« Saddam's New Strategy | Main | CBS Projects Webb Winner -- Dems To Control Senate »

We Cannot Forget About Terrorism

When Nancy Pelosi was interviewed by Fox News today she made this comment about the war in Iraq:

The point is this isn't a war to win. It's a situation to be solved.

Children arguing about whose piece of cake is bigger is a situation to be solved. We're talking about terrorists who want to kill us, including Hamas which just announced today that American interests should be attacked. Nancy Pelosi's comments confirm for me, and I'm sure for many other Americans, that she and the rest of the Democratic leadership don't have the slightest understanding of the terrorist threat we face. It's reflective of the "law enforcement" mentality that so many Democrats, including Bill Clinton, have regarding terrorism. What they fail to accept is that the terrorists declared war on us years ago, and they aren't going away until they win the war.

The rest of the world wants us to get out of Iraq and to stop conducting the war on terrorism, which is why they are cheering the Democrats' win. They really want to get back to the life they had before 9/11 and they think that our being in Iraq and Afghanistan causes too much upheaval in the world. But the chaos that has gripped the world is not because of us; it's because of the terrorists themselves.

I'm sure a lot of Americans want us to get back to the business of living without the fear of terrorism, as well. Not having been attacked in over five years causes us to want to turn our attention from the terrorists who live and breathe our destruction to other less scary things like social security and health care. Who doesn't want that feeling of everything is right in the world again? I know I want that, too. However, pretending the threat does not exist any longer does not make it so. And this is how Nancy Pelosi's comment that Iraq isn't a war to win but a situation to be solved is a dangerous one. It helps Americans become more comfortable with forgetting about terrorism. It's a way of getting people to think, "maybe President Bush is wrong; maybe there really isn't a threat anymore."

I'm very sorry to say this, but we simply cannot forget about terrorists or terrorism.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference We Cannot Forget About Terrorism:

» In Search Of Utopia linked with It's over...

» Degree of Madness linked with The Situation on Terror

» Once More Into the Breach linked with The Terrorists Have Won

Comments (83)

Needing a new facelift so t... (Below threshold)
bill:

Needing a new facelift so the old fossel looks pretty for the cameras, that's a situation to be solved. When someone is actively trying to blow your planes from the sky, your boats out of the sea, your buildings from their foundations, your buses off the road, your trains off the tracks, and your kids at the nightclub, we have something more than a 'situation'.

Well I wouldn't mind if terrorists could be convinced to only kill liberals and blow up liberal cities. That situation wouldn't bother me as much as if they were to try and blow up my city -- is that fair?

Wow, inciteful. Seriously, ... (Below threshold)
Smart:

Wow, inciteful. Seriously, do you use any of the brain in your head?

Frankly, if the US pulls ou... (Below threshold)

Frankly, if the US pulls out of Iraq now, then I pray that no sane nation ever trusts us again. It will prove to the world (again) that we don't like to finish what we start.

The Iraqis? F*ck them like we f*ucked South Asia twenty-five years ago. Right? Isn't that what Pelosi is really saying? Because that's what withdrawing right now will really be - a giant middle finger to the Middle East and an invitation to the terrorists to fill in the vacuum.

The American people may for... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

The American people may forget about terrorism for a few days or weeks but from what I read today about Chavez helping the terrorists from Hamas and others to get into the U.S. they will get a rude awakening and soon.
As a fact it I saw a terrorists attack being prepared in any of the large cities (all left wing liberals) I would become the three monkeys. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Let er rip, the Americans now deserve a monster attack or maybe a dozen since the terrorists now know how they can carry out a dozen as easy as one. Instructions have been provided by the antique MSM and democrats in their hate mode for the president. I have found out how to kill thousands and set the country back for years, all from the media and democrats. The surprise to me was how easy it would be to carry out a massive attack, the only you have to do is watch TV and do no other research other than spending maybe two days casing a place to launch the attack.

Hmmm, did any one say to fo... (Below threshold)
sal manella:

Hmmm, did any one say to forget about terrorism??? NOT that I have heard. Last nights vote was a message to the Bush Administration, that the country is not pleased with the Bush Administrations incompetent handling of the Iraq war. Suck it up, and move ahead.

WE can forget all about ter... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

WE can forget all about terrorism, and IslamoFascism ANY TIME WE WANT!!

The terrorists/IslamoFascists, however, will not and HAVE NOT forgotten about us!!

Depend upon it.

Hey Mr. President...you've got NO majority left...and can't get re-elected. Time to GO ROMAN on the bad guys!!! Absolutely ROMAN!!

Right or Left, Blue or Red,... (Below threshold)

Right or Left, Blue or Red, I don't really care. I do care if they actually pay some attention to domestic America and get us going in the right direction again. We are the number one consumers in the world, we should also be the number one creators in the world. Lets get domestic A merica competitive again.
Raymond B
www.voteswagon.com

The thing you've got to rem... (Below threshold)
astigafa:

The thing you've got to remember about Nancy Pelosi is that she's not evil; she's just despicable. She's a Democratic hack with a penchant for leaning the wrong way on certain moral issues -- you know, she's a breeder and all that.

But those who say she daily prays, Mecca-ward, for the defeat of our forces and the destruction of the capitalism system, are spouting soyashit.

...Arr, tis Black Wednesday! And the flag be flyin' at half-staff there at the Reagan Regatta. The Christian world will long remember this as the day moderates took over.

Thank God! So thank yer local pirate, mate, 'cuz the good guys are gettin' the gold, at last.

