« Republicans in the Senate Armed Services Committee Pass Alternative Bill on Terror Tribunals | Main | Blogging for Bolton »

The Media and the Not-So-Intelligent Intelligence Committee Report

Stephen Spruell has a very interesting post about the lack of reporting in the MSM on the report that one of Iraq's deputy prime ministers, Barham Salih, testified that there were connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. The New York Sun published an article about it, but Stephen has yet to see anything in the rest of MSM. Here's a portion of the NY Sun report:

WASHINGTON -- A deputy prime minister of Iraq yesterday offered a sharp contradiction of the conventional wisdom here that Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Al Qaeda had no connection before the 2003 war, flatly contradicting a recent report from the Senate's intelligence committee.


In a speech in which he challenged the belief of war critics that Iraqis' lives are now worse than under Saddam Hussein, Barham Salih said, "The alliance between the Baathists and jihadists which sustains Al Qaeda in Iraq is not new, contrary to what you may have been told." He went on to say, "I know this at first hand. Some of my friends were murdered by jihadists, by Al Qaeda-affiliated operatives who had been sheltered and assisted by Saddam's regime."

A Kurdish politician who took his high school exams from inside a Baathist prison, Mr. Salih said he was the target of the alliance between jihadists, Baathists, and Al Qaeda in 2001, when a group known as Ansar al-Islam tried to assassinate him. In 2002, envoys of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, one of the two Kurdish parties sharing sovereignty over northern Iraq between the two Iraq wars, presented the CIA with evidence that the organization that tried to kill Mr. Salih had been in part funded and directed by Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard.

Those words directly contradict a recent report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that declassified a 2005 CIA assessment of Iraq's pre-war ties to Al Qaeda and found that none existed. In an interview after the speech yesterday, Mr. Salih said he was unaware of the CIA assessment. But he added, "There were links between Ansar al-Islam and Al Qaeda. The information at time [in 2002] was quite different. Now, we could not prove this in a court of law, but this is intelligence."

Others:

Power Line
The Jawa Report
The American Thinker
Macsmind


Comments (45)

So, who are we to believe? ... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

So, who are we to believe? A group of bias BDS suffering Democrats who hijacked a committee, by design, to discredit anything this President does, by any means necessary. Or an official of the country in question, who lived there and lived through it. This is kind of like the guy who gets caught in bed with another woman, by his wife, and his response is "who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes.

The Democrats couldn't have... (Below threshold)

The Democrats couldn't have "hijacked" the conclusion - which does not match the details available in the report - without the assistance of RINOs Chuck Hagel and Susan Collins.

If brains were beans, those two wouldn't have enough between them to make a bee fart.

It's always nice to hear wh... (Below threshold)
Lee:

It's always nice to hear what the conservofascists' Iraqi sockpuppets have to say on this subjec..... zzzzzzzzzzzzz (snork) zzzzzzz

Three points come to mind- ... (Below threshold)
avgourmet:

Three points come to mind-

First is that a 2005 CIA assessment wouldn't reflect the trove of Iraqi documents describing the relationship that were decoded in 2006

Second is picking your moment in time even with more current facts on the ground is cherry picking in the worst possible way. Intelligence sources in 2004 would establish one child short of my 2006 family size

Third, can I be the first to say "I question the timing" as it was used to take the wind out of the President's 9/11 message

Wait, I am confused, you me... (Below threshold)

Wait, I am confused, you mean the dnc was WRONG!? How is that possible? I thought that Dean, Clinton, Kerry and Kennedy were just "trying to make America stronger" and watching out for the little guy. Why would they need to like about something like this?

Well, here something for wh... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Well, here something for which there is NO connection. There's no connection between the President and the capture of killing of Osama bin Laden...remember, the guy who killed nearly 3,000 Americans?

He claims to be tough and resolute, but six months after 9/11, he said doesn't know where bin Laden and he doesn't care.

We need someone who care to be our President. Instead of getting this guy, he takes 140,000 American troops, gets 2,700+ of them killed, just to take out some 3rd rate tin pot dicatator, Saddam Hussein. You remember him—the guy with not much in the WMD department; the guy who didn't even control the airspace above his country.

