players would have been in their beds watching Hussein Carson. Don't think you have my dogma pegged because I supported this war and this President and his conduct of this war.

Fran, I believe you're bein... (Below threshold)
Martin Knight:

Fran, I believe you're being remarkably disingenuous. Your argument is a very careful cherry-picking of history and the use of hindsight that none, by definition, had access to.

The following is a speech by Sandy Berger, given at Stanford University on the 8th of December, 1998, the former National Security Advisor who "inadvertently" stuffed classified documents down his pants and socks and "inadvertently" destroyed them when he got home.

==================================

... I want to talk about another aspect of our Middle East policy today—our effort to combat the threat to peace still posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And I want to put that discussion in a broader regional context.

America's most vital national interest in dealing with Iraq is straightforward: to prevent Saddam from rebuilding his military capability, including weapons of mass destruction, and from using that arsenal to move against his neighbors or his own people. But we must also keep in mind that Saddam's continued reign of terror inside Iraq and intimidation outside Iraq have broader implications for all our interests in region. The future of Iraq will affect the way in which the Middle East and the Arab world in particular evolve in the next decade and beyond—and our policy must take that into account.

[...]

Keep in mind that Saddam's Iraq was traditionally the region's leading opponent of compromise with Israel. It led the effort to quarantine Sadat's Egypt after Camp David, and it prided itself on being the only Arab country that could rain down fire on the Israeli people.

But when Saddam was defeated by a coalition of Americans, Europeans and Arabs fighting together, many old preconceptions about Middle East politics were shattered. The Madrid peace conference soon followed, and from that the whole series of events that led to the Rabin-Arafat hand shake and more important, to the countless handshakes among ordinary people that have followed.

The peace process has moved forward in part because, ever since the Gulf War, the immediate military threat Saddam poses has been contained—albeit at a substantial price. But even a contained Saddam is harmful to stability and to positive change in the region. Conversely, a constructive Iraq would help change the equation in the region.

That is not because Saddam is a true believer in any radical, extremist vision. The only cause Saddam believes in is his own survival and ambition. And more Arabs see through him today than ever before. But by manipulating the suffering he himself has inflicted on Iraqis, and invoking the rhetoric of Arab solidarity, he has remained a convenient symbol for those who seek to exploit the sense of aggrievement, frustration and defeat that is still so powerful in much of the Arab world. Fundamentalists like Osama Bin Laden may be utterly different from Saddam, yet they can still take advantage of his conflict with the world to win recruits for their cause.

As long as Saddam remains in power and in confrontation with the world, the positive evolution we and so many would like to see in the Middle East is less likely to occur. His Iraq remains a source of potential conflict in the region, a source of inspiration for those who equate violence with power and compromise with surrender, a source of uncertainty for those who would like to see a stable region in which to invest.

Change inside Iraq is necessary not least because it would help free the Middle East from its preoccupation with security and struggle and survival, and make it easier for its people to focus their energies on commerce and cooperation.

For the last eight years, American policy toward Iraq has been based on the tangible threat Saddam poses to our security. That threat is clear. Saddam's history of aggression, and his recent record of deception and defiance, leave no doubt that he would resume his drive for regional domination if he had the chance. Year after year, in conflict after conflict, Saddam has proven that he seeks weapons, including weapons of mass destruction, in order to use them.

[...]

Through constant confrontation, our policy of containing Iraq has been successful. But that does not mean that by itself it is sustainable over the long run.

It is, first of all, a costly policy, in economic and strategic terms. The pattern we have seen over the last few years, of Iraqi defiance, followed by force mobilization on our part, followed by Iraqi capitulation, leaves the international community vulnerable to manipulation by Saddam. Because we continue to block his advances, "cheat and retreat" leaves him no better off in the end. But we cannot tolerate it endlessly, either.

The longer this standoff continues, the harder it will be to maintain the international support we have built for our policy. Even this toughest of all sanctions regimes in history becomes harder to sustain over time. In the meantime, the Iraqi people will live in a murderous and corrupt police state, with no prospect for a normal life, as long as their country is Saddam's preserve.

Perhaps most fundamentally, Saddam's continued misrule of Iraq is harmful to the Middle East as a whole. It is partly responsible for the pervasive sense of insecurity that prevents the region from evolving in a positive way. It creates the false perception of a conflict between Muslims and the United States " a perception that the President has done much to erase over the last few years, but which inevitably persists among some people in the Muslim world. It means the continuation of oppressive policies against all the peoples of Iraq that threaten that country's integrity, and thus the stability of the region.

The sooner the situation in Iraq is normalized, the sooner the people of the Middle East can get on with the business of building a more stable region, and the more likely we are to realize our goal of seeing the region integrated, with consent of its people, into the international system.

We will continue to contain the threat Iraq poses to its region and the world. But for all the reasons I have mentioned, President Clinton has said that over the long-term, the best way to address the challenge Iraq poses is "through a government in Baghdad—a new government—that is committed to represent and respect its people, not repress them; that is committed to peace in the region." Our policy toward Iraq today is to contain Saddam, but also to oppose him.

[...]

What we can and will do is to strengthen the Iraqi opposition and support the Iraqi people, to work with them step by step, in a practical and effective way, to delegitimize Saddam, and then when the time is right, to help them achieve a new leadership in Iraq.

[...]

We know from history that when tyrannies are prevented from expanding they often retreat and decay. We know from experience that when people struggling for freedom gain the moral and material support of the American people, they usually win in the end. We know as well that change, when it does come, often comes suddenly and at unexpected times.