Blessed be the Lord!



kim:i think that t... (Below threshold)
ryan:

kim:

i think that the war on terrorism and the war in iraq just MIGHT be two different subjects for many americans. they are for me.

im still not exactly sure what going into iraq had to do with 9/11, OBL, etc.

i do know that hussein was an asshole, a murderer, and a real piece of work...like other dictator types around the globe. but i also know that the WMDs were never there, and that he wasn't exactly an "immediate threat" as we were told.

i do understand why we went in there, to an extent, and it has more to do with economics and strategy than any direct connection to the war on terrorism IMO. 9/11 opened the possibility for war up, and cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, and eventually bush went for it. we wanted a way to get some kind of stability in a critical and violitile area--the middle east. we wanted to get a foothold in there, and hussein was the weak link, the one who we figured we could take out without too many problems.

well, saddam is gone but now we're having some problems.

just like George HW Bush predicted would happen if he took out hussein in 1991, we have ourselves somewhat stuck in a shitty situation now. we're just sitting there in iraq, stuck in the vacuum. we can't even really define an enemy, let alone allies. we're in the middle of three factions who HATE each other, and we're supposed to WIN? how can we win if iraqis want us to get the hell out? how can we win if there is no clear objective beyond holding our position?

the war on terror, to me, means that we arent safe in out little isolated north american bubble anymore. and now we have to pay attention and watch our asses, like many other nations in the world do. not only do we have to worry about the big guns like china, but we have to be concerned with smaller groups who employ guerrilla (read terrorist) tactics. we cant assume that we're safe from everything because we have a badass military.

9/11 was atrocious, and i was all for going into afghanistan and going after bin laden and his cronies. and thats what we WERE doing. i was all for special ops groups going around destroying al qaida all over the earth, and i was all for us taking a more vigilant approach to security here at home.

but to me starting a huge ground/urban war in iraq was a terrible move. even the connection to al qaida was there, starting some massive ground war wasn't the way to go, because once we took out hussein, and a good amount of the infastructure, we were no longer chasing terrorists, but INSTEAD stuck trying to hold an entire war-ravaged nation together.

good luck, especially if the people arent exactly welcoming us.

im tired of democrats yelling all about how evil bush is, instead of coming up with some way to handle what's happening. and im equally tired of republicas acting like it's treasonous to disagree with the goddamned war in iraq and the way things have been handled.

families from both sides of the political spectrum lost loved ones, let's not forget that. i really hope that SOMEHOW the partisan bickering can stop, and we as americans can figure out a way to start making some headway with our reality. we are in a war, and it ain't going too well. maybe we should make an attempt to "solve this problem," "win this war," or whatever the hell you want to call it.

in the meantime, how about we don't crucify one another in the process?

We can't pull out of iraq.<... (Below threshold)
Robert:

We can't pull out of iraq.
We fucked up their country.
Who fucked up their country? The good ol' US of A, that's who.

It's too late. We need to stay in iraq. If losing thousands (or hundreds of thousand) more US soldiers is what it takes, tough crap.
We broke it. We fix it.

At some point (I'm not going to put a date on it), they should be secure enough for us to pull-out. At that point, they will have their oil money (from selling it to China, or whoever) so they can keep the security and feed their people.

But make no mistake. This thing is fucked. and it wasn't the "hippies and anti-war marchers" who got us into this fucked situation.

It was those who started this war for control of oil, war profiteering, and to show the world how bad ass America is.

Raise your hand if you were for this war in 2003.
Keep your hand raised and go look in a mirror, because it was you who got us in this fucked situation.

correction:the 9th... (Below threshold)
ryan:

correction:

the 9th paragraph down, second sentence should read "even IF the connection to al qaida was there..."

...and the last line is kinda awkward, but you get the point.

sorry. i type too fast sometimes.

I don't think it's so much ... (Below threshold)
Knightbrigade:

I don't think it's so much as "forgetting" about the terrorists, than it is having another approach.
Now what the hell the democratic approach is...we will find out, hopefully before we get nailed again.
When we do get hit again, let's see democrats lead the way...
It all comes down to HOW to deal with terrorist.
a progressive/liberal way or conservative way.

The point is this ... (Below threshold)
Heralder:
The point is this isn't a war to win. It's a situation to be solved.

Oh c'mon Madam Speaker, you don't really mean that...isn't it just the botox talking?

I suppose I should be happy, after all we haven't been at war for three years, we've been at situation. A situation that Madam Speaker will give us solution for annnnyyy minute now.

It's cool, I'll wait.

It's not just the Dems who ... (Below threshold)
Robert:

It's not just the Dems who have no plan out of Iraq.
No one does.
Bush's "we'll win the war in iraq" is NOT a plan.
It's a goal.

Thanks Georgie. Now run along while the adults TRY to figure out a plan on how to fix your mess.
(500 lb. elephant in the room: They can't fix the mess).

Robert,We... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Robert,

We can't pull out of iraq. We fucked up their country. Who fucked up their country? The good ol' US of A, that's who.

Yes, because entire villges gassed and razed to the ground, fingernails being pulled out, mass graves, rape rooms, and an estimated 2 million innocent people killed over 24 years at the hands of the ruling dictator isn't fucked up.

Kim said: "Children argu... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Kim said: "Children arguing about whose piece of cake is bigger is a situation to be solved. We're talking about terrorists who want to kill us,"

And wining the war in Iraq will put a stop to terrorists wanting to kill is? No, Kim it won't and you know it. It's time to solve this problem, and cutting the rhetoric is a good start. We all know that there is nothing we can do in Iraq to stop terrorism. Iraq is now a breeding ground for future terrorists.

DIdn't losing the election teach you guys anything? Oh, that's right, the Democrats stole the election, or the MSM stole it - whatever - you guys are a lost cause. The world knows it, and the election proves it.

Ryan ... what cave have you... (Below threshold)

Ryan ... what cave have you been living in? There most certainly were WMD in Iraq. Just what do you think killed over 300,000 Kurds? Did you miss the NYT article telling us that Saddam was one year away from a fully functional nuclear weapons program in 2002?

We went into Iraq, which had been the plan for nearly a decade, to gain a foothold in the Middle East. Iraq to the west, Afghanistan to the east ... and what lies in the center? Yep ... put the old squeeze on the mad mullahs.

Only, it got screwed up .. in a number of ways. We totally did not estimate correctly the insurgency and their tenaciousness. I don't think Bush and his advisers counted on terrorists coming in from other countries like they did. They should have known and planned for that. They didn't and that is perhaps the largest and worst failure.

Then, we tip-toed around Iraq for fear of upsetting the left and the media, when we should have put the hammer down at the start and not let up until the terrorists (aka insurgents) were defeated. But they were more concerned about winning hearts and minds, and not killing a single person that wasn't necessary so as to avoid the "baby killer" meme from 'Nam. We were more concerned about PR than actually winning this thing.