As far as I'm concerned, all thse other issues are a diversion to make us forget that he failed. He let bin Laden get away with murder. It's time to ditch Bush, and get someone who'll do the job.

Frankly, I don't think he's tough at all. If he couldn't get bin Laden with the full force of the U.S. military...well, that makes him a pathetic wimp.

Lee responds to truth with ... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Lee responds to truth with name calling. Is it not peculuar that idiots of Lee's small caliber call those who speak the truth liars and other names yet idolize those who lie under oath, to their wives, children staff, congress and the nation. Good by, Lee. You are just to dumb to live very long.

Publicus, you bozo, Bin Lad... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Publicus, you bozo, Bin Ladin is responsible for the deaths of a few thousand people. Saddam was directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Saddam had the fourth largest army in the world, huge oil reserves and a history of manufacturing and using WMD. He had attempted to kill a former President of the United States. What does it take to get to be first rate to you?

Maybe if you read the story... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Maybe if you read the story you would see why there is still no direct connection between Saddam and al Qeada:

“The Senate's report declassifies a July 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency study of Ansar al-Islam as a possible link between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda that concludes that, even if it can be proven, as Mr. Salih at the time alleged, that the Baathist regime supported the group, "it will not necessarily implicate the regime in supporting Al Qaeda." The DIA concludes that Ansar al-Islam "receives assistance" from Al Qaeda but is not a branch of the terrorist organization.

Who CARE if there was "a co... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Who CARE if there was "a connection" between bin Laden and Iraq or not. Hussein had no weapons to threaten us with; he couldn't even control his own airspace. He was washed up.

Osama bin Laden, on the other hand, is still FREE and capable of attacking us again. thanks to 5 years of UTTER FAILURE by Bush to capture or kill him. The worst part is, our pathetic wimp of a President DIDN'T EVEN TRY! After 6 months, he lost interest.

So, who are we going to count on to get bin Laden? Bush was a pathetic failure. Let's get someone who can do the job.

Publicus:In anothe... (Below threshold)

Publicus:

In another thread today, you claim you like Bush. Now you call him a pathetic wimp. Which is it?

ZR III already made my point about Sadaam. Thx.

Also, judging success or failure in the WOT by capturing one person is ridiculous. Get a grip. If you can.

Bush is a decent human bein... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Bush is a decent human being, but he's a terrible president.

And, when I think about 9/11 and bin Laden STILL being free, I can't help but get angy.

What's the excuse for this failure?! Getting bin Laden WAS his mandate after 9/11. Not only did he fail, but he failed to TRY.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III --</p... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III --

Saddam, like dozens of dictators I could name, killed lots of people. Since we can't possibly go after every tin pot dictator, we should concentrate on people who—by example—have shown the ability to attack us. That was bin Laden. Unfortunately, Bush's attention span was to short to get that guy.

There's no excuse for that. None.

"Who cares if Saddam had... (Below threshold)
914:

"Who cares if Saddam had a connection with Al Quaeda or not?

"He had no weapons to threaten us with; He could'nt even control His own airspace. He was washed up."

Yes, but He could sure violate our airspace!

914 --I think you ... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

914 --

I think you are confusing Saddam Hussein with bin Laden. For some reason, people do that all the time. But bin Laden attacked us on 9/11 and killed nearly 3,000 of our people. But Bush didn't care about capturing or killed him...six months after he swore to do so.

I can't believe, after 5 years, our "tough, resolute" President has still failed to get the guy behind 9/11. What are all those defense spending dollars good for if we can't even do this?

Publicus:He cla... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Publicus:

He claims to be tough and resolute, but six months after 9/11, he said doesn't know where bin Laden and he doesn't care.

Way to telescope two paragraphs of what he said:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

Here is the reason he "doesn't care", and neither do I...

THE PRESIDENT:  Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all.  Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time.  And the idea of focusing on one person is --  really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.
Terror is bigger than one person.  And he's just  --  he's a person who's now been marginalized.  His network, his host government has been destroyed.  He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match.  He is  --  as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide  --  if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

Q    But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him.  And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure.  And, again, I don't know where he is.  I  --  I'll repeat what I said.  I truly am not that concerned about him.  I know he is on the run.  I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country.  I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became  --  we shoved him out more and more on the margins.  He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore.
  And if we  --  excuse me for a minute  --  and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things  --  part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.

