« The Jesse MacBeth Video | Main | What happens when the government tries to "suggest" things »

Does This Mean We Have Won?

Jim Hoft has a good writeup on the report that President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair are preparing to announce upcoming "drastic" troop withdrawals from Iraq. Via The Australian:

US and British officials hope Britain's 8000 troops in Iraq can be cut to 5000 by the end of the year and the US's 133,000 troops to about 100,000. Iraqi security forces could be in charge of much of the country by the year's end.


Buoyed by the formation of Iraq's new unity Government at the weekend, senior officials travelling with Mr Blair said all foreign troops should be out of the country within four years.

Mr Blair is to hold further discussions on withdrawal at a White House summit with Mr Bush later this week.

In response to that report, Jim Hoft says, "Boy, it's going to be interesting to see the reaction to this news! ...I guess that means, we won, huh?"

I will likely catch some flack for this, but my response to Jim would be that not only have we won, but we won some time ago. In fact, I would argue that we won it back when President Bush strapped on that flight suit and landed on the aircraft carrier in front of the "Mission Accomplished" sign. There were many additional battles yet to be fought, and very sadly there were many more lives to be lost, but from that point on, instead of us fighting to win the war, we started fighting to keep from losing it. That is a very important point to make. Regrettably, many of those battles were ones fought here in the arena of public opinion.

Over the past three years, some Democrats have seemed determined to do whatever it took to see us lose in Iraq, whether it be by demoralizing the troops in harm's way or calling for us to cut and run. Their efforts stand in stark contrast to those of the President and the military who have insisted all along that we were winning and that if we would stay the course until the country was stable enough, and the Iraqis ready to take back control, that victory would be ours. Don't forget, there were some that declared we were losing in the earliest days in Afghanistan and in the sandstorms on the road to Baghdad. Some of those people will never, under any circumstances, admit that we have won. That is something that should not be lost on voters.

Update: Just to clarify my position, to say that we won long ago does not mean to say that we couldn't still lose that win under certain circumstances. For example, if we were to cut and run (withdraw all troops immediately) the progress we have made in Iraq could be undone and the effort could result in what would constitute a loss. The following analogy might not be the best, but it is what immediately comes to mind. Let's say Teams A and B are playing basketball. With two minutes to go in the game, Team A leads Team B by 40 points. Team A has effectively won the game. There could still be points scored by Team B, and Team A could still even suffer some injuries, but barring anything exceptional happening, the game has been won. But what if, with two minutes to go, Team A decided to send all their players home. Team A would lose by forfeiting the game. That is what I fear could happen in Iraq if Democrats had their way.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Does This Mean We Have Won?:

» Loaded Mouth linked with Watch out for a spit-take...

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Blair Talks of a 'New Beginning' in Iraq

» The Sandbox linked with The Inevitable Troop Withdrawal

» Right Minded linked with Like I said

Comments (71)

Great to see you at a new a... (Below threshold)
john:

Great to see you at a new and improved venue Lorie! And yes... you are correct, we have won. I'd say I knew things would workout in the end after that first election in Jan 2005.

can't wait until the alternative media matches the firepower of the msm. The day will come.

Yes, good news indeed. I a... (Below threshold)
robert:

Yes, good news indeed. I am thinking that some things might be easier for Iraq forces alone. We'll move further back and they'll move forward - it is as it should be.

Let me be the first, please... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Let me be the first, please... It means Cindy Sheehan won.

Sorry, Lorie, but we're both equally over the top on this one. History will not judge ending this war as a "win", in any reasonable nation's scorecard, nor will it judge Cindy Sheehan the winner.

When it comes to terrorists, I don't feel any safer -- do you?

And since none of us feel safer, the war on terrorism is far from over.

I sure as heck feel safer w... (Below threshold)

I sure as heck feel safer with G.W. Bush and Don Rumsfeld in charge than anyone Lee might support!


What were our goals going in? First and foremost, to depose Saddam Hussein and his Ba'athist murderers with finality. Secondly, to make Iraq a less threatening regime to its neighbors, and a less friendly regime to terrorists and other enemies of the US. Thirdly, to give Iraqis a chance to have a western-style democratic republic, which form of government is least threatening to neighboring nations and most subservient to its population, and which might serve as a model for other Middle Eastern Arab nations.

Hmmmm . . . three-for-three?

Were there, in fact, ANY other reasons?


Oh, yeah - I hear the plaintive cries of the moonbats: "OIL! OIL! NO BLOOD FOR OIL!"

Right you are, kiddies. That's why Iraq is producing a million barrels a day LESS . . .

Lee wrote:<blockquote... (Below threshold)
Mike G in Corvallis:

Lee wrote:

When it comes to terrorists, I don't feel any safer -- do you? And since none of us feel safer, ...

None of us? Lee, I'll thank you to not attempt to speak for me.

I feel a hell of a lot safer than if we had not responded to the continuing menaces posed by Al Qaida in Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein's obscene regime in Iraq. I feel a hell of a lot safer than if the United States had deferred to the United Nations or the "international community" to deal with the situation in their own way in their own sweet time. I feel a hell of a lot safer than if a Democrat had been elected president in 2000 or 2004.

Really Lee. Don't try to pr... (Below threshold)

Really Lee. Don't try to project your cynicism on me.

And this "war on terror is far from over" is not a line that passes the "ha-ha test" coming from you.

The level of delusion here ... (Below threshold)
oldelm:

The level of delusion here is astounding. It is obvious that the poster Lori is quite young, has not lived through much history. I recognize your kind. I saw you in 1969. You are very, very naive.

Oh, yeah - I hear the pl... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:

Oh, yeah - I hear the plaintive cries of the moonbats: "OIL! OIL! NO BLOOD FOR OIL!"

Posted by: Adjoran

I always found it ironic that the lefties adopted this chant given the fact the real "Blood for Oil" scenario was Saddam remaining in power.

Two ground invasions launched at Iraqi neighbors by Saddam and paid for by oil money kills over a million people.

Domestically, Saddam murders over 300,000 Iraqi citizens paid for by oil money.

During sanctions, UNICEF reported over 5000 deaths a month of mostly women and children because corrupt UN officials and Saddam were able to keep cash flowing into the regime with oil money but not those suffering. Clinton's Secretary of State is on record saying this was acceptable.

France, China and Russia blasted Clinton over Operation Desert Fox. All had pending oil deals with Saddam and wanted sanctions lifted. (Lefty myth: that the world loved us more during the Clinton years.) Read the Operation Desert Fox reactions sometime.

Same thing happened leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Oil deals took precedence over a removing a mass murdering terror kingpin.

Now we have the same exact situation going on with Iran where members of the Security Council have even taken sanctions off the table because of oil money.

The lefties will tout 2500 dead Americans and 30,000 Iraqi civilians but do the math above. The lefties are the real "Blood for Oil" advocates. But it is easier to teach a true believing lefty to chant rather than teach them to follow the real blood money flow.



oldlm -- a tad presumptuous... (Below threshold)

oldlm -- a tad presumptuous, and wrong, of you. Lorie graduated from college (N. C. State) in 1988, which makes her about 40. Is it that hard to accept that people can have a different perspective than you?

oldelm:The leve... (Below threshold)
Truzenzuzex:

oldelm:

The level of delusion here is astounding. It is obvious that the poster Lori is quite young, has not lived through much history. I recognize your kind. I saw you in 1969. You are very, very naive.

Maybe she just seems that way to you because you are all crusty and jaded. :-P

To me, it seems Iraq is going the right way, and that we are coming to the end of our military involvement. It will happen slowly, there will be no parades. It is the beginning of the end of the "long, hard slog". It may take four years or so, but the light at the end of the tunnel is now clearly visible.

I do think Lorie is wrong about one thing:

Some of those people will never, under any circumstances, admit that we have won. That is something that should not be lost on voters.

As a general proposition, voters don't care what administration critics think, except those who are inclined to oppose Bush & Co. My impression is that those people will see Bush as a bad president even if Iraq becomes as successful as Japan in the next 10 years.

