« Rep. Keith Ellison's Office Calls Cops on Tancredo | Main | The liberals' worst nightmare: President Rush Limbaugh and Vice President Ann Coulter »

Acute myopia

There have been quite a few revelations about Iran's role in the Iraq fighting of late. Explosive devices specifically designed to defeat US defenses have been uncovered -- but not before well over a hundred Americans were killed. 100 Austrian-made, Iranian-bought sniper rifles (out of a batch of 800) have been captured. And Iranian special forces soldiers have been captured in Iraq.

So, what is the anti-war movement's response to these concerns?

They blame Bush.

Now, I don't mean to single out the Boston Globe here. They're just the most convenient source. I could easily find half a dozen other sources, just by cruising around the Usual Suspects.

(Hmm... can I back that up? Lemme see... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... yeah, that was easy.)

I have a little secret I want to share with these fine folks:

The War On Terror (or, better, The War With Militant Islamism) started long before George W. Bush became president. And it's going to continue after he leaves office.

(It's debatable just when the war started, but I prefer to peg it to 1979, when Iranian militants seized our embassy in Tehran and took dozens of Americans hostage for well over a year.

This is why I have such a hard time taking the anti-war movement too seriously. To them, it's entirely a domestic, political issue. The defining element is not how many Americans have been killed or injured in the War, or what future threats we will be facing, but how this will affect political races. They are so focused on polls, on surveys, on elections, that they can't see the bigger picture.

Let me spell it out for them, then: I don't give a rat's ass about George W. Bush. I voted for him twice, and don't regret either one (especially considering the alternatives that the Democrats put forward). I've supported some of his positions, opposed a few, and overall think he's done better than either Gore or Kerry would have. Personally, I think he's an OK guy, but not the sort I think I'd want to pal around with.

But on the War On Terror, he's done as good a job as I think he could have. Maybe a Roosevelt (either one), a Truman, a Lincoln, or a Washington might have done better, but they weren't available. Hell, he's done better than Reagan or Clinton ever did, just to cite the last two men to serve two full terms.

However, he has less than two years before he will leave office. By that point, I hope matters in Iraq will be better. I hope that Iran will be less of a threat than it is today. I hope that Syria will stop using its proxies in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories will stop instigating fights with Israel. I hope that Saudi Arabia will cut back on "exporting their troubles" by paying its troublemakers to go bother other countries. I hope that the Muslims committing genocide in Darfur will be checked.

Yes, I said "I hope." I don't have huge expectations. In two years, I hope there will be some progress in these areas, all fronts of the War On Terror.

I'm not a single-issue voter, but the War On Terror is the closest to one for me. Whenever I have a chance to cast a vote for president, senator, or representative, I take a good look at how that candidate wants to address the War.

And if that candidate spends all their wind on blaming Bush and gives short shrift (or none at all) to those who are actually trying to kill my fellow Americans, then they've just kissed my vote goodbye. I'll write in Bugs Bunny before I'll give them my vote.

This war is bigger than George W. Bush. The world will not suddenly love us if he were to disappear. They were trying to kill us long before he got elected, and they will still be trying to kill us (and anyone else they think might get in their way) long after he's gone.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Acute myopia:

» Murdoc Online linked with Friday Linkzookery - 16 Jan 2007

Comments (48)

Oh my. Won't this po... (Below threshold)

Oh my. Won't this post bring 'em all out.

Yep. Prepare for the feces... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Yep. Prepare for the feces-flinging. Because everyone KNOWS that Bushitler's only doing the war thing because he wants to sieze power and institute a Christian theocracy here which will wage nuclear war against Islam.... despite the fact there's been no evidence of him wanting to sieze power, institute a Christian theocracy, or wage nuclear war against Islam.

So any suggestion that it's otherwise should be met will all due scorn and derision.

What post doesn't bring 'em... (Below threshold)

What post doesn't bring 'em out? Although, sports seems to be the one cure-all for the lefty cockroaches.

JL, you forgot the "blood f... (Below threshold)

JL, you forgot the "blood for oil" meme.

Does "hit the nail on the h... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

Does "hit the nail on the head" ring a bell?

In Thomas Ricks book "Fiasc... (Below threshold)
drlava:

In Thomas Ricks book "Fiasco" he recounts the early months of the war when weapon caches were freely looted, borders were left wide open and no security was provided to the Iraqi people. By May of "04" it was obvious things were going very wrong there. It was at this time Jack Murtha spoke up calling for more troops, better armour, better plan. He was called a traitor.

At that moment if Bush and his supporters would have taken their heads out of their collective assess and listened to dissenting voices things might be very different there now.