In other words, without his network and host country, he is about as powerful as the average al-Q nut. He doesn't run al-Q anymore, whatever is left of it. If he is even alive, and considering that as much of a media hog as he was in the 1990s, the fact that there hasn't been a verifiable videotape (with current topical references in said tape) in about 5 years, I'm kinda guessing he's not getting around much anymore.

Finding him would be a nice icing on the cake, but his number #2, #3, etc have all been elimiated by us. That did a hell of a lot more damage.

Hey Publicus Hair,... (Below threshold)
Pete_Bondurant:

Hey Publicus Hair,


KSM was the mastermind of 9/11. He has been captured. His capture led to other captures of Al Qaeda terrorists. Stop saying Bush doesn't care, you know that is false and you are misquoting him. You are probably one of the idiots who did not like Bush saying he wants Bin laden "dead or alive" immediately following 9/11. Hussein wa no "tin pot dictator" you moron. He killed about half a million people, controlled oil, invaded a neighboring country and had ties with Al Qaeda. Please continue to post your idotic ideas though, you are living proof with what is wrong with the educational system. However, when posting please refrain from lying, it just makes you look dumber...if that is possible. Those who have to resort to lying do not have the wit to debate honestly.

Publicus:Why are y... (Below threshold)
Burt:

Publicus:

Why are you so interested in getting bin Laden? Do you have a speaking engagement set up?

Osama bin Laden, on the ... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Osama bin Laden, on the other hand, is still FREE and capable of attacking us again. thanks to 5 years of UTTER FAILURE by Bush to capture or kill him. The worst part is, our pathetic wimp of a President DIDN'T EVEN TRY! After 6 months, he lost interest.

Time for a little realpolitik and logistics. Where is he possibly (and that is only a possibility) now? Somewhere near the Pakistani-Afghan border---lots of caves, rugged terrain. To search everyone one of these is going to take the cooperation of Pakistan (don't count on that happening) and Afghanistan, and a massive military force (Us) to go in and do it. There's enough bitching as it is about the costs (monetary and human) as it is in Iraq...you think the Democrats are going to approve ANOTHER big operation based on very shaky evidence of his continuing existence?

You know bloody well that won't happen...and it certainly won't happen if the Democrats get in power...they have no other plan but to withdrawl. Like Vietnam. Remember what happened after we withdrew from Vietnam?

So, tell me Publicus, how would YOU find and capture OBL?

I await with bated breath.

Damn, that baited breath is... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Damn, that baited breath is awful...

Zelda the Amazing said: "You are just to dumb to live very long"

Uhm, yeah, whatever. You two.... (heh)

Lee, you couldn't fire two ... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Lee, you couldn't fire two functional synapses if they were put in the Fermilab accellerator. I wish you would hold your breath...for a long, long time.

Unless, you want to carry the torch and explain exactly the best way to get OBL, AND get everyone in Congress aboard.

To all you members of the O... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

To all you members of the Osama bin Laden defense team:

He's a killer; he's behind 9/11 and he needs to be brought to justice. I was completely behind the President (as were you, too, probably), when he said this. The entire country, democrats and republicans and independents and mugwumps were ALL behind the President when he promised to get bin Laden.

He broke his promise to us. He let bin Laden go free. And, amazingly, you guys are defending this!

Okay. I'm going to try this one more time, and then give up:

Al Queda, headed up by Osama bin Laden committed the biggest mass murder in American history. He is the FATHER of the current age terrorism. The deaths of nearly 3,000 innocent Americans DEMANDS that he be brought to justice.
Stop making excuses for bin Laden. Let's get the guy!

Time for a little realpo... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

Time for a little realpolitik and logistics. Where is he possibly (and that is only a possibility) now? Somewhere near the Pakistani-Afghan border---lots of caves, rugged terrain. To search everyone one of these is going to take the cooperation of Pakistan (don't count on that happening) and Afghanistan, and a massive military force (Us) to go in and do it. There's enough bitching as it is about the costs (monetary and human) as it is in Iraq...you think the Democrats are going to approve ANOTHER big operation based on very shaky evidence of his continuing existence?
James Cloninger

Realpolitik: Pakistan has nukes, Saddam didn't. That just about says it all.