There are a surprising number of war supporters who somehow figured we could go into Iraq, win and leave in a couple of years. Sounds silly to me, but they are out there, and they will always think the administration bungled the effort. C'est la vie.

When it comes to terrori... (Below threshold)
TomB:

When it comes to terrorists, I don't feel any safer -- do you?

I feel MUCH safer considering there hasn't been a successful terroist attack on the US or its interests since 9-11. That's the longest stretch in decades.

But I must say, it may be hard to say "we won", since Murtha et. al. has been clamoring for withdrawl for a while now. Even though this isn't the cut-and-run they demand, they will still spin this as a victory, "See, through our pressure, Bush is beginning to bring the troops home." Even though published plans show the drawdown to be happening right when it should.

The level of delusion h... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:

The level of delusion here is astounding. It is obvious that the poster Lori is quite young, has not lived through much history. I recognize your kind. I saw you in 1969. You are very, very naïve.
Posted by: oldelm

Or this.......

The level of delusion here is astounding. It is obvious that the poster oldelm is quite young, has not lived through much history. I recognize your kind. I saw you in 1939. You are very, very naïve.

Posted by WW2 Era Americans

I am expecting the MSM will... (Below threshold)
Frank O:

I am expecting the MSM will frame this as a reaction to Bush and Blairs domestic poll numbers.

Example

Today in Iraq; 12 die in sectarian violence in and a car an IED injured three Marines in Karballh, meanwhile, the Bush administration has announced a significant reduction in troops in Iraq to be undetaken over the next few months, here to discuss these developments is our expert _________

Question for pundit: "They have resisted withdrawing troops for years, why now?

Answer: Well,(insert name of anchor here), with rock bottom poll numbers and an election only months away, some are saying this has more to do with the situation in the US and Britain than than any newfound stability in Iraq.

blah,blah,blah

Answer: Well,(insert nam... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:

Answer: Well,(insert name of anchor here), with rock bottom poll numbers and an election only months away, some are saying this has more to do with the situation in the US and Britain than than any newfound stability in Iraq.

Posted by: Frank O

The predictability is too easy. I knew that you knew what the left knew that the left wing pundits knew the talking points in advance. I think we all knew that.

You should bookmark your post to show we knew that we know ahead what they are going to say.

Know what I mean?

Oh Lee ...Consider... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Oh Lee ...

Considering you're the guy who thinks that Saddam Hussein should still be in power in Baghdad, I really doubt many people share your idea of what it means to "feel safer".

Yep, beat a retreat and dec... (Below threshold)
astigafa:

Yep, beat a retreat and declare victory. That's what I said would happen -- so, in a sense, this is a victory for me.

I think the terms for victory included a stable democracy in Iraq -- now open your filthy digital pie holes and deny it; that's where you're at. When the crash comes -- and it will -- you can always blame the left. (And of course you will, Bushies: it's your only trick.)

Lost integrety on the world scene, millions more Muslims dedicated to Jihad, 2K+ troops dead, "untold" civilian losses (told to the man, to the woman, to the child, but denied by neocons) -- yeah, this is a victory all right. Our grandchildren's grandchildren will be paying off the debt for this boondoggle -- complete freaking victory.

Congratulations. And enjoy the election.

It may be problematic whet... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

It may be problematic whether Americans feel safer now than they did over 3 years ago, but is certain the Iraqis themselves do not. I am sure Lorie Bryrd's nostrum (if it be serious) to the Iraqis, that' the war for freedom loving peoples'on their behalf, has long been won would be welcome news to them. But if victory is so self-evident to Lorie why hasn't Dubya (who has said that he was going to concentrate on Iraq the remainder of his term) made but one brief Thanksgiving photo-op morning visit there carrying a plastic turkey? Tony Blair went to Basra for the fourth or fifth time this week and he is only the First Minister, not the Commander-in Chief or, as probable, could it be that Bush doesn't feel he would be safe even in the Green Zone?..The storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789 was the easy part of the French Revolution and equally prematurely celebrated ,as Saddam's fall was in April 2003, but the consequent reign of terror which engulfed France and begot Naploeon and the ensuing conflicts in that region, were the enduring legacies.

There are a surprising n... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

There are a surprising number of war supporters who somehow figured we could go into Iraq, win and leave in a couple of years. Sounds silly to me, but they are out there, and they will always think the administration bungled the effort. Truzenzuzex

I think his name is Dick Cheney.

I feel MUCH safer considering there hasn't been a successful terroist attack on the US or its interests since 9-11. TomB

This means that US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are not US interests. It also means that the US is not interested in Spain, Britain, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel, Lebanon, and other nations where terrorists have attacked. I guess the US is becoming isolationists like Bush warned against.

Sorry, I meant to say "US i... (Below threshold)
TomB:

Sorry, I meant to say "US interest outside a war zone", seeing as how that is what the military is there for.

And if you don't understand the meaning of the term "US interests" in a geopolitical sense, you shouldn't be in this discussion. No, bombing Spanish or British mass transit is not an attack on "US interests". It doesn't mean we aren't interested (duh), it means we weren't directly attacked as a country (US flaged vessel, embassy, etc.)

Perhaps you could speculate as to why we haven't been attacked since 9-11?

Yep, beat a retreat and ... (Below threshold)
TomB:

Yep, beat a retreat and declare victory. That's what I said would happen -- so, in a sense, this is a victory for me.

Of course, what a great rhetorical gimmick you've got there. If we keep the troop levels the same or higher, its a quagmire, a failure, and you attack Bush. If we start to drawdown (as has been planned for over a year), we are retreating, a failure, and you attack Bush.

Is there any scenario which you envision where you DON'T attack Bush?

Oh and BTW, you people migh... (Below threshold)
TomB:

Oh and BTW, you people might want to recheck your talking points. Now its the neocons who are "bedwetters" for worrying about terrorism. Bush is just trying to scare people.

Yep We won!!... (Below threshold)
virgo:

Yep We won!!

The level of delusion here ... (Below threshold)
jp:

The level of delusion here is astounding. It is obvious that the poster oldelm is quite young, has not lived through much history. I recognize your kind. I saw you in 1939. You are very, very naïve.

Posted by WW2 Era Americans


``It amazes me the ignorance of americans and WW2, Neville Chamberline and "peace in our time" that they look like absolute fools in history books for while Winston Churchill goes down as a lion

sean nyc/aa:<blockqu... (Below threshold)
Truzenzuzex:

sean nyc/aa:


I think his name is Dick Cheney.

Really? I don't know, it just seems to me this might be a good time for a link or cite, don't you?

Nah. Ad hominem is so much easier and more fun, no Googling or excess typing.

This means that US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are not US interests. It also means that the US is not interested in Spain, Britain, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel, Lebanon, and other nations where terrorists have attacked. I guess the US is becoming isolationists like Bush warned against.

Maybe it's just me, but I though the primary mission of the GWOT as far as U.S. involvement is concerned is to protect U.S. citizens. You seem to be pointing to the failure of other countries' internal security to protect their own as a failure of our policy. Let's meditate on this for a moment... Hmmm, a non-sequitur... Liberals oppose the war, don't want our troops deployed abroad to protect us, yet somehow it is a failure of our efforts to protect ourselves when other countries are unable to protect their own citizens. Ergo, 1 + 2 = Bushitler.

Well, now I get it. It isn't a failure of logic, it is a failure of cogitation.

Its an escape from reason a... (Below threshold)
jp:

Its an escape from reason and a guilt complex that is the mental disease that is liberalism.

Lorie Byrd, you are indeed ... (Below threshold)
Oak Leaf:

Lorie Byrd, you are indeed correct in stating "not only have we won, but we won some time ago. In fact, I would argue that we won it back when President Bush strapped on that flight suit and landed on the aircraft carrier in front of the "Mission Accomplished" sign."

A soldier would rephrase your next statement as follows; "There were many additional battles yet to be fought, and fortunately few lives were lost." That is how Iraq is seen through a soldiers eyes.