Oh and now you pull out the old "blood for oil" meme. Congratulations. You have been suckered in by a total fallacy. Go read Bill Whittle and get your head screwed back on straight. Then come back and start over.

"Did you miss the NYT ar... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Did you miss the NYT article telling us that Saddam was one year away from a fully functional nuclear weapons program in 2002?"

Yeah, I missed it. Got a link?

Lee ... so just what is YOU... (Below threshold)

Lee ... so just what is YOUR miracle plan for solving the terrorism problem?

Same thing as the Democrats? Pretend hard enough that it isn't real and it will go away? Kiss their ass and appease? Fat lot of good that has ever done ...

So, bright boy, what should be the plan, huh?

Robert,It... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Robert,

It's not just the Dems who have no plan out of Iraq. No one does. Bush's "we'll win the war in iraq" is NOT a plan. It's a goal.

And whining about how we shouldn't have gone in the first place is the first step to achieving that goal?

Whatever you do Robert, don't blame Saddam, you can't take your eyes off that war-mongering oil-hungry Bush for a single second.

Will we be sitting at the p... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

Will we be sitting at the peace table with BIN LADEN and hold a love in? will they pass the hooka around?

"Did you miss the ... (Below threshold)
"Did you miss the NYT article telling us that Saddam was one year away from a fully functional nuclear weapons program in 2002?"

Yeah, I missed it. Got a link?
Posted by: Lee at November 8, 2006 09:55 PM


It is official. Lee does nothing but babble on with Dimocrat talking points. Or is just retarded.

I vote for retarded.

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

Read it and fuckin' weep, Lee

Heralder,I never s... (Below threshold)
Robert:

Heralder,

I never said it was ideal, but it wasn't even close to the unfixable clusterfuck it is now.

The place is now officially screwed.
You want Pelosi and the dems to fix it? Fat chance.
The so-called geniuses in the Republican party have no idea how to fix it. How do you expect (place your funny, disparaging name for dems here) to fix it?

See that clown in the mirror with his hand raised? He's one (of many) who are to blame.

See the leftist, stinky hippie from San Francisco who "wasted his time" marching against the war and saying it was a mistake?
It's not his fault (but like the rest of us he will be paying for a long, long, long time).

Kim -Wow, you have P... (Below threshold)
mattyd:

Kim -
Wow, you have Pelosi's entire approach to foreign affairs figured out from one quote. (A quote, by the way, that represents much more integrity and insight than "I don't think about him (OBL) that much").

But since you felt entitled to make that intelletually lazy leap, I'll make one too. You just resent democracy don't you?

Heralder,Thanks fo... (Below threshold)
Robert:

Heralder,

Thanks for the compliment, but I'm not omniscient.
I know it seems that way to you, because I knew the war was a mistake before we started it. I chalk that up to common sense more than anything else.

I have no idea how to reach the goal. Neither do you. neither do the Republicans, Democrats, Green Party, etc.

I'm not sure what to tell you.
At this point the republicans pre-election plan of clapping louder might just be as good as anything else we got.

One more thing.I g... (Below threshold)
Robert:

One more thing.

I guess we can lay to rest that moronic and unPatriotic "nows not the time to question the President" idiocy we heard before the war.

That was EXACTLY the time to question the President.
Is there anyone on this blog who still doesn't understand that yet?

Yea robert, we are over the... (Below threshold)
Buddy:

Yea robert, we are over there blowing up infrastructure and oil pipelines, and blowing up electrical lines, et al. Oh wait.. thats NOT us is it? Seems to me it's the Iraqis themselves that are the ones currently screwing up their own country instead of figuring out how to compromise with one another and quit blowing each other up.

But I know U.S. forces are just holding a gun to the head of patriots on both sides and forcing them to do it so we can keep them distracted and steal all their oil.

Oops.Sorry about the... (Below threshold)
robert:

Oops.
Sorry about the redundancy in that last sentence (still/ yet).

I got a little worked up and didn't read it back before I hit "post".

LissaKay, thanks for the li... (Below threshold)
Lee:

LissaKay, thanks for the link. Nothing in the article supports your contention that Iraq was a year away from building the bomb in 2002.

Maybe you could copy and paste the portion you think says that... or maybe you can't....?

Buddy,I think you'... (Below threshold)
Robert:

Buddy,

I think you're on to something.
Do you think there is a way to carve out the land and oil between the current Iraqi factions that will lead to a compromise?

Do you think America will allow the Iraqi groups to split the oil without america having any say on who gets the oil and what the groups will do with it (who they sell it to, etc)?

I'm serious.
That might just be a good starting point to negotiating a ceasefire.

Then again, the hatred and resentment runs deep (and long) so I'm not sure anything will end it.

The only way there is a CHANCE it'll work is if America walks away from control of Iraq's greatest resource, and I'm not sure that's something America can do (especially with the sunken cost of trillions of dollars and thousands of soldiers lives).

I'm serious when I write that this is the best starting point to fixing the mess there.

LissaKay,Nice post... (Below threshold)
theExecutioner:

LissaKay,

Nice posts. But there's something about Lee you have to understand. Like cat, He's NOT an American. He is merely here to brainwash the halfwid Democrats into hating Republicans.

And he will NEVER answer a simple question once off his talking points. He's a kerry (if you know what i mean).

definition adj. Someone that is too stupid to respond to simple questions, a moron, a dweeb. Can't read a script. Words that wander and reveal true idiology.

"Among the dozens of docume... (Below threshold)
Buddy:

"Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away."

The had the technology. With sanctions dwindling and inspections gone, it would have taken little time to garner the product needed.

Ryan ... what cave have ... (Below threshold)
ryan:

Ryan ... what cave have you been living in? There most certainly were WMD in Iraq. Just what do you think killed over 300,000 Kurds?

he killed them in the 1980s with WMDs, indeed. but those WMDs were dismantled after gulf war one, according to what i have read. hussein was trying to build em, but so far we dont really have any evidence that he had them after gulf war I. even the people on the ground in iraq who were in charge of FINDING the WMDs had little to no evidence, and that was after 12 years of intelligence...