Old "pucker puss" (lee lee)... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Old "pucker puss" (lee lee) & "pubic hair" could pass for twins.

Publicus wrote, "Let's g... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Publicus wrote, "Let's get the guy!"

I believe James asked "how." He didn't ask for a rehash of 2 year old Democrat talking points.

So I'll try again -- please explain specifically (e.g. number of troops, tactics, air support, etc.) how to capture Bin Laden. You can start by pinpointing his exact location, since Democrats seem to have some secret knowledge of it.

An exact timetable for the hunt and capture earns you extra points.

Publicus: "Who CARE ... (Below threshold)

Publicus: "Who CARE if there was "a connection" between bin Laden and Iraq or not. Hussein had no weapons to threaten us with; he couldn't even control his own airspace. He was washed up."

Yeah, well for a washed up tin-pot, he sure didn't seem to have any problems with violating the ceasefire agreement he signed after the Gulf War, which, in fact, never actually ended. Or all the subsequent UN resolutions. In fact, he didn't mind lighting up with targeting radar and taking the occasional potshot at the Coalition jets patrolling the "no fly" zones, because he knew Clinton lacked the balls to blow one of his palaces off the map, and would instead lob a missile at some poor dumb soldiers manning the radar installations. Because Bush I, and his Coalition compadres, decided to let the UN negotiate a truce, and Clinton followed their lead, we ended up where we are now.

Saddam should have been taken out back when we were standing on his neck the first time. But the "international community" left him in place, and jihadis like bin Laden realized the West didn't have the stomach to actually kill their enemies, just bloody their nose.

Publicus, I am waiting to h... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Publicus, I am waiting to hear your response to the question, how are you going to get Osama? You know, Clairabelle, We never did get Hitler, yet we won WWII. Are you saying that even though Hitler never stood trial we somehow didn't win that war? I guess the fact that Osama used to arrive for meetings in caravan of Toyota Land Cruiser during the previous administrations tenure, and really did little to alter his living conditions dispite the heroic efforts of the Clinton team is somehow forgotten and the fact that while Bush has not yet capured or kill OBL, he certainly has caused him to change his life style. No more free travel, no long distance phone calls. No going outside. He has been reduced to training his crew by internet, and he is not even doing that.

Publicus, I am waiting t... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Publicus, I am waiting to hear your response to the question, how are you going to get Osama?

Me too...


Publicus, I am waiting to hear your response to the question, how are you going to get Osama?

Ouch. Perhaps he was hiding in the hills of Tora Bora.

Sorry, my Tora Bora comment... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Sorry, my Tora Bora comment was in regards to Hitler (who, yes, we never found either)

Salith is a former member O... (Below threshold)
Drew:

Salith is a former member Of the Iraqi National Congress...you remember that group?

Chalibi was it's President..Remember Chalibi? ..he gave us "curveball"..he was busted for his Iranian connection...

As Salith is just another Chalibi stooge...of course if you liked "curveball" you'll love Salith...

Also...as some folks here d... (Below threshold)
Drew:

Also...as some folks here don't believe we should have tried to get binnie instead of Saddam..or trying to get binnie should be a top priority....
Why would you care if the al-Q's were or were not in Iraq

Whether we get Bin Laden or... (Below threshold)
dickdee:

Whether we get Bin Laden or not, he's living a life equivalent to the democrats. He's sitting in a cave with no chance of a beach vacation-check. His life is hateful and psychotic --check. He lacks gainful employment because there is no capitalism in jihad land --check. He too hates Walmart as slaveowner of the underclass --check. And last but not the least resemblance, is that he wants to destroy America just like the libs --check and double check. Sounds just like the pathetic liberal democrats who have nothing to offer except screams of disrespect from the back bench. For shame.

"Whether we get Bin Lade... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Whether we get Bin Laden or not"

Why the hell would we not get bin Laden?!?!?

Oh yeah, the Republican'ts don't want to ruin their perfect record over the last six years -- zero accomplishments... mission botched.

Americans wanted justice after 9/11 - and we're still waiting.

@ LeeAmericans ... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

@ Lee

Americans wanted justice after 9/11 - and we're still waiting.