In regards to US Forces in Iraq, @ 100,000 by year end is about right. It will be at @ 70,000 in the second half of 2007. The preperation of reserve units has been cut back and that only indicates that a drawdown is in progress. You can take the 100k and 70k numbers to the bank.

Well yeah we won, kind of. ... (Below threshold)

Well yeah we won, kind of. I mean if you are keeping score, it's U.S.A 2,500 Iraq 30,000.
See this is kind of like golf, the lowest score wins.And with this kind of lead, it's time to just run out the clock on those camel jockeys.

Right guys?

Oh, and TomB, I wouldn't use time lines for a success on the war on terror if I were you. Eight years! Do you know the significance of that? It's the time between attacks on our shores prior to 911. So let's wait until at least 2008 before we declare ourselves safer.

Anyway, I say bring back the draft, this way everybody can put their life where their mouth is.

I mean if you are keepi... (Below threshold)
TomB:

I mean if you are keeping score, it's U.S.A 2,500 Iraq 30,000.

Of course, to arrive at these numbers, you have to ignore all the people who would have died under Hussein's brutal rule. But that's OK, he let them fly kites and stuff. Your moral relativism stinks.

It's the time between attacks on our shores prior to 911

I guess we should just piss on the graves of all those people who died in the Khobar Towers, USS Cole, the Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, etc. After all, they weren't really Americans, were they?

adjoran asks "what were our... (Below threshold)
groucho:

adjoran asks "what were our goals going in?", then gives three reasons: to depose Saddam, to make Iraq less of a threat in the region, and to allow the Iraqis to have a "western-style" democratic government. These are actually the second set of goals, the ones that were trotted out after the first set proved to be wrong. The war was sold to US as a pre-emptive strike to deter an "iminent" (not my word) threat involving WMDs. We knew where they were! You know, around Tikrit, north, south, maybe east/west, who knows! Mushroom clouds! Saddam =terror=Al Queda=9/11! Fight them over there, etc, blah, blah.

When these turned out not to be true the next wave of mass delusion/hypnosis was unleashed. We're there to spread democracy, aren't we better of without Saddam? Iraq yearns for freedom, we'll be welcomed as liberators. I guess we're still waiting for that one. Didn't someone say it isn't about nation building? That's right, it was Bush himself.

The region, by most accounts, is less stable, Iraq has about as much chance of becoming a true functioning democracy as Bush has of winning the Nobel Peace Prize. OK, we deposed Saddam, but can anyone say that Iraq is really better off and that we are more safe as a result. I just don't see any evidence to support it.

It seems delusional to suggest that the US has, in any objective terms, WON anything in Iraq.Thousands of US men and women are dead and wounded; for what? Iraq is paralyzed by sectarian violence, the US has less support and fewer allies than ever and the Middle East remains an unstable powder keg, ready to blow the foundation of the world structure as we know it.

We WON?? Think again.

So let's wait until at ... (Below threshold)
TomB:

So let's wait until at least 2008 before we declare ourselves safer.

Oh and BTW F-N, what's it feel like, I mean really feel like, way down in the deep, dark reaches of your soul, to have to hope for a terrorist attack on your country to legitimize your political views?

The war was sold to US ... (Below threshold)
TomB:

The war was sold to US as a pre-emptive strike to deter an "iminent" (not my word) threat involving WMDs.

How may times has this lie been debunked?

grouchy,You certai... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

grouchy,

You certainly seem to be expert on "mass delusion/hypnosis" since you clearly suffer from the left's virulent strain of it.

TomB,

Don't worry about field-n..., he thinks that 2001 plus 8 years is 2008. This just about sums up his mental ability.

I'm going to disagree with ... (Below threshold)

I'm going to disagree with one point raised above: there has been one terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. On July 4, 2002, a gunman shot up the El Al ticket counter at LAX, killing two and wounding four before an El Al security guard shot and killed him.

Apart from that, though, I sure as hell feel a lot safer today than I did 9/12.

J.

Groucho:Didn't ... (Below threshold)
Truzenzuzex:

Groucho:

Didn't someone say it isn't about nation building? That's right, it was Bush himself.

Go here. Read. Cogitate.

OK, we deposed Saddam, but can anyone say that Iraq is really better off and that we are more safe as a result. I just don't see any evidence to support it.

Go here. Read. Cogitate

It seems delusional to suggest that the US has, in any objective terms, WON anything in Iraq.Thousands of US men and women are dead and wounded; for what? Iraq is paralyzed by sectarian violence, the US has less support and fewer allies than ever and the Middle East remains an unstable powder keg, ready to blow the foundation of the world structure as we know it.

You forgot to mention that the standard of living in Iraq has never been better (notwithstanding the terrorist violence), the country has elected a unity government recognized worldwide, internal security is improving daily and tens of thousands of terrorists have been killed or captured.

I admit, I see the glass as half full. You can't even seem to locate a glass at all.

An appeaser is one who feed... (Below threshold)
Big D:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last.

W. Churchill

How is it opponents of the war constantly make the charge that because of their love for peace and justice it was wrong to get rid of a murderous dictator? It is just the most obscene form of real politik I have ever witnessed.

Just trying to throw my 2 c... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Just trying to throw my 2 cents into the mix, amigos; no reason to get all defensive, but thanks anyway for the diagnosis.

Tom: I agree, the claim that Saddam and all of his WMDs presented an iminent threat has most certainly been thoroughly debunked.

Truz, Saddam was an evil, ... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Truz, Saddam was an evil, sick, ruthless dictator, I get it. But who made it our job to get rid of him? Are 2400 dead Americans worth the price? You can conjure up as many links and excerpts as you want, but you can't prove that he was a direct threat to US. No one can, because it simply wasn't the case. And I guess it's a moot point now anyway; your version vs mine. I think there's just as much evidence that suggests the standard of living in Iraq is not better than it's ever been. Less water, less electricity, less oil, etc. As far as the govenment goes, let's wait 20-30 years. Anyone can recognize a govenment; question is, can it govern. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

Tom: I agree, the claim ... (Below threshold)
TomB:

Tom: I agree, the claim that Saddam and all of his WMDs presented an iminent threat has most certainly been thoroughly debunked.


Christ you moonbats are pathetic:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. -G W Bush

How do you expect anybody outside your own fever swamps to believe anything you say when you lie through your teeth?

Tom,debunk-"to sho... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Tom,

debunk-"to show the sham and falseness of"

No WMDs, repeat, no WMDs found. Debunked

Thanks for the kind words, though.

TomBIs there an... (Below threshold)
astigafa:

TomB

Is there any scenario which you envision where you DON'T attack Bush?

In a word, no.

Well, let's think about that for a minute. I would never accuse him of competence, nor would I "attack" him if he acknowledged that permission to torture prisoners in Abu Graib and Gitmo came from the top. If he wanted to say, "Excuse me for impersonating a president," I would excuse him.

Right now, I excuse him -- and you -- of depth of insight, quality of education, breadth of knowledge, personal integrity, honesty, intelligence, love of and commitment to the constitution of the United States and the legacy of 230 years of American history and foreign policy -- I don't know, maybe he's kind to children and dogs.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any more questions; you seem to be particularly needy...

debunk-"to show the sham... (Below threshold)
TomB:

debunk-"to show the sham and falseness of"

Your comment:

The war was sold to US as a pre-emptive strike to deter an "iminent" (not my word) threat involving WMDs.

THAT. IS. A. LIE.

But thanks for playing...

In a word, no. ... (Below threshold)
TomB:

In a word, no.

And there it is, a clinical definition of BDS.

In all its glory.

Given that the aim was to s... (Below threshold)
binnster:

Given that the aim was to secure Saddam's massive stockpile of WMDs, the unnecessary war was won before it was unnecessarily begun.

Winning peace and security in the chaotic aftermath is another matter, and unfortunately, we don't have enough time or lives to spare to win that war. The Iraqis will have to do it themselves when we are gone, and they will only achieve that the same way that Saddam did; brutally.

An appeaser is one who f... (Below threshold)
Big D:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last.