Whenever someone simply att... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Whenever someone simply attempts to deflect the discussion, as drlava has done, the action is usually a tacit admission that the deflector knows the original topic to be one with which they have no valid basis for disagreement. :)

drlava, actually what Murth... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

drlava, actually what Murtha called for (in April 2004, not May) was either for more troops or withdrawal. Generally, you don't look for serious strategic advice from someone whose sens of direction is a Tom Bakerish "that way" while pointing in both directions.

The hyperbolic "traitor" talk didn't occur then either, it occured later when Murtha called for immediate withdrawal.

It's also a fairly safe bet that the White House is not going to take strategic advice from people backed and endorsed by those screaming "Bushitler" and the like. It should be apparent that the advice comes with some serous conflict of interest attached.

You forgot looting the Bagh... (Below threshold)
Robert the original:

You forgot looting the Baghdad museum, oops I forgot, your heros were wrong on that one.

Oh, and ending SALT (so we can build a missile defense) will lead to another arms war? Oops, looks like they were wrong on that one too.

Don't go into Afghanistan, the British and the Russians got beat. Oops, wrong again.

Withdraw the troops to Okinawa and do a Tinkerbell? Worse than wrong, stupid.

International concensus on Iraq, but one-on-one Clintonian/Carter negotiations with NK and Iran. Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

So, do we blindly follow everything your heroes say? Nope, that would be wrong.

"The hyperbolic "traitor... (Below threshold)
cmd:

"The hyperbolic "traitor" talk didn't occur then either. . ."

Oh, I think it's about time to call that fat-ass Murtha a traitor now. . .

Stupid fooolish Americans a... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

Stupid fooolish Americans are destined to keep getting killed as long as they are sitting in what used to be a sovereign country which they have occupied. An imperialist nation in a different hemisphere toting around guns killing people, dropping bombs and the reaction you would expect would be what?

Imagine China occupying Canada for its oil, setting up military bases, a huge embassy and monitoring the ongoing comings and goings of its residents, shooting one here and there, much less debating the facts in its government owned media as to whther the country that borders it (in this example, the US) is supplying Canada with arms to protect itself from China. Imagine the reaction of the US government if China were to undertake such actions.

Then sit back armchair commandoes and spin for me a fairy tale as to how Iraq and the new next war will be according to your nationalist fantasies.

God help us. I really can't imagine where the he** my old country went.

I would pal around with GW.... (Below threshold)
George:

I would pal around with GW.

God help us. I really c... (Below threshold)
marc:

God help us. I really can't imagine where the he** my old country went. Posted by: civil behavior

I didn't realize you had a new country.

However you point to a situation that may not be a bad idea. Giving the festering islamic jihadist problem in Canada where attempts have been made to institute Sharia law on Ontario and their immigration policy makes the U.S. policy look like the Berlin Wall I say bring'em on!

Let the Chinese take Canada, the islamic jihadists would be gone shortly thereafter.

Civil Behavior, You'... (Below threshold)
Duncan Avatar:

Civil Behavior,
You've got to be kidding me?!?! I honestly hope that your entire post was satire, but probably not. I guess I should call you an armchair intellectual if we are armchair commandos. Perhaps if Canada had invaded an ally of China unprovoked? Perhaps if Canada then became openly hostile of China and supported terrorism? Perhaps if Canada broke multiple U.N. resolutions (har har, like anybody actually takes THOSE seriously) and fired upon China's aircraft repeatedly in violation of a ceasefire agreement? Perhaps THEN your strawman might have some sort of basis in reality, but it only just shows me how you view the situation that we are currently in. That the US is a bully, invading some poor helpless, innocent nation and starts behaving like barbarians while you totally ignore that it is not us behaving like barbarians, chopping off heads and blowing up school children.

Your old country didn't go anywhere, but you and your ilk are trying their damndest to send it down some socialist-communist toilet to join the rest of the failures that are representative of such beliefs.

Jay,I agree with mos... (Below threshold)
Allen:

Jay,
I agree with most of your post. However, when any commander in chief has surrounded himself with some bright idiots, who messed with the intelligence, lied to the American people, etc, and then won't listen to the military leaders when they said they needed at least 500,000 troops on the ground to do the job.

The General (Shiniski sp?) said that, he was effectively cut off as CJC. That was real smart of our dear leader. Then anyone, I repeat anyone, who comes out against the Iraq war is a traitor, liberal, etc. I say BS to that. The term "chickenhawks" gets you upset, well what do you expect when you call people names?