Did you miss the NYT article telling us that Saddam was one year away from a fully functional nuclear weapons program in 2002?

no, didnt miss it. and i also didnt miss the fact that it was talking about hussein in the late 80s.

We went into Iraq, which had been the plan for nearly a decade, to gain a foothold in the Middle East. Iraq to the west, Afghanistan to the east ... and what lies in the center? Yep ... put the old squeeze on the mad mullahs.

i would agree that that was one of the bigger reasons for going into iraq, although the admin couldn't, and didn't, say that a few years back. they had a good feeling that they could take hussein out and get that foothold, so they went for it. but not everyone was behind the idea, colin powell reluctantly went along...again, this is my understanding based upon what i have read.

Only, it got screwed up .. in a number of ways. We totally did not estimate correctly the insurgency and their tenaciousness. I don't think Bush and his advisers counted on terrorists coming in from other countries like they did. They should have known and planned for that. They didn't and that is perhaps the largest and worst failure.

we thought that it was going to be a cakewalk...or thats what bush, cheney, and other wanted to believe. we thought that we would kick hussein's ass and the rest of the iraqis would just lay down. well, they didnt, and now we have this. there were people in the admin who warned of this, but nobody listened. they just wanted to hear how easy it was going to be.


Then, we tip-toed around Iraq for fear of upsetting the left and the media, when we should have put the hammer down at the start and not let up until the terrorists (aka insurgents) were defeated. But they were more concerned about winning hearts and minds, and not killing a single person that wasn't necessary so as to avoid the "baby killer" meme from 'Nam. We were more concerned about PR than actually winning this thing.

well, thats nice. but the problem here is the fact that the whole place IS filled with people that the united states doesnt have a real issue with--the civilian iraqis. so we couldnt really just go in there and level the damn place, that would have been insane and absolutely stupid. urban warfare is brutal because of this very problem.

Oh and now you pull out the old "blood for oil" meme. Congratulations. You have been suckered in by a total fallacy. Go read Bill Whittle and get your head screwed back on straight. Then come back and start over.

indeed, i wrote that we went in there for ecnomic and strategic reasons...and yes oil probably plays some part in that, of course, since it's the reason that the region has ANY semblance of power on the world stage. and it's also something that nations like china and india are going to REALLY REALLY need as they continue to increase their consumption. so of course, we might want to have a hand in the region. i dont think it's all about oil, by any means. it's about economics, power, politics, competition, strategy...it's never just one thing.

i'll read your link and then get back to you on that.

Robert,The whole '... (Below threshold)
Buddy:

Robert,

The whole 'steal their oil' meme is tired, and there is no proof that it is or has ever occured. Heck if we wanted their oil wtf is in Baghdad or Sadr city that we need to control in order to steal it.

lissakay:ok, i rea... (Below threshold)
ryan:

lissakay:

ok, i read some of the suggested material. not exactly brilliant, and a little simplistic. but then, i never suggested that we went to iraq to steal oil. i did write that we went there for economic reasons, among others, which isnt quite so simplistic. maybe it's a little general, but we can get into the details if you want.

Yeah, I have the same quest... (Below threshold)

Yeah, I have the same question for those who voted straight Democrat tickets. What's the plan you voted for?

LissaKay, thanks f... (Below threshold)
LissaKay, thanks for the link. Nothing in the article supports your contention that Iraq was a year away from building the bomb in 2002.

Maybe you could copy and paste the portion you think says that... or maybe you can't....?
Posted by: Lee at November 8, 2006 10:29 PM

I know others have already done this, but Lee is such a retard, it requires a good measure of redundancy, including already being in the original post:

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

One more time ...

Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

Did you get that, Lee?

P.S. while I realize there ... (Below threshold)
Buddy:

P.S. while I realize there is one oil field near baghdad, the vast majority of them are in the southern end of the country. If we wanted to control those sizable oil reserves for our own use, certainly invading baghdad was not needed, and indeed was monumentally stupid.

buddy wrote:The... (Below threshold)
ryan:

buddy wrote:

The whole 'steal their oil' meme is tired, and there is no proof that it is or has ever occured. Heck if we wanted their oil wtf is in Baghdad or Sadr city that we need to control in order to steal it.

the whole "steal their oil" meme is stupid and overly simplistic. but oil is indeed a factor here, and dont get lazy and forget that. you think that we would give a shit what happened in saudi arabia, the united arab emirates, iran, iraq, or VENEZUELA if they didnt have oil? do you think those nations would have any power AT ALL without it? you think they're making all their money on tourism?

"I do care if they actually... (Below threshold)
John S:

"I do care if they actually pay some attention to domestic America and get us going in the right direction again... Lets get domestic America competitive again."

The Dems will do what they always do: Raise taxes and create an oppressive regulatory environment with a knee-jerk hostility to free enterprise. The net result will be to speed up the flood of jobs to China. Don't get your hopes up on the Dems helping America.

Not saying it wasn't a fact... (Below threshold)
Buddy:

Not saying it wasn't a factor, certainly energy stability in the area was one of the factors. I just grow tired of the endless accusations and implication of us going in there for the primary purpose of stealing their oil. It's just nonsensical.

Do you think Ameri... (Below threshold)
Do you think America will allow the Iraqi groups to split the oil without america having any say on who gets the oil and what the groups will do with it (who they sell it to, etc)?

I'm serious.
That might just be a good starting point to negotiating a ceasefire.
...

I'm serious when I write that this is the best starting point to fixing the mess there.
Posted by: Robert at November 8, 2006 10:33 PM

It is not about the oil, Robert. It never was. Not for us, not for them. It's all about control and making Sharia the law of the land. Their land and ours too.

It is not about the oil.

Robert,Iraq is not... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Robert,

Iraq is not unfixable, it's just not easy to tear down bad and put up the good. I had no illusions about this being difficult, time-consuming and costly in both lives and money.

Our country, and many other Democracies, were founded on and written in the blood of many. There was never a miracle cure for Iraq, and it was never going to be easy.

An honest and completely un-loaded question: What would have been the better solution for Iraq than invading?

I never said it was ideal, but it wasn't even close to the unfixable clusterfuck it is now.

I beg to differ...so do they.