W. Churchill
Yes I know I already quoted it once, but it should be repeated. Several times.

Everyone agrees that "Saddam was an evil, sick, ruthless dictator". But see it is okay, since he wasn't a direct threat to us, just those little brown-skinned muslims who deserve what they get anyway. Besides, he didn't have WMD, he just wanted WMD. Who doesn't? So what if he invaded two countries. So what if he manufactured nerve gas and used it on his people. Why is that our problem, right? Let's just hold our noses and buy the oil, right? Blood for oil is fine as long as it isn't our blood. Isn't that really the point being made by opponents of the war?

Forget WMD, forget all the BS that gets posted about Bush. What is the answer here? All you great lovers of peace, what have you got to say? That we don't care if Saddam killed his 300,000 of his own people and threatened others? Why then do we care about Bosnia and Rawanda? How was that our problem? What about Darfour? What about the Indian Ocean Tsunami? How are those our problem? Why do we bother? They are not like us, and probably wouldn't be very grateful anyway.

Assume there was no direct threat from Saddam. Ever. Was it worth it? Whatever your political belief, if you don't pause, even for a moment, to think about that question, you are not a rational moral human being.

Are 2,400 American worth the price? Was it worth the billions spent? I'll be honest, I don't know. Bush has rolled the dice to change the fundamentals of the equation, to potentially alter human history in a profound way. It was an astoundingly brave and ultimately a moral decision on his part. Yet the posers of morality attack him relentlessly.

We've won, in that he have given the Iraqis a chance. That was all we ever could have hoped to accomplish. They can elect another strong man. They can elect terrorists. They can evolve into another Turkey or another Iran. It is up to them, not us. I wish them well. All we can do, all we could ever do, is give them a chance for something different, something better.

Hey Shiek, -at least your n... (Below threshold)

Hey Shiek, -at least your name is appropriate-nice to see you can count. -And I actually meant when your frat boy pres. leaves office- you will need to be able to count to add up all the cost in dollars and innocent American lives frat boy has sacrificed for this farcical, and preposterous war.

And no, TomB I would never piss on their graves, but flowers would be nice, as would reading comprehension for you. I am pretty sure I said on "our shores." But I have learned long ago not to quibble about factual quotes with a republican gang member, who is so immersed in the Kool-Aide, that if you spit, all we would need to do is add sugar to make a drink.

Big D,All you g... (Below threshold)
binnster:

Big D,

All you great lovers of peace, what have you got to say?

As a great lover of peace, I feel somewhat compelled to answer a few of your questions. I can't speak for all great lovers of peace on this one, as the reasons for not supporting the latest excursion into Iraq are many and varied, but the following is my take on the situation.


That we don't care if Saddam killed his 300,000 of his own people and threatened others?

Personally, I was sickened when I saw the results of the gas attack on the citizens of Hallabja on the news back in 1988. I couldn't believe that we actually supported the monster that was doing this to his people, but support him we did, and support him we continued to do. I was also a little disppointed to watch the promises of support we gave to the marsh arabs if they rose up against Saddam after the Gulf war be fulfilled in the form of verbal support only, but that's what we did, and they paid the price.

Frankly, yes, I cared that he was killing his own people, and I cared that we did nothing more than watch, but still, I couldn't in all good faith see how bombing Iraq shitless and invading them decades later was going to bring any of those people back. It seems to me that those lives are now being used as a retroactive justification for the war now the primary justification has proven to be an empty mistake.


Why then do we care about Bosnia and Rawanda? How was that our problem? What about Darfour? What about the Indian Ocean Tsunami? How are those our problem? Why do we bother? They are not like us, and probably wouldn't be very grateful anyway.

In Darfur we have an actual oppertunity to stop mass killings and save many lives right now, but unfortunately no longer have the manpower to do it. Maybe we'll use the deaths happening now as an excuse to invade Sudan in years to come; that wouldn't surprise me.


Are 2,400 American worth the price? Was it worth the billions spent? I'll be honest, I don't know. Bush has rolled the dice to change the fundamentals of the equation, to potentially alter human history in a profound way. It was an astoundingly brave and ultimately a moral decision on his part. Yet the posers of morality attack him relentlessly.


The thing that concerns me most is that Bush doesn't appear to have ever had a clue that things could get ugly if Saddam was removed. He expected the newly freed Iraqis to put aside any differences and form a stable democracy straight away, ready to foster a 'domino effect' across the middle-east (though that laughable suggestion rarely gets mentioned now). He simply didn't seem to realize that Iraq was a loose collection of people separated by tribal and sectarian differences, ripe for foreign terrorists to come in and drive a wedge between them. Iraq now has a government dominated by groups more akin to its Shia neighbour than the kind of secular government under which true freedom would flourish. What would we do several years down the road if Iraq becomes increasingly allied with Iran, or indeed seeks its own nuclear weapons capacity? Time for another regime change? Bush and his advisors didn't really think this whole thing through properly; it's been quite obvious that they've been winging it for the last couple of years hoping a bit of stability will return. I just hope things work out for the Iraqi people, and that those that lost loved ones over the last few years forgive us for experimenting with their country.

Lol! If you want to call it... (Below threshold)
billw:

Lol! If you want to call it a 'win,' go ahead. But, I have this Rose......

THat is one of the dumbest ... (Below threshold)

THat is one of the dumbest things I have read.

per binnster<blockqu... (Below threshold)
scsiwuzzy:

per binnster

In Darfur we have an actual oppertunity to stop mass killings and save many lives right now, but unfortunately no longer have the manpower to do it. Maybe we'll use the deaths happening now as an excuse to invade Sudan in years to come; that wouldn't surprise me.

So... stopping the Hussein regime from mass murder, genocide, destabilizing the mideast, pursuing NBC weapons and funding palestinian terrorists when they killed Isreali civilians (not to mention firing on our planes that were enforcing the peace treaty, and trying to assassinate a US President) was bad. Bad because it left us unable to stop mass murder and genocide in Sudan.

OooooKay

scsiwuzzy,So...... (Below threshold)
binnster:

scsiwuzzy,

So... stopping the Hussein regime from mass murder, genocide, destabilizing the mideast, pursuing NBC weapons and funding palestinian terrorists when they killed Isreali civilians (not to mention firing on our planes that were enforcing the peace treaty, and trying to assassinate a US President) was bad. Bad because it left us unable to stop mass murder and genocide in Sudan.


Er, no. You see, we didn't stop Saddam from commiting acts of mass-murder or genocide at the times he was commiting those acts; we waited until over a decade later and then invaded under another pretex. What we have done has actually destabilised the middle-east further than it already was. That's why it's bad, moron.

Lorie,I'm with Wre... (Below threshold)

Lorie,

I'm with Wretchard from 'The Belmont Club'. He called the conflict in November 2005 in the following post:

The End of the Beginning...

We are now at a point that I do not think al-Qaeda can win - they have decisively lost. But, that does not mean other elements of the Islamofascist Hydraheaded monster cannot take its place. Note the recent turn toward Hamas and Hezbollah by the evil dictator - BusHitler!!!

I also don't think the media has won their war. They have taken multiple black eyes over the past few years. They are wrong on a consistant basis. And, now we will soon get a view of those folks the media feel are 'unimpeachable sources' - like bitter, embarrassed, often wrong employees shuttled off to nowhereland waiting to be processed out. Yup, that person in unimpeachable.

I think Wretchard's conclusion summarizes things best...

Sorry, but I'm still not tr... (Below threshold)
Big D:

Sorry, but I'm still not tracking you binnster.

We didn't stop Saddam from committing acts of mass murder when he was doing them. He was not alone. We didn't do anything about Pol Pot, Ida Amin, etc. etc. Of course it wasn't just us. It was every other country on planet Earth. We all turned a blind eye to "not our problem".

You seem to imply that there is some sort of statute of limitations for atrocities. To paraphrase "Well, he hasn't INVADED anyone in ten years, and when was the last time he used poison gas? 1988? Well I'm sure he learned his lesson by now. No sense stirring things up." That about sum it up for you? Saddam had learned his lesson and was ready to move on into a happy future if only we'd have let him?