You advocated nuking OBL but, you then say, it's conveniently too late. From your posts, I thought you thought Americans wanted to be terrorized and then killed. Your mouth is like a sewage pipe running past its capacity.

"Americans wanted justic... (Below threshold)
914:

"Americans wanted justice after 9/11- and were still waiting."

Yes, You are still alive are'nt You!!

We hear two things from the... (Below threshold)

We hear two things from the left often enough to put them side by side. Basically they say:

1) What about bin Laden? No one has caught bin Laden.

2) Even if they catch bin Laden it won't matter. Another will simply rise to take his place.

I ask - Is bin Laden important, or is he not important? Inquiring minds want to know.

It's pathetic - the degree ... (Below threshold)
stevenrobb:

It's pathetic - the degree to which the boneheads on the post will make all kinds of rationalizations and apologies for their daddy, GW Bush.

Do any of you people understand anything about what's really important in this country? In the structure of our government?

A president is not put in place to be worshipped. He's not in his position so the public can make apologies for his failures. When he oversteps his bounds - in any way - the general public should loath him, not make excuses.

The constitution and bill of rights are what this country is built on - and if you've ever read them they're damn impressive documents. As far as I'm concerned, those documents are what I worship in this country - and any president who doesn't fullfill his duty, lies to the people, fails at his job in any way should get no sympathy from anyone.

This country is too important for mediocre leaders. And if you think I demand too much from these people, you folks obviously don't demand enough.

Also, if you've bought the bunk that the constitution and BOR are tragically flawed (really, the only one's who claim that are the one's who want to change them), you're brainwashed. And you're as far from a patriot as anyone can be. Sadly, you folks don't think you are, you think you're arrogantly right - and you're leading this country down a dark hole.

By the way, I voted Republican in the last 3 out of 4 elections - and I'm talking about ALL people who would hold this office, but particularly about the one that's abusing it now.

And just for clarification,... (Below threshold)
stevenrobb:

And just for clarification, this current president is NOT doing a good job. If you think he is, you're living in a fantasy land and you need to wake up to reality.

@ stevenrobbGarbag... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

@ stevenrobb

Garbage in, garbage out.

Red Fog,I've read ... (Below threshold)
stevenrobb:

Red Fog,

I've read a few of your comments now from other postings. You seem to be one of these true believers.

I find you have alot of criticism of other posters - sometimes unnecessarily vicious - but none of your President. In fact, in one post you seem to spit back everything Bush tells you as if it's gospel. Bear in mind, it's our duty to keep our government in check, not to be their cheerleader. Most of the time, they're not yours.

You should review that mindset. It's an ignorantly dangerous one.

I ask - Is bin Laden imp... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

I ask - Is bin Laden important, or is he not important? Inquiring minds want to know.
Oyster

Maybe you should ask GWB, he's not too sure either. After all, he quotes bin Laden all the time with the "Death to America" rhetoric to scare you ninnies to vote Repub, then he turns around and says bin Laden doesn't matter. Which is it? Inquisitive minds want to know.

You know, Clairabelle, We never did get Hitler, yet we won WWII.
Zeldorf Ragshaft

Hitler wasn't making home movies every 4 months insulting the US after WWII was over. If he was, I'm sure the US would have done something about it. And Hitler never killed Americans on American soil. And we didn't go to war with Hitler, then divert all our resources to Iraq before the job was done. And we went to war with Hitler with the full might and backing of the American people. Bush had that backing (and could have had the full might had he chosen to unleash it) going after bin Laden, but squandered it to settle an old score with Saddam.

There are quite a few differences between Hitler and bin Laden, and trying to compare them makes you look pretty foolish. I know all the Kewl Kidz (Kristol, Newt, Krauthammer, et al) in the Beltway are doing it, but really it's just a pathetic comparison.

stevenrob,Bear in... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

stevenrob,
Bear in mind, it's our duty to keep our government in check, not to be their cheerleader. Most of the time, they're not yours.

You should review that mindset. It's an ignorantly dangerous one.

Are you a preacher? And did you know there's a war on? Put it to you this way: I'm a hawk and you're a dove. Your mindset to pull out and wait to protect the terrorists' rights after they blow up your loved ones .... is ignorant and dangerous. Now give me a hug.