Yeah, LissaKay -- it says I... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Yeah, LissaKay -- it says Iraq was a year away from building the bomb at the time it abandoned their unconventional arms program after the Persian Gulf War.

Do you remember the Persian Gulf War, LissaKay? Do you remember when it occurred?

Hint - it wasn't 2002.

Also, ryan, re: tourism. I... (Below threshold)
Buddy:

Also, ryan, re: tourism. Iraq has the potential, if the people can get their act together, to be a pretty major center for tourism in the world. I mean it isn't known as the cradle of civilization for no reason. There is alot of history there that many, many people would pay to see. I doubt that was given ANY thought in the invasion prep, or the museums and antiquities in that country would have been better safeguarded. Some experts think there is potentially more revenue stream in tourism in Iraq than there is in the oil fields.

buddy:Not sayin... (Below threshold)
ryan:

buddy:

Not saying it wasn't a factor, certainly energy stability in the area was one of the factors. I just grow tired of the endless accusations and implication of us going in there for the primary purpose of stealing their oil. It's just nonsensical.

if we just wanted to steal oil then we would have gone in and leveled a place like saudi arabia that has almost military. and we could have taken UAE and kuwait as well, without making much of a dent in our troops.

so ya, it's pretty lame to say that we just went there to steal oil, i agree with you there.

Lee .. you have GOT to be t... (Below threshold)

Lee .. you have GOT to be the most retarded moron I have ever had the misfortune to come across on this vast intarweb.

Saddam was a year away from a functional nuclear weapon in 2002

Persian Gulf war was 1990 - 1991 and I was very well aware of it, and I happen to know of things that happened during that war that are not public knowledge. You do not want to go there with me.

Now run along back to the Dumbocrat Underground and play nice with the other droolers

LissaKay, get over yourself... (Below threshold)
Chris:

LissaKay, get over yourself. The New York Tomes article is ambiguous at best. The key phrase, as has been pointed out by the many people asking the Tiimes to clarify what they meant, is "at the time." I happen to think that the phrase meant in the 1990s, especially since there is no other evidence that Hussein had a nuclear program in 2002. So you can keep reposting it all you want, but it doesn't prove your point. It's actually rather illuminating that you have to keep falling back on a poorly written article, since you have zero other evidence.

I also think it says a lot about the crowd here that you can all get so incensed over how the Democrats don't care about the war on terror, etc. etc., but blithely ignore Scrapiron's comments here. I've read enough of his comments to know he's batshit crazy, but are you really going to sit silently while he says the US deserves a dozen terrorist attacks, and if he learned about an attack he would not tell anyone? And all because his side lost a midterm election. I have no problem telling him that he's a flaming asshole.

Tell me again how the Democrats get "unhinged" and "hateful" when they lose an election.

buddy,oh man, you ... (Below threshold)
ryan:

buddy,

oh man, you know it. iraq has all kinds of historic resources, and at one point it used to be a pretty beautiful place. that was, of course, before it was slowly bled to death by the wonderful mr hussein.

but ya, i believe you about the tourism possibilities. im an archaeologist, so im into that kinda thing. some pretty unreal archaeology and history there. nothing like 10,000 years of culture to keep things interesting.

but toursim sure ain't in the cards anytime soon, thats for sure.

Chris, When republic... (Below threshold)
Buddy:

Chris,
When republican leaders start spouting that crap about hoping we get hit again, get back to me. Maybe I missed it, and if I have I'll vote to kick them to the curb like republicans typically do with their garbage (read foley, delay, et al). Until then, your comparing one or two spurious, childish comments, to the freakout of 2000 by the entire Democrat establishment it pretty well unfounded.

Chris ... you do realize, d... (Below threshold)

Chris ... you do realize, don't you, that the NYT article was written with a different purpose in mind than to prove that Saddam had a nuclear program?

Unintended consequences, and all that, you know. Even more amusing than their revelation is their frantic back-peddling with all those supposed "requests for clarification" ... they stepped right in it, and are desperately trying to get themselves backed out of it.

Nice try though. C for effort

Don't cry LissaKay - you dr... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Don't cry LissaKay - you drank the conservo-blooger Kool-aid. They made you do it - I know...

There's also this, it the very same article you quoted but failed to read thoroughly:

Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who had said they hoped to "leverage the Internet" to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.

But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq's secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.

Oh LissaKay - you must be so embarrassed. But tell me one thing LissaKay before you spout your vile spew in anger of being made the fool -- you aren't of legal voting age, are you? Tell me, please, that you didn't vote yesterday?

If you were 12 or 13 years old I can understand how you just wanted to believe, so you believed (it would also explain your childish behavior here) - but if you're of adult age you must just be a moron and I personally think there should be a limit against letting morons vote.

chris wrote:I a... (Below threshold)
ryan:

chris wrote:

I also think it says a lot about the crowd here that you can all get so incensed over how the Democrats don't care about the war on terror, etc. etc., but blithely ignore Scrapiron's comments here. I've read enough of his comments to know he's batshit crazy, but are you really going to sit silently while he says the US deserves a dozen terrorist attacks, and if he learned about an attack he would not tell anyone? And all because his side lost a midterm election. I have no problem telling him that he's a flaming asshole.

well, i saw that too chris, but i usually try to ignore insane bullshit like that. people who speak like that, well, i don't think they really need to be countered since they kind of prove their case just by saying asinine shit like that.

but then, maybe it's good to say something every once in a while so they don't start thinking it's ok.

nothing like wishing death upon your fellow americans just because the midterm elections didnt go your way. cool it people, we're all americans. christ.

do not become the enemy that you so loudly profess to be against. good advice.

There you go again "pucker ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

There you go again "pucker puss" (lee lee). How many time do I have to tell you to just type DITTO?
robert--what differance does it make what you type as its just a bunch of gobblely goop anyway.

Okay... Lee... Lets test re... (Below threshold)
Darby:

Okay... Lee... Lets test reading comprehension one more time.

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war.

Ok got it?

Lemme quote it again.

"written in the 1990s and in (What year did they say? Oh yeah) 2002(which incidentally, happens to be AFTER the Gulf War)..."

So lemme fisk it for you one more time.