Saddam was still in power. He killed all these people, invaded those countries, and would have kept killing people, and attacking other countries as long as he could get away with it. He would not have stopped until we stopped him, or some other Baathest thug managed to put a bullet in his head. I don't see how anyone rational can come to a different conclusion.

We should have taken him out in 1991. We should have sanctioned him before that, and worked to destroy his regime. We should have been more moral. But instead we listened to the realpolitik and what did it get us? The massacre of the mash Arabs, oil for food scandal, and endless other mischief.

Are we worse off? Really? The Middle East has for centuries enjoyed the wonderful stability of brutal crushing dictatorships. That was good for us and the rest of the world, nice and predictable, but was it right? How in the world can you argue that position? That very stability was purchased by supporting creeps like Saddam, and the Shah, and the Sheiks. Do you think we should ahve kept doing what we were doing? What should our policy have been?

Sorry, it just doesn't work. Either you care about people, or you don't. Either you are moral or you are not. You cannot argue that it was a mistake to take Saddam out, and a mistake to allow him to commit atrocities. You can't pretend to care about the 2,500 American soldiers who have died, and ignore the 300,000 killed by Saddam.

Big DYou seem t... (Below threshold)
binnster:

Big D

You seem to imply that there is some sort of statute of limitations for atrocities. To paraphrase "Well, he hasn't INVADED anyone in ten years, and when was the last time he used poison gas? 1988? Well I'm sure he learned his lesson by now. No sense stirring things up." That about sum it up for you? Saddam had learned his lesson and was ready to move on into a happy future if only we'd have let him?

No, I'm suggesting that the claims that the Iraq invasion was conducted on humanitarian grounds is a complete fallacy. If we are to invade countries on humanitarian grounds, we invade when atrocities are actually happening and we are able to stop them. That would've put Iraq well down in the pecking order when it comes to liberating oppressed people. In short, if liberating the oppressed was a reason to invade a country, we would be bogged down somewhere else right now, not Iraq.


Saddam was still in power. He killed all these people, invaded those countries, and would have kept killing people, and attacking other countries as long as he could get away with it. He would not have stopped until we stopped him, or some other Baathest thug managed to put a bullet in his head. I don't see how anyone rational can come to a different conclusion.

Saddam's army was crushed easily in the Gulf war, and his remaining resources severely weakened by the ensuing sanctions. This idea that he still posed an invasion threat to anyone is also a fallacy. Sure, he was still killing people, but not at the rate that people have been dying since March 2003. Most of the people to die under his regime died years ago when he was our buddy, we have simply pushed the total up higher than it would've been.


We should have taken him out in 1991. We should have sanctioned him before that, and worked to destroy his regime. We should have been more moral. But instead we listened to the realpolitik and what did it get us? The massacre of the mash Arabs, oil for food scandal, and endless other mischief.

We could've taken him out in 1991, but Bush senior and Cheney have both gone on record with extremely compelling reasons as to why invading Iraq was a bad idea. What has listening to Bush junior and a reformed Cheney got us? An unstable country that appears to be moving towards a theocracy? More than 30,000 dead Iraqis (conservative estimate)? A new ally for Iraq (Al Sadr has pledged that his militias will fight to defend Iran if it is attacked by the US)? Missing billions of Iraqi recontruction money that should've gone to the Iraqi people but was lost due to coalition mismanagement?


Are we worse off? Really? The Middle East has for centuries enjoyed the wonderful stability of brutal crushing dictatorships. That was good for us and the rest of the world, nice and predictable, but was it right? How in the world can you argue that position? That very stability was purchased by supporting creeps like Saddam, and the Shah, and the Sheiks. Do you think we should ahve kept doing what we were doing? What should our policy have been?

We still support dictators who boil their own people alive, like Islam Karimov. We have kept doing what we were doing, we're just not talking about it. Our policy should've been to keep containing Saddam while working towards invoking a popular uprising against him from his own people. What we saw after Saddam fell was a power vaccuum, with no viable opposition groups to take his place. Now they have a government that controls little outside the green-zone, and is greeted with skepticism by its Arab neighbours who are uncomfortable with the prospect of Iran's growing influence in the region as the Shi'ites increase in power. If Iraq does eventually tumble into civil war, which is still a distinct possibility, those neighbours will get dragged in; which is obviously not good for anyone, no matter if you look at it from a humanitarian or economic perspective.


Sorry, it just doesn't work. Either you care about people, or you don't. Either you are moral or you are not. You cannot argue that it was a mistake to take Saddam out, and a mistake to allow him to commit atrocities. You can't pretend to care about the 2,500 American soldiers who have died, and ignore the 300,000 killed by Saddam.

Saddam killed 300,000 people, their blood is on his hands. Our invasion has caused or led to the death of untold thousands (30,000 according to Bush, though others put it closer to 100,000), their blood is on our hands. Though it saddens me to see our troops die in a war I don't believe in, what saddens me more is the deaths we are directly responsible for causing now, through a mixture of the inevitable casualties of war and the deaths attributable to our own incompetance at creating and maintaining a secure environment (we planned a great invasion, but forgot to plan for subsequent peace and security).

/apologies for length and girth

It's sad ... But e... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

It's sad ...

But every single one of the arguments binnster, groucho (especially) and astigafa (is this some play on the Arabic for "forgive me?") have been based on either outright lies (all of groucho's posts), deliberate misrepresentations, selective amnesia or would be entirely unable to stand on their own without the benefit of hindsight.

Unfortunately, as Samuel Clemens remarked, falsehood is already halfway around the world before the truth has its shoes on. Lies require no basis in fact and so people like groucho, et al. can throw up their fables as fast as their fingertips allow ... while the rest of us have to go googling, searching through Lexis/Nexis archives, etc because we have to back up our assertions.

But it matters not. We cannot let people like binnster, groucho, Lee, etc. to rewrite history. According to their side's chief documentarian, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a joyous place where children flew kites all day.

binnster's last post implicitly argues that Saddam Hussein, Chemical Ali, Qusay and Uday, etc. inexplicably stopped committing mass democide sometime after 1991. Apparently, he wasn't killing people at a rate to cause any alarm anymore after the First Gulf War.

binnster is adopting the morally vacuous yet deliciously self-righteous position so popular with half-educated college students that since the United States helped (minimally) Saddam in his war against Iran (when Iran was considered the greater of two evils) in the 1980s, the United States has no moral standing to topple him nearly two decades later.

The fact of the matter is that groucho, Lee, mak44, astigafa, binnster, and the vast majority of the Left are really running away from having to specify exactly what it is that would ever justify the deployment of American troops. So far, it boils down to this ...

(1) A Republican is not in the White House.

(2) America must pass a "global test" i.e. get UN approval - although if the President is a Republican, this would not be enough.

(3) Zero casualties or damage to infrastructure on either side.

(4) It must be over in exactly one month or less.

(5) Absolutely positively no hitches whatsoever. Everything must go perfectly at first try.

(6) Casualties must precisely mirror the American population in terms of race, gender, sexual preference, religion, etc.

(7) ... some other impossible stricture ...

Either way, who honestly believes that despite binnster's supposed outrage about Darfur, should there be a 100 casualties, he would not be among the first people to declare a "quagmire" and start clamoring for a withdrawal of troops?

When it comes to Iraq, what the Left's position is that even after 9/11, without the benefit of hindsight on the state of Saddam's WMD programs/arsenal, and with every single credible intelligence agency and government around the world certain that Saddam Hussein still retained a significant amount of chemical and biological weapons, despite the incontrovertible knowledge that the Saddam Hussein regime and Al Qaeda (let's not mention the many other terrorist groups Saddam gave support to) had reached out to each other multiple times, the President should have done absolutely nothing about Saddam Hussein except make some loud sabre-rattling noises.

I'll repeat myself;
I believe that after 9/11, if I were President, any history of any form of friendly contact between Al Qaeda and a monstrous democidal regime like that of Saddam Hussein would have terrified me. Especially if I believed (as Clinton did), that there were unaccounted for WMDs still left in Iraq.