Change will come to Iraq, at a time and in a manner that we can influence but cannot predict. And when it does, we'll look back and say "thank goodness we persevered." That is what we intend to do, with your help and your understanding.

==================================

Let's couple that with this by President Clinton himself; he delivered this speech at the Pentagon to the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the 17th of February, 1998 ...

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

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

[...]

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

Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?

It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

[...]

UNSCOM ... [has] uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf War.

This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for chemical and biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other deadly agents.

[...]

The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.

[...]

In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now, a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

================================== And then, of course, is this; this is is is Item 4 on the background info on Al Qaeda from the 1998 Justice Department indictment of Osama Bin Laden presented to the United States Southern District Court of New York:

================================== Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

==================================

Then we have these statements by many other Democrats and Clinton Administration officials ... Note that these are people who have or have had access to intelligence reports since the Gulf War. They include at least one General, two Presidents, a Secretary of Defense and Legislators who are or have been members of the Intelligence and Armed Services Committees of the two Houses of Congress.

================================== 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

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability.
Robert Byrd, October 2002

There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat ... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001
Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.
Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

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

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

Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.
Tom Daschle in 1998

Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.
John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. Bob Graham, December 2002

The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.
John Kerry, October 9, 2002

We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.

Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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.
Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.
John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

==================================

All this illustrates the utter mendacity that has consumed the Left and the Press (I repeat myself) on Iraq. Let's recap: the Left side of the political spectrum in this country continues to push the story that the President "lied" i.e. framed Saddam Hussein, to justify the invasion of Iraq.

We're supposed to believe that the idea that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was something made out of whole cloth by the Bush Administration. The more idiotic elements (and unfortunately quite significant) of the Left i.e. Kossacks, Chomskyite college students and Hollywood actually believe that Saddam never actually had WMD. This is so stupid, it does not deserve the honor of a refutation.

And even if, Saddam did, at some point, have weapons of destruction (which some Leftists concede), we're supposed to believe that it was well known, prior to the war, that Saddam could be taken at his word that he had gotten rid of these weapons. The words of many Democrats, voiced mere weeks before (and even after) the invasion, who have access to the same intelligence the President has, and who have had access to this intelligence long before the President's ascension to the Oval Office, belie this utterly.

Those Leftists who are honest enough to acknowledge that hindsight more than two years forward is the only reason why they are so sure that Saddam didn't have WMD next would have us believe that the Bush Administration deliberately overhyped the threat, e.g. flyerhawk. Apparently, we're supposed to accept the hogwash that nobody else considered it a big deal if Saddam Hussein had a few thousand liters of VX, Sarin or Botox. Again, the words of many senior Democrats, the past Administration and even the President of France belie this as emphatically as possible.

Next, we're supposed to believe that even if it was a big deal that Saddam had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, it was common knowledge that we could rest easy because he would never ever have considered giving these weapons to terrorists to use on US soil, which is the same thing as basically allowing the national security of the United States to be dependent upon the rationality and sanity of Saddam Hussein. Yet, many high ranking Democrats (including no less than a President) are on record acknowledging that Saddam, did, indeed, have a record of aiding and abetting terrorism and terrorists, and that it was a distinct possibility that he could hand a cannister of Sarin to a terrorist organization.

When confronted with this, the Leftist simply takes another sip of his/her latte, his/her copy of the New York Times folded neatly in front of him/her and proclaims confidently (largely because Saddam is in a jail cell) that Saddam being secular and Osama being a religious fanatic meant that the Saddam regime and Al Qaeda could never have worked together. Again, we have a document (the 1998 indictment of Bin Laden) from a Democrat administration asserting that, on the contrary, Saddam and Al Qaeda not only were capable of working together, but they had actually come to some sort of agreement about it.

Did the Clinton Administration therefore lie in the indictment? And since they submitted this to a court, is that not cause enough for prosecution?

Most would then point out that the 9/11 Commission's conclusion (hindsight enabled) that the Hussein regime and Al Qaeda had not developed a "collaborative operational relationship" as proof that Saddam and Al Qaeda would never have been able to work together. But this ignores the rest of the paragraphs that dealt with Al Qaeda and Iraq, of which these words are at the tail end.

From Chapter 2 (Page 66 - i.e. 83 on PDF) of the 9/11 Commission Report; There is also evidence that in 1997, bin Laden sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of bin Laden.

In mid-1998, the situation reversed, with Iraq reportedly taking the initiative. In March 1998, after bin Laden's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through bin Laden's Egyptian deputy, [Ayman al] Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.

[...]

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Laden or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Laden declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicated some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States.

After the events of 9/11, without the benefit of hindsight on the state of Saddam's WMD programs/arsenal, and every single credible intelligence agency around the world certain that Saddam Hussein still retained a significant amount of chemical and biological weapons, any report of contact between the Hussein regime and Al Qaeda would terrify anybody, especially an administration that had just witnessed the worst attack on its nation's citizens since World War II.

Yet the very same people who charge that the Bush Administration failed to "connect the dots" and therefore "allowed" the September 11th attacks to happen are the same ones who are pretending to be aghast that the Bush administration did not choose to ignore the Intelligence agencies of this nation and its allies, the UN, reports dating back many years and the public statements of the Clinton administration when it came to Iraq.

So forgive me if I simply find it impossible to take your caterwhauling seriously.

RE: Martin Knight post (Aug... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Martin Knight post (August 17, 2005 07:33 AM)

Nice, heavy lifting there, M. Knight. I think I'll make a mental note of it for its accumulated specifics.




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:

[email protected]

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