Among the dozens of documents in English

The language you seem to have difficulty comprehending.

were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002

You know, they collected a bunch of evidence throughout the years, starting in the early 1990s, and up through 2002

for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war.

You know, Chemical, Biological and NucUlear weapons. Bad Saddam, you can't have those. And the grand finale of it all?

Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

This means. They had the knowledge. They had the capabilities to build one. The ONLY thing preventing them from doing so was the economic sanctions that were placed upon them.

Reading comprehension lesson concluded, you may now return to your regularly scheduled broadcasting

Actually, Lee ... I recogni... (Below threshold)

Actually, Lee ... I recognized the danger and threat of Islamofascism when they made their first attack upon us. Were you even alive then? Do you even know of the event of which I speak?

You have NO reading comprehension, you project all your own short-comings onto others. Please, quote me line and verse where I spewed any vile anger? It all seems to be coming from you, Lee ... unless you are speaking of your buddies the terrorists ... and then its all excuses and apologies for the vilest creatures to ever walk this earth.

You, Lee, are the one that comes in here behaving like a child. You have been called on it numerous times, by numerous people. You must have some serious disorder that leads you to do this, when it has been pointed out to you what an utter fool you make of yourself. Do you really enjoy being told what a moron you are?

You can't make any points, only ad hominem attacks. You spout the Dumbocrat talking points over and over. When you don't have one to fit the topic, you spout one anyway and try to change the topic to suit your current meme.

Your posts are absolutely nothing but idiocy. Try actually learning about something out there, Lee ... something from the realm of the real world. Until then, the rest of us will continue to point and laugh.

Lee crashes and burns. Wha... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Lee crashes and burns. What a beautiful site.

LissaKay: Don't waste your... (Below threshold)
SShiell:

LissaKay: Don't waste your time with little LeeLee. He is generally off his meds this late in the evening. He has this bad habit of not reading or responding to anything you might say, link, quote, or anything else.

It doen't matter what the post was saying or what you were saying. He is going to try and play like the TROLL he is and steal the comment lines.

He is a firm believer in "if you say it enough times louder than the other guy then you win." Or some such childish logic.

In reality, he is a high school nerd who spends way too much time at a keyboard.

Bottom line - He is A PIECE OF SHIT!

heralder:An hon... (Below threshold)
ryan:

heralder:

An honest and completely un-loaded question: What would have been the better solution for Iraq than invading?

Going in prepared, if we went in at all. Maybe listening to people like Colin Powell who wanted to work more on the diplomatic front. Maybe listening to other people who had experience in war, people who knew what they were talking about, instead of freaking out and jumping in half-assed like we did. Maybe we should have listened to some of the military men who knew what they were talking about, who knew that taking out Hussein was one thing, and running Iraq was another.

All of this shit was predicted; people in the Pentagon and State Department knew that it was problematic, but Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush didnt listen. They went ahead, and here we are.

Lee is pissed because he he... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Lee is pissed because he heard 5 different reporters today call the new democrat freshman class "conservative democrats."

It's still a conservative nation. Deal with it.

Jo ... I had some measure o... (Below threshold)

Jo ... I had some measure of amusement asking various Dems if they were happy about the election outcomes ...

"Oh, so your guy won, huh? What are his views in Iraq again? FOR it, eh? Same thing on the WoT? And gay marriage? AGAINST it? Hmmm ... What about abortion? Pro-life, I see. How did he vote on the assault weapon ban? Ahh ... gotcha. So, he's a Dem in name only?"

Truly a mandate ...

darby wrote:Exp... (Below threshold)
ryan:

darby wrote:

Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

The problem here, as has been pointed out already, is that the NYT article is just a LITTLE vague. They were on the verge exactly when? The 1990s? 2002? It isn't really clear, and it would be nice to have some other evidence at this point, to clarify.

To the best of my knowledge, the article is talking about the weapons program around Gulf War I.

It's just like the evidence that the guys in charge of finding WMDs on the ground in Iraq had in the beginning of the invasion---it was scant and vague at best. Nothing really definite.

Ryan ... please go back and... (Below threshold)

Ryan ... please go back and read "Seeing the Unseen" in its totality. Carefully, slowly. It's a long article, which given the time stamps between my first posting the link for you and your response saying you read it is way too short to have fully read it. Bill writes the truth of the matter ... you may call it simplistic because it is written in plain English, rather than convoluted rhetoric, but Bill has this stuff nailed down. Read the rest of his stuff too.

LissaKay:Your p... (Below threshold)
ryan:

LissaKay:

Your posts are absolutely nothing but idiocy. Try actually learning about something out there, Lee ... something from the realm of the real world. Until then, the rest of us will continue to point and laugh.

Wow. Well, since you are such a political genius, and someone who is so enlightened, why not be the bigger person, quit the name calling, and share your vast knowledge with the world?

What's the use in getting into shouting matches? If you feel that you truly have a good understanding of these issues, and good points to make, my not argue them as well as you can in hopes of changing some minds?

One more LissaKay:... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

One more LissaKay:

Look, why don't you just argue your own points instead of sending me off to this dude's web site?

His short post about blood for oil was a little to simple. I didnt come anywhere near saying that we went there to steal oil. I DID write that we went there for "economic and strategic reasons," which is a little more complex, and admittedly vague.

But you reduced my argument down to something that it wasnt, and then tried to send me to that guy to disprove it. Weak. Why not just argue points on your own...you can always use quotes from your little buddy if you want.

But dont make me go read the site of your political science hero instead of addressing me here directly.

And by the way, I will check out the site and read through it; I have no problem with that. In the meantime, try restating the ideas that you think prove whatever point you're trying to make, ON YOUR OWN.

LissaKay, you're so right. ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

LissaKay, you're so right. Just got through reading about some of the freshman class of dems and their views sound like they're straight out of the platform of the Christian Coalition. LOL.

Even when we lose, we win. : )

Excuse the fuck out of me, ... (Below threshold)

Excuse the fuck out of me, Ryan. I was hoping to turn you on to a guy that writes a lot of stuff that some of your previous posts seem to agree with, the war for oil point excepted. I thought you would enjoy it. Instead you launch a nasty attack on me. Just never mind, OK?