Anything other than an immediate meek, total and utter submission to a rigorous inspections process would not have sufficed. I doubt even mak44, Lee, binnster and groucho can make the case that Saddam fully complied with 1441 and left even a milquetoast like Hans Blix without serious complaints about his lack of compliance.

But then I'm a Republican. We tend not to take chances with America's national security. Even if it would piss off the UN.

"But then I'm a Republican.... (Below threshold)

"But then I'm a Republican..." You should have said that at the very start of your post, and saved me the trouble of having to read it.

WTF? Let's go over this again: Sadaam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, he is a secularist, they are religious fanatics. Period! Please stop trying to make a connection. Frat boy and his minions were already succesful in duping us in a most legerdemain manner. So you won already, you can stop with the repub talking points now.

Martin A. Knight,<... (Below threshold)
binnster:

Martin A. Knight,

binnster's last post implicitly argues that Saddam Hussein, Chemical Ali, Qusay and Uday, etc. inexplicably stopped committing mass democide sometime after 1991. Apparently, he wasn't killing people at a rate to cause any alarm anymore after the First Gulf War.

Whoa, that's not exactly true there chief, see, here's what I actually said: "Sure, he was still killing people, but not at the rate that people have been dying since March 2003.".


binnster is adopting the morally vacuous yet deliciously self-righteous position so popular with half-educated college students that since the United States helped (minimally) Saddam in his war against Iran (when Iran was considered the greater of two evils) in the 1980s, the United States has no moral standing to topple him nearly two decades later.

Er, not exactly. I'm saying that we did not invade Saddam's country because of the mass killings; if that was the reason then we would've gone in when the bulk of the acts were being commited, which we didn't. If that were the reason, we would be invading other countries right now, which we are not.

This claiming the moral high ground over the decision to remove Saddam is bollocks, because that's not why the decision was made, and anyone with eyes in their head can see that. Besides, in order to claim the moral high ground over the decision to invade Iraq, you have to ignore the corpses of untold thousands of Iraqis who have paid for our decision to invade their country with their lives.

PS. My College days were over decades ago


The fact of the matter is that groucho, Lee, mak44, astigafa, binnster, and the vast majority of the Left are really running away from having to specify exactly what it is that would ever justify the deployment of American troops. So far, it boils down to this ...

Er, again, no. For me, deployment of troops is justified if my country is about to be invaded. Deployment is justified if a nation has attacked my country. Deployment is justified if a nation declares war on my country. Deployment is not justified if someone produces a few flimsy graphs and grainy satellite images and announces we must strike pre-emptively to stop the iminent danger some third-world asspiece poses to my country.


Either way, who honestly believes that despite binnster's supposed outrage about Darfur, should there be a 100 casualties, he would not be among the first people to declare a "quagmire" and start clamoring for a withdrawal of troops?

Ok, you've assumed rather a lot about me instead of just asking what my opinion is. You clearly think I'm some kind of liar, so I'm probably wasting my time here...

I would support sending troops into Darfur in a peace-keeping capacity. You seem to think that I would clamor for them to be called home again if 100 were killed, but you haven't even seen me clamor for them to be removed from Iraq. In fact, I think we should probably increase the number in Iraq, if anything. Although I was, and am, totally against them going in in the first place, I think that pulling troops out as soon as is suggested in the article above would be a mistake. I don't think the Iraqi forces are ready for us to leave, and I don't think they will be ready within the next couple of years. I think our presence there is the only thing holding the country together at the moment.


When it comes to Iraq, what the Left's position is that even after 9/11, without the benefit of hindsight on the state of Saddam's WMD programs/arsenal, and with every single credible intelligence agency and government around the world certain that Saddam Hussein still retained a significant amount of chemical and biological weapons, despite the incontrovertible knowledge that the Saddam Hussein regime and Al Qaeda (let's not mention the many other terrorist groups Saddam gave support to) had reached out to each other multiple times, the President should have done absolutely nothing about Saddam Hussein except make some loud sabre-rattling noises.

Frankly, I never believed for a second that Saddam posed any kind of threat to us or anyone else. I did believe that a war in Iraq would turn messy. I was in favor of invading Afghanistan, and was majorly dissappointed when it looked like Bush was shifting focus from capturing the leaders there in favor of his daddie's old enemy who'd been pretty quiet for years. Guess what? I was right; Saddam wasn't a real threat, and Osama and his pals are still free releasing videos almost 5 years after he hit us. I'm bitterly pissed about that.

I don't really fit into this "leftist" pigeon-hole you're trying to force me into, my opinions on many subjects are wide and varied, I just believe invading Iraq was a bad idea on many different levels.

binnster, the height of con... (Below threshold)
TomB:

binnster, the height of consistency.

First he states:

Er, again, no. For me, deployment of troops is justified if my country is about to be invaded. Deployment is justified if a nation has attacked my country. Deployment is justified if a nation declares war on my country.

Almost immediately after, he states:

I would support sending troops into Darfur in a peace-keeping capacity.

I guess someone else would have to do that messy peace-starting stuff.

Nice.

WTF? Let's go over this... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:
    WTF? Let's go over this again: Sadaam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, he is a secularist, they are religious fanatics. Period! Please stop trying to make a connection.

Don't shriek at me ... go tell that to the 9/11 Commission (Chapter 2 - Page 66 i.e. 83 on PDF);

    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.

    WTF? Let's go over this again: Sadaam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, he is a secularist, they are religious fanatics. Period! Please stop trying to make a connection.

Don't shriek at me ... go shriek at Janet Reno and her Justice Department. This is from 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.
    WTF? Let's go over this again: Sadaam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, he is a secularist, they are religious fanatics. Period! Please stop trying to make a connection.

Don't shriek at me ... go shriek at CNN. This is a report they filed on 02/13/1999 (FYI: Bush was still Governor of Texas in 1999);

    ... Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.
    WTF? Let's go over this again: Sadaam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, he is a secularist, they are religious fanatics. Period! Please stop trying to make a connection.

Don't shriek at me ... go shriek at the Guardian (UK). This is from the story they filed on 02/06/1999.

    It must have been a bitterly cold and uncomfortable journey. In the last days of December, a group of Iraqi officials crossed the Hindu Kush border from Pakistan to Afghanistan on their way to keep an appointment deep in the remote eastern mountains.

    At the head of the group was a man by the name of Farouk Hijazi, President Saddam Hussein's new ambassador to Turkey and one of Iraq's most senior intelligence officers. He had been sent on one of the most important assignments of his career - to recruit Osama bin Laden.

    Thus the world's most notorious pariah state, armed with its half-built hoard of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, tried to embrace the planet's most prolific terrorist. It was the stuff of the West's millennial nightmares, but United States intelligence officials are positive that the meeting took place, although they admit that they have no idea what happened.

    This was not the first time that President Saddam had offered Mr Bin Laden a partnership. At least one approach is believed to have been made during the Saudi dissident's sojourn in Sudan from 1990 to 1996.

In other words, I'm not a New York Times reporter; I don't lack comprehension skills, I don't think Fahrenheit 9/11 is an actual documentary, I know how to use an Internet search engine, and I wasn't born in 2003.

Amazing how allergic to reality the so-called "reality-based" community actually is. Or are you going to tell me Karl Rove (powerful Sith Lord though he may be) went back in time and wrote these stories? FYI: Bush was still Governor of Texas on 02/1999 ... so the Administration and Intelligence officials cited in these articles were serving the _________ Administration ... (fill it in yourself.)

Is this really your A-game, field-negro? Being black myself, I really would hate to think my brothers and sisters are being this ill-served by the school system.

An appeaser is one who f... (Below threshold)
Big D:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last.

W. Churchill

I just want to say I've enjoyed this discussion greatly. It has been maintained with a minimum of name calling and some thoughtful posts on both sides.

Still and all, the quote above holds true. We allow dictators to continue to exist in the world hoping and expecting that they eat us last. Given the size and power of the U.S., we are probably right. We are the whale swiming though the sharks.

No country really "threatens" us anymore. None are likely to any time soon. By this standard we should never deploy troops anywhere in the world. Liberty for me, but not for thee. Ho-hum.