By the way, my pet peeve: 'alot' is always two words.

And did you know there's... (Below threshold)
stevenrobb:

And did you know there's a war on? Put it to you this way: I'm a hawk and you're a dove.

Real tough guy. What you're really saying is "I'm scared" and I'm willing to let my government do whatever they see fit because I'm too ignorant to actually know what the Geneva accord offers.

Blind faith doesn't make you a "hawk." It makes you a scared little lamb who thinks he's a hawk. Real courage is standing up for the constitution of this government and not subverting it because you're too frightened to trust it. Simply put, I'll defer to the words of one of our better presidents (placed by another poster):

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Teddy Roosevelt

And, in regard to your second statement:

Your mindset to pull out and wait to protect the terrorists' rights after they blow up your loved ones .... is ignorant and dangerous.

please, explain to me in my post, where I EVER claimed anything you just wrote. In some twisted way, you've "interpreted" that my adherence to the constitution and bill of rights is cowardly and treasonous. Had to be that. There's NOTHING in my post that talks about appeasing any enemy.

This feeds into what I said earlier. You're so full of fear that you look at options in completely black and white terms. If someone doesn't support the President completely, they HAVE to be a liberal, cut and run pansy. Children can understand the broad spectrum of this argument better than a twit like you can.

You're too stupid - and simple minded - to know you've made my argument for me.

You know something. Just to... (Below threshold)
stevenrobb:

You know something. Just to be fair, my statement ("What you're really saying is "I'm scared" and I'm willing to let my government do whatever they see fit because I'm too ignorant to actually know what the Geneva accord offers.") is also reading into your words.

Lets just talk about your attitude, then. Speaking in absolutes - and giving the President free reign over what constitutional amendments he should - and shouldn't - adhere to based on the fact that "there's a war on" is simply not the way the constitution - or the Presidency - is built.

I work in Manhattan every day. Have since 1987. Was there when the planes hit some 8 blocks down the street and continue to work there today. Like many people that day, we had to rush across the Brooklyn Bridge to get out of the city. One of my friends is seen in one of the more prominent photos from that day sprinting away on the bridge as the smoke chases after him. Two family members worked in the trade center - one in tower one, another in tower two. Both are, luckily, alive.

It's quite a different thing watching terrorism on tv, safely in your living room, and seeing it in 3D above you, around you, hearing the screams of people. And there's no one who wanted revenge for that day more than many of us who were there.

But every one of us from that day would agree on one thing - the sanctity of this way of life is what's most important to keep - and this way of life has been built and reinforced by the very documents our current President sees fit to ignore when he can.

What he hasn't told you is that he CAN conduct a thoroughly effective war without resorting to the acts of rogue nations - who ignore treaties, agreements and alliances. There is enough "give" in all these documents to account for "gray areas" in conduct.

What you have here is a President who wants to subvert the Geneva convention because he seems to know - deep down - that somewhere along the way he'll be culpable. So he's ready to throw away the moral high ground this country has had since it's inception to serve his selfish interests.

I was for him when he got into office. I can't even look at him now. And, personally, I'd rather keep our moral high ground and face a future "in the right" than become worse than our enemy to win.

It takes more courage to stand up for your way of life aggressively than throwing it away for some vague "advantage" that is undefined and, in the end, will not be an advantage at all. It'll be the enemy's justification and the noose we've put around our own necks.

And, just to be clear, none of this means I'm not completely for going into war in Afghanistan, chasing enemy's wherever they are and bombing the shit out of whoever needs to be bombed for as long as they need to be bombed.

But, unlike you Red Fog, I don't have some vague sense of fear all around me that I need to stand behind my president, right or wrong, so I can feel safe and comfortable. And it is fear, even though you've not stated that word exactly. No one who's a real hawk would be afraid of going to war with the moral high ground in tact. And no real courageous person would give up his or her right to criticize the government that he or she has elected - in their name.

Lastly, a government that goes into a war for the "right" reasons will always have a greater arsenal behind them - the support of the other courageous nations - which, believe it or not, does help. It has for our other correct wars.

Drew,Salih was PUK, ... (Below threshold)
Mark:

Drew,
Salih was PUK, not INC. Get your facts straight.




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