And as for quoting others, well, never mind that either, I am not going into that now ... it's frankly none of your fucking business

ryan,Thanks for yo... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

ryan,

Thanks for your answer.

Going in prepared, if we went in at all. Maybe listening to people like Colin Powell who wanted to work more on the diplomatic front. Maybe listening to other people who had experience in war, people who knew what they were talking about, instead of freaking out and jumping in half-assed like we did.

Diplomatic front? 12 years of sanctions, the oil for food scandal at the UN (who also issued numerous resoltuions over that period regarding Iraq), 2 billion dollar palaces, and starving children. That was our diplomatic front. It lasted for twelve gueling years in which the Iraqis withered and died while Saddam lived rich.

What exactly can you bring to the negotiating table at this point for Saddam to consider diplomatically? The answer is nothing, so it became an ulimatum, like the first war, come clean or we'll attack. He didn't disappoint.

War experience. John Murtha has war experience and he wants to fight a war in Iraq by redeploying thousands of miles away to Okinowa. Military experience varies both in quality and usefulness depending on who you get it from.

Nancy Pelosi has no war experience, yet she echo's your comment on preparedness. Her version of it, however, is overwhelming force. Send in as many men as you can find. Think civilian casualties are bad now? Inflate the troop amounts by 200% and see what occurs.
Bagdhad filled to the brim with U.S. troops is what terrorists like to refer to as a "target-rich environment." No matter where you set a bomb off you'll hit a soldier.
You cannot combat an insurgency with overwhelming numbers. You don't cut out a brain tumor with a sledgehammer.

As far as freaking out and jumping in half-assed.

Explain to me how assembling 100,000 U.S. troops, accompanied by a coalition of 40 countries, and 60,000 Kurds, marching on Bagdhad and other key cities and in only 21 days taking over the country with minimal casualties....is half-assed.

OK, that's for the first half of your first paragraph.

Maybe we should have listened to some of the military men who knew what they were talking about, who knew that taking out Hussein was one thing, and running Iraq was another.

Naturally they are two different aspects of the operation. The U.S. has the most efficient, mobile and technologically advanced military in the world. We did what we did best in the first 21 days, aided by our allies (almost none of which are still there.)

Listening to someone who says "taking out Hussein is one thing, and running Iraq is another" is all well and good. You can only prepare so much for an insurgency, the rest is house to house fighting, special operations and intelligence gathering. Meanwhile, there have been elections, three of them. There is now a government, a police force and an army.
Things are not good though, not yet. You don't make such massive changes in a lazy, bloodless, and quick manner.
We could have done things differently with better results, we could have avoided tactical and strategic mistakes, yes. Welcome to the human race, when we're perfect we won't need to plan these things better because there will be no reason to plan them. Don't hold your breath on that one though.

All of this shit was predicted; people in the Pentagon and State Department knew that it was problematic, but Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush didnt listen. They went ahead, and here we are.

Problematic? That's the understatement of the year.
Listen, Ryan, when you discover how to conduct foreign policy and/or wars without problems arising, talk to government, they'd love to hire you.

All of this shit was pr... (Below threshold)
Jo:

All of this shit was predicted; people in the Pentagon and State Department knew that it was problematic, but Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush didnt listen. They went ahead, and here we are.

Cuz we all know that wars are usually NEVER problematic.

OMG. You just embarrassed the hell out of yourself dude.

Got anymore incredibly stupid insights??? LOLOLOL....

LissaKay:WHOA. So... (Below threshold)
ryan:

LissaKay:

WHOA. So you were trying to be nice and refer me to someone who's writing you like? Ok, well, that was nice of you then. But that wasn't what it seemed like you were doing, at all.

So if indeed you were meaning to be cool, then I apologize. It seemed to me that you had another agenda, and I must have misread you.

Shit happens.

I still don't exactly agree with the way that you respond to others on here sometimes. You seem to be pretty smart, so I don't really like it when someone like you takes on the old "point and laugh" tactic. I know people are often annoying, but we gotta try to keep this whole thing somewhat civil and useful.

By the way, I have read through more of old Bill's site, and I tend to agree with some of his points. Not all of them, mind you, but I think that he has some good points in there. Not only that, but I think he has a sense of humor too. Imagine that!

To sum up: Apologies for the misunderstanding, be nice to others, and Bill isnt half bad for a conservative.

I really like Bill's writin... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

I really like Bill's writing as well, Ryan.
He makes some excellent points and presents them in an elegant and persuasive manner.

I would, however, like to find the liberal version of Bill Whittle, because it'd be interesting to see the other side of those same points argued equally as well.

heralder.haha. yo... (Below threshold)
ryan:

heralder.

haha. your welcome for the response. i took the bait, like an idiot, but what the hell. its the million dollar question with no fucking right answer...

diplomacy. ah hell, i wasnt thinking about diplomacy with hussein. no point in that. we could either buy the guy off or go to war with him, not many other choices there. i guess we got tired of buying him off in about '89.

i was thinking that diplomacy would mean that we worked harder trying to get others behind us as much as possible, so that we didnt take all the damn blame/heat. etc. but i know what your response is to that.

good point about military experience and murtha. some people are idiots, no matter what they've seen.

pelosi's idea: well, i guess we could go in like that, but as you say it would have been even more bloody and brutal. i guess i tended to agree with some of the people who wrote about smaller scale special ops and cia types of warfare...low profile, hidden, more specific military actions instead of the full-on invasion/ground war. could it have worked better? maybe. it was working well in afghanistan, but thats a pretty different case.

and you can lambaste me all you want, im just talking here. i dont pretend to know everything. when i do, i'll call you and tell you. hehe.

Welcome to the human race, when we're perfect we won't need to plan these things better because there will be no reason to plan them. Don't hold your breath on that one though.

haha. ya, no shit on that one.

well, indeed that was an understatement. but there were people warning that there were MAJOR problems with the way that we were going in there, and rummy, bush, etc. didnt listen. of course they knew it wasnt going to be a cakewalk, but then they didnt always listen to people who knew what they were talking about in terms of handling post-saddam iraq. bush's pop knew it would be a clusterfuck, and thats why he didnt do it in '91. why jump into something like that, when there's such a high risk of the shit hitting the fan???