The argument was made that we stopped Dictator X, but we didn't do anything about Dictator Y, or atrocity Z, so we must be morally bankrupt. You know, last week I gave to the children's cancer fund, but I didn't give to the homeless shelter. Does this make me a hypocrite? Does it mean I don't care about the homeless? What a lame argument.

Bush and company took on Saddam because they (and the rest of the world including the Democrats) thought he was a threat to regional and potentially world security. Really that is not up for debate. WMD or no WMD Saddam was a bad actor and deserved to be taken out. The only questions was how and by whom. We tried to avoid doing it ourselves from 1990 to 2003 (13 long years) but no luck. His own people couldn't (or wouldn't) do it, and no outside force was up to the task. It was the U.S. led invasion or nothing. So the question remains - Saddam in power with no sanctions, regional ambitions and a thirst for WMD, or the U.S. invasion and a chance at democracy? These were the only two realistic choices. Pick one and defend it. You can defend not doing anything, but not from the moral high ground. It just doesn't pencil out.

Is Iraq a failure? How so? If you had told me three years ago that we could put a democratic government in Iraq within three years at the cost of 2,500 troops I would have thought you were insane. Wars are very nasty affairs, but from the perspective of history the Iraq war is a stunning success.

To minimize Iraqi civilian casualties, the easiest and most expedient thing for the U.S. to have done after ousting Saddam would have been to put a new Iraqi stringman in charge. We would have been out in six months with 500 casualties. Bush would be a hero. Instead we opted for the messy and inherently unstable concept of building a democracy. Never been done before, at least in that region. Noble ambitions, and surprisingly we seem to be succeeding even there. There is a democracy in Iraq. We may not like ever aspect of it, but there it sits on the Euphrates. Amazing.

40,000 Iraqis dead? Probably true. Of course this number is a sum of civilian deaths caused by military action, terrorist activity and by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order. Want to guess which number is the smallest? Most opponents of the war would rather you didn't.

Of course the U.S. casualty number includes accidental deaths and non-combat deaths like traffic accidents and heart attacks. Actual combat death are under 2,000. But let's not clog up discussions with things like easily verifiable facts.

In summary, saying we won in Iraq is not much of stretch. Saddam is gone, a (weak) democratic government remains. Lots of Al Qaeda nut jobs are wondering where the virgins are. It cost a fortune, it cost some lives, but we accomplished our reasonable goals. Now it is entirely up to the Iraqis to make it worth it.


Truth, Lies and everything ... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Truth, Lies and everything in between..

Hey Martin, playing "six degrees of Osama Bin Laden" doesn't count. If I spent the time cutting and pasting cherry-picked blurbs to support my point, you's just dismiss them as lies. If Saddam and OBL had a cup of coffee together years ago it doesn't make them co-conspirators.

We were sold a bill of goods in Iraq, a premeditated, manufactured mistake of a war, more bad than good will come from it in the long run, and no, we haven't WON anything. That's my opinion. I don't lack comprehension skills either, and I don't presume to think for others or call them liars because I might disagree with them. I think you will be on the wrong side of history on this one, what can I say? Name-calling, straw man arguments and glib generalizations are the refuge of someone with an untenable position.

Peace

Martin -not sure what you b... (Below threshold)

Martin -not sure what you being black has to do with this discussion, but anyway, I am going to try this again. You are obviously well schooled in rethuglican talking points, but I really wish you, and others of your ilk, would take a breath and try to comprehend what other people are saying before you post.

I am going to concede one thing to you, in my post I should have been more specific and said 911, and not Al Qaeda-not that it makes any difference, but to play along with your silly semantic game I will do that. Now, let's review your so called smoking guns: "they admit they have no idea what happened" or, "...Iraqi officials offered Bin Laden safe haven in Iraq, but Bin Laden declined.." I love this one "...similer meetings between Iraq officials and Bin Laden MAY have occured.." Oh, and this from 1997 "... bin laden sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime....none are reported to have revealed a significant response.." OK Martin, your talking points are not convincing. These are not exactly the type definitive reports that we are looking for when we are talking about 2,500 American lives, and billions (soon to reach a trillion) of dollars worth of our money.

And BTW Martin, I am not your brother, my handle says field, not house negro. And this is not hardly my A-game, I save my A-game for things that really matter; like helping my people, and contributing to my community. Not debating with an obeisant republican majordomo such as you.

binnster, the height of ... (Below threshold)
binnster:

binnster, the height of consistency.

First he states:

Er, again, no. For me, deployment of troops is justified if my country is about to be invaded. Deployment is justified if a nation has attacked my country. Deployment is justified if a nation declares war on my country.

Almost immediately after, he states:

I would support sending troops into Darfur in a peace-keeping capacity.


There is nothing inconsistent about what I said. In the first paragraph I was clearly describing under what circumstances I would consider deployment of troops justified as an act of war. Perhaps I missed off "I would also support deployment of troops if their mission is in a peace-keeping or "policing" capacity only", but that was fairly implicit in my last statement. That means deployment in order to protect civilians without any declaration of war being made.

Oh field-negro ... I could ... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Oh field-negro ... I could have guessed you'd resort to the idiotic and monstrously stupid "Oreo"/"Coconut" foolishness. That's so played out I wonder if you've been living on this planet for the past twenty years.

You see, unlike you I do not believe I was born with a tattoo on my forehead, stomach or rear-end saying "Property of the DNC". Neither was there one saying "Property of the NAACP", "Property of Jesse Jackson" or "Property of Bill Clinton". So I do not consider it an act of treason when my opinions differ from those of Nancy Pelosi.

So, my dear young self-righteous pissant, you're no more nor less blacker than I am. The only difference between you and me is that you have proven conclusively that you happen to simultaneously belong to the race of idiots (just like lily-(all)white Howard Dean).

    I am going to concede one thing to you, in my post I should have been more specific and said 911, and not Al Qaeda

So you wanted to answer with non-sequitur. And not an original one at that.
RIGHT: Saddam has sheltered, sponsored, and provided training to terrorists. Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda have also had extensive friendly contacts and sent delegations to each other requesting closer ties.
LEFT: Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11!

Dodging the question (either by non-sequitur or constructing a stupid strawman) doesn't persuade, field-negro. See what allowing the Left to trap you in a failing school system does to you? And what's worse, you fall down to your knees everyday thanking them for it.

    OK Martin, your talking points are not convincing.

Seeing that you cherry-picked phrases (not even full sentences - perhaps that's the limit of your ability to comprehend) and I was posting full paragraphs and actually linking to the reports, I'm not surprised you were not convinced. Besides, The thought never crossed my mind that I could convince you.

So let's look at just the 9/11 report. Note the bolded words and try to put them together to piece together the pertinent information to somebody who actually is concerned with American national security.

    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 other words, both reached out to each other - meaning that your "Saddam was secular - Bin Laden was a theocrat ... they could never ever work together!" article of faith just got shot to tiny little pieces. The above just dealt with 1997 and mid-1998. The Guardian article dealt with late December 1998 to early 1999 where American Intelligence officials confirmed that Saddam and Al Qaeda sent delegations to meet with each other.

So here you are, confidently claiming that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden could never ever work with each other ... while all the evidence shows that Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden themselves never shared that opinion in the first place.

I see you also completely ignored the Clinton Administration's Bin Laden indictment. Telling. The cognitive dissonance got too much for you?

Either way, if you were capable of comprehending beyond mere phrases that, only when taken in absolute isolation support your already formulated conclusions, you would have noticed that Osama offered to ally himself with Saddam Hussein, and after that, Saddam offered an alliance (and sanctuary). In other words, conclusive evidence that both would have no problem working together should it be at an amenable time for both of them.

    Sadaam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, he is a secularist, they are religious fanatics. Period!

Don't shriek at me ... go shriek at Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden - maybe you can convince them that they're being able to countenance working together violates the law of Left-wing physics.

    These are not exactly the type definitive reports that we are looking for ...

:-]

I love it when Lefties display their total and complete ignorance of national security and intelligence matters. Demanding a 100% certainty? No wonder Jessie "the War Criminal Ranger" MacBeth fooled you all.

Pay attention, idiot;
Especially after 9/11, any history of any form of "friendly contact" (the 9/11 Commission's words - not mine) between Al Qaeda and a monstrous democidal regime like that of Saddam Hussein should concern anybody who takes American national security seriously. Especially if one believed (as Clinton did as of 03/2003), that there were unaccounted for WMDs still left in Iraq.

But then you're a Democrat mind-slave (who openly believes that one is not "truly" black unless he does and thinks EXACTLY as Reid/Pelosi/Dean/Jackson stipulate). The type of fool who thinks unless one hates Condoleeza Rice and loves Howard Dean, one hates black people. I understand y'all need to wait for permission after passing a "global test".

    I save my A-game for things that really matter; like helping my people, and contributing to my community.

Save the sanctimonious BS for someone who believes your s**t. Considering that you're the type of fool who thinks Bill Cosby is a sellout for openly saying what we all know is true so we can face the problem, even though his little finger has done ten times more for the black community than you would do in your entire life, I would bet you do more harm than good.

Do you think this is even my B-game?

Shorter translation of grou... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Shorter translation of groucho's post:

    I cannot refute or debunk any part of Martin's argument, so I'll retreat behind non-sequiturs, strawmen and the pretense that "I could do it if I only had the time."

groucho ...

Don't try to convince me ... there are all sorts of people reading this blog who are more open to being swayed your way or mine than either of us.

Take me on.

Maybe you can convince them.

"Martin -not sure what you ... (Below threshold)
SheGivesMeMoney,WhenI'mInNeed:

"Martin -not sure what you being black has to do with this discussion, but anyway.."

heh. This from the guy who calls himself 'field-negro' in every discussion. And calls others desparaging names concerning their 'blackness'.

binnster ...Th... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

binnster ...

    This claiming the moral high ground over the decision to remove Saddam is bollocks, because that's not why the decision was made, and anyone with eyes in their head can see that.

Really? From the Joint Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq [10/02/2002]:

    Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

    ...

    Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

    ...

    Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

    ...

    Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Not only do I have eyes in my head, I can actually read.

Anyway, when it comes down to it, your main argument sounds reasonable. It's all about when you consider it appropriate to use military force. There is a difference of opinion here between Right and Left.

It's when you say stuff like this that hackles rise;

    Frankly, I never believed for a second that Saddam posed any kind of threat to us or anyone else.

Who the heck do you believes you here? Especially when we have Democrat members of the Congressional Intelligence Committees, the former Democrat President of the United States and dozens of his Administration officials (including those with the highest Intelligence clearances) stating the exact opposite prior to 03/2003 until they had access to hindsight?

One of the major arguments against the war by those (few) Democrats that voted against it was that Saddam would use his WMD against American troops!

From the Joint Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq [10/02/2002]:

    Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

How come you had better information than the White House, Congress, the CIA, MI6, DGSE, etc? And if your sources were that good, why didn't you contact your Congressman to set up a meeting with Jane Harman, Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller or Tom Daschle?

Or are you just taking advantage of hindsight?

Honesty. It's always the best policy.

    Deployment is not justified if someone produces a few flimsy graphs and grainy satellite images ...

I wonder what Adlai Stevenson would think of this?

    ... and announces we must strike pre-emptively to stop the iminent danger ...

This is what Bush actually said: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"

Just because "imminent" and "threat" are in the same sentence does not mean that I'm a asserting that the subject of my sentence is an "imminent threat."

Are you honestly telling me that you cannot comprehend that Bush is saying that American should not wait until the threat is imminent? Basic English comprehension should tell you that Bush is implicitly acknowledging that the threat is not yet imminent and that America should not wait until it is.

C'mon binnster. I can understand if you were Lee, mak44, groucho or field-negro. But I think you're a great deal smarter than them.

    ... some third-world asspiece poses to my country.

Yet you supported the invasion of Afghanistan, the quintessential failed state, far more of a "third world mouthpiece" than Iraq ever was.

    I was in favor of invading Afghanistan, and was majorly dissappointed when it looked like Bush was shifting focus from capturing the leaders there in favor of his daddie's old enemy who'd been pretty quiet for years.

Contrary to popular Left-wing belief, the US military can walk and chew gum at the same time. Do you think the thousands of troops in Afghanistan are "distracted" by Iraq? That they're somehow less focussed on eliminating the Taliban because there are other troops in Iraq? I am sure you are aware that the Army and Marines, not to mention the Air Force and Navy still have a great deal of manpower.

Would adding in another 10,000 troops to Elkenberry's command make you feel any better?

Hey Martin, are you always ... (Below threshold)

Hey Martin, are you always this ignorant and uninformed, or is it just when you revert yo your republican side? First, you know nothing about me or my education, so before you embarrass yourself any further you might want to quit before I decide to call you out for the fraud that you are. Again, your talking points were way off base, and totally cherry picked to suit your argument.

And speaking of non sequitors -you seem to like that word- what the h**l does Cosby have to do with this discussion or my views on the war? Shhhez! My man, you have some serious issues you have to work through, and I suspect that they have something to do with how much you hate yourself. But anyway, since you metioned the Cos, let me go there with you. I actually agreed with 99% of the stuff he said, and no, I have not done as much as he has for my people, (not quite as much money as he has to give) but I have done quite a bit, and I am willing to bet you all of your old Reagan campaign buttons, that I have done a lot more than you. You see Martin, sitting at your computer and going over rethuglican talking points, doesn't count as contributing to your race. It counts as being a self hating wannabe helot, who thinks that by being whiter and more conservative than the next white guy in the room somehow gives you access.

Sorry Martin, you are a fraud, and the type of negro that would have been a paid slave catcher when slavery was legal. Do I think this is even your "B" game? No Martin, I bet you have a lot more game than this.

There is nothing inconsi... (Below threshold)
TomB:

There is nothing inconsistent about what I said. In the first paragraph I was clearly describing under what circumstances I would consider deployment of troops justified as an act of war. Perhaps I missed off "I would also support deployment of troops if their mission is in a peace-keeping or "policing" capacity only", but that was fairly implicit in my last statement. That means deployment in order to protect civilians without any declaration of war being made.

How Clintonian. It depends on what the meaning of the word "deploy" means.

So who, exactly, is going to impose the "peace" we are going to "keep"?

Shorter field-negro transla... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Shorter field-negro translation:

    I got schooled ... can't counter or refute so I'll just scream a few insults, say "Rethuglican" (how original) a few times and then run away.

PS: Empty threats don't work with me. You are clearly lacking any ability to formulate, comprehend and support an argument. Whatever education you've had, it's obviously been completely wasted.

IOW, Do your worst; "call me out ..."

Actually Martin, I said ret... (Below threshold)

Actually Martin, I said rethuglican once in the above post.[not a few times] And I never threatened you or screamed in my post.[A SCREAM WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS] But you are a typical repub. [see I didn't use that word] always twisting what others say to suit your point of view. [kind of like you are trying to do with the justification for war in Iraq] how sad.

Sorry Martin, I am not calling you out, sad as it is, you are who you are. Your problem is that you don't like who you are, so when I tell you, it hurts.

The victim game you black repubs play is sort of pathetic and played. You have a right to your opinions and to be a repub- I actually wish there were more of you- but please don't play yourselves up as if every time there is an ideological argument you are attacked and vilified because you are black. No, you are attacked because your argument is flawed, not because you are a black repub. I actually agree with repubs on a lot of issues, this however, does not happen to be one of them. Ok Martin? So please get over yourself, and go back to listening to your Tobey Keith cd's.

Sorry Martin, I am not ... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:
    Sorry Martin, I am not calling you out ...

Thought so.

    The victim game you black repubs play ...

You forget; I'm a Conservative Republican.

Victimhood is something Leftists aspire to.

    No, you are attacked because your argument is flawed ...

If only you actually demonstrated that it was flawed. But you didn't. You just repeated CodePink talking points and ran away from having to do any heavy lifting.

All in all field-negro ... pathetic.

But have a nice day.




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