LissaKay wrote:"it... (Below threshold)
Robert:

LissaKay wrote:

"it's frankly none of your fucking business"


Sorta like others abortions and gay marriages.

Glass houses indeed.

I've seen more mature excha... (Below threshold)
epador:

I've seen more mature exchanges over who ate all the Halloween candy.

Ryan,I hope you do... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Ryan,

I hope you don't feel like that was a bait, it certainly wasn't. I am glad you answered, and my response wasn't a prefect rebuttal. I didn't ask the question because I was aiming to shoot at the next person who answered it. I'm honestly curious for a response, contrary to mine that I can agree with, or come to terms with, or learn something from. After all, why should you and I type endless paragraphs if neither of us is willing to consider what the other says.

On that note, I can definitely say that I agree with you that we should have garnered more support going in. We did have support, but things would have gone better if we had more.
Regardless, of how much we had, it would not deflect the blame from us when things went wrong however. After all, Hamas just declared war on the U.S. and our interests worldwide because of an Israeli misfire.

I also happen to agree more than a little about more troop numbers, despite the statement I made, which was simplistic and one-sided. More troops would help, but too many would hurt (like the many Pelosi was talking about, which I referred to). We need to strike a balance....unfortuately, that parameters of that balance are a mystery.

I'm not going to lambast you for providing a civil argument. You made your points and took the time to address other people and there's nothing wrong with that. No one here knows everything, but damnit I wish they did, because I'd be asking them questions every minute of every day.

Ryan,I forgot to a... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Ryan,

I forgot to answer this:

why jump into something like that, when there's such a high risk of the shit hitting the fan???

Many might have asked the same question when we decided to fight the Colonial British to gain our independence. It's a necessary question to ask, and the action depends on the answer.
In this case, apparently we thought we could do well for everyone involved...you don't launch a war unless you believe in what you're doing. Whether or not it truly was worth it remains to be seen. Let's hope for the best.

Jo:It was an under... (Below threshold)
ryan:

Jo:

It was an understatement, yep. I should rot in the eternal pit of rhetorical hell for that one...

heralder:well, onl... (Below threshold)
ryan:

heralder:

well, online those kinds of questions can OFTEN be bait, you know? so im glad that you're willing to listen to what im saying, very cool.

ya, im always looking to see what all sides are saying...for the same reasons as you pretty much. trying to understand the different sides, maybe even learn something.

support: damn, i still wish we could have pulled that off. i knew that if things went bad we'd just get hammered by it all. not sure how we coulda done it, but damn it would have been good to have gone in there with a massive backing. true, the blame may not have been deflected totally, but it sure would have been softened, i think. i mean, thing were definitely different in the first gulf war compared to this one. we had some serious backing then.

About risk: it does matter that we believe in what we're doing. the colonies had to ask that question, and it wasnt an easy one to answer. there were defintely people who wavered, and who were against fighting the brits. but overall, americans decided it was worth the huge risk to be free of colonial control.

i guess i was never really behind the mission to iraq. i didnt think they were telling us what the real reasons were at all. i would have preferred it if someone had the balls to say "we gotta go in there to secure the region, to set up a stronghold next to iran, so that we have some control over there in the future...because we think we're going to need it." plus, i didnt see how we could go over there and do anything without looking like big bad america and taking a huge beating by getting stuck there. we basically walked into the middle of a very old three way blood feud. great.

finally, i never thought that we could just go in there and install some kind of democracy. that kind of thing has to come from within, from the will of a mass of people. its not really something that can be implanted.

hell, what do i know?

There is no use arguing abo... (Below threshold)
k:

There is no use arguing about things that cannot be changed, and the number one thing that cannot be changed is the situation in the past. The current War on Terror and the War in Iraq are what they are. Talking about "we should have done" doesn't change anything and is completely useless.

The question is: "What now?"

Rep. Pelosi is sending a signal:

The point is this isn't a war to win. It's a situation to be solved.

1. If we pretend it's not a war, then we didn't loose.
2. Winning isn't the goal.
3. If we quit, that's a solution.

Now, I think that the "Peace with Honor" SOLUTION is totally wrong, and the idea that we aren't at war is really dumb. But both of the newly-elected Representatives from New Hampshire campaigned on "changing direction" in Iraq (and pretty much nothing else). Getting out of Iraq is the highest priority in my state. It would appear that the future Speaker of the House is quite serious about this.

k: your three points are a... (Below threshold)

k: your three points are a good assessment of what is being said in so many words. Words have meaning and sometimes people don't realize that their words expose something deeper than they might think they're conveying.

LissaKay: I was unaware that Bill had written a new essay! Thanks for that link. I always await, with great anticipation, his next essay and I'm never dissappointed.

Now let me get back to finishing it.

The point is this ... (Below threshold)
OregonMuse:
The point is this isn't a war to win. It's a situation to be solved.

This quote from 'Stretch' Pelosi is a picture perfect illustration of the Democrats' fundamental unseriousness in regards to the Islamoterrorism threat. America is going to rue the day that these clowns were ever put in charge.

Ryan:<br... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Ryan:


why jump into something like that, when there's such a high risk of the shit hitting the fan???

The philosophical response:
The cost of one alternative has no meaning without the context of the cost of the other alternatives. Since history never reveals its alternatives, we'll never know for certain the cost of the other alternatives.

The current topic response:
After 9/11 the Administration decided that the status quo in the Middle East was proving to be more of a direct danger to the U.S. than had previously been thought. I believe the goal was to setup bases on either side of Iran. If the countries surrounding Iran could be brought into the modern era and rebuilt as successful democracies, the Iranian mullah's government will likely collapse through internal pressure. The neighboring regimes would feel similar pressure.

So the next logical question is why do we care if Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. are successful, free societies ? There's a truism that the most dangerous man is one who was nothing to lose. The other side is that having something that you value to lose acts as a moderating force. If the people of the region have a free society and stable, growing economy the attraction of the Islamic fanatics is greatly diminished.

I heard that comment by Pel... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

I heard that comment by Pelosi yesterday, and the first thought I had was, "she really doesn't get it at all . . ."




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

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