Not one person in the US is against the war in Afghanistan. The reason that over 60% of Americans think that the war in Iraq is wrong is because of the lies the idiots told the American people.

Kerry or Gore would be trying to kiss and hug the terrorists, as least Bush has the balls to go after them. It's just a shame he didn't listen to his military leaders, as they spend their time learning how to fight a war, not how to run away from it, such as deferments, draft evading, etc.

Right now the military is saying it has no proof of Iran's supply of weapons to Iraq. Seems like the same rhetoric BS that they fed to the American people about Iraq.

To end this war on terror, start killing some of the ISLAM leaders who preach hate, ones who are supporting the frantics. Until this happens, we will be fighting them for many years.

It will probably take another 9-11 type attack here in the US for the majority of people to understand what is going on. I just hope the next President will be smart enough to listen to the Military leaders on how to fight the war, not the warmongers who just want to involve our military so they can make money.

Thanks for posting that civ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Thanks for posting that civil behavior. It's good for everyone to see how sick, twisted and evil the fabricated reality of the left is.

If only we had an honest and balanced press in this country...

"And it's going to continue... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"And it's going to continue after he leaves office." Based on Bush's surge strategy, it will last long after he leaves.

Almost nobody gives the surge much of a chance to succeed. Not even the troops in the field, and if you don't believe me, how about one of your dearest heros?

"Not one of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen or Marines I interviewed told me that they wanted more U.S. boots on the ground. In fact, nearly all expressed just the opposite: "We don't need more American troops, we need more Iraqi troops," was a common refrain. They are right". by Oliver North

From the Glob editorial:</p... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

From the Glob editorial:

"Bush was correcting an impression left by a US military briefer who said Sunday that the bombs -- called explosively formed projectiles, or EFPs -- were traceable to the "highest levels" of the Iranian government."

But here what someone said:

WASHINGTON -- US military officials in Baghdad, presenting long-awaited evidence that Iran has been providing weaponry to Iraqi militants, said yesterday that Iranian security forces linked to the "highest levels" of the Iranian government have been smuggling explosives into Iraq for at least the past two years.

"Linked", not "traceable"

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2007/02/12/military_offers_evidence_of_iran_arming_iraqi_militants/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+World+News

This is actually what was said:

"Based on our understanding of the Iranian system and the history of I.R.G.C. operations, the intelligence community assesses that activity this extensive on the part of the Quds Force would not be conducted without approval from top leaders in Iran," a senior intelligence official said, referring to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Intelligence officials have cast this view as an "assessment," a logical inference based on years of studying the Revolutionary Guard.

The Glob has once more altered the facts of the case to match its indignation.

"...there are weapons flowing across the border" from Iran. "Nobody questions, those of us who have been to Iraq and in the region know that there are Iranian instigators, agents in Iraq, and that's happening, there's no question."

- John Kerry

In interviews, civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies provided specific details to support what until now has been a more generally worded claim, in a new National Intelligence Estimate, that Iran is providing "lethal support" to Shiite militants in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/world/middleeast/10weapons.html?ei=5065&en=7febec32f88064b5&ex=1171774800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print


Nowhere does anyone use the phrase ""traceable" to the highest levels of Iranian government." Not that that stops anyone at the Glob. Then again, you'd have to be a complete idiot to doubt their involvement.

As I recall, no one called ... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

As I recall, no one called Murhta a bloodthirsty traitor until he tried, convicted and executed those marines without any due process. How very un-American.

Jay, from your mouth (keybo... (Below threshold)
Diane:

Jay, from your mouth (keyboard)to every candidate's ears!!!

I am always amazed by citizens who know exactly what should have been done or what we should do concerning the war...I personally have never been present at War Room Discussions...meetings with CIA to get intel reports...and discussions with leaders of other countries. I guess I need to get better connections like some of the people who post her must have.

Many of the people who are against the war have been against it from Day 1, because they are against any war...and that's ok with me...not realistic, but OK. However, I believe most against the war, only know what they see in headlines or in the first 5 minutes of news reports, if that. As stated before, I have discussed with several people who are against the war who can not find Iraq on a map, and certainly do not the difference between a Kurd, Shiite, and Sunni. I do NOT want these people telling my government what they should be doing concerning the war.

Then there is another group of people(either very political or very dumb)who equate "mistakes" with "lies", and believe the only reason we went to Iraq was because of WMD, and choose to not get past the fact that they weren't found in mass quantities. These people also mistakenly believe the President's role is to represent the public (Reps & Senators' jobs) rather than to make decisions for us to follow. Most of these people also believe free speech is the right to be rude and insulting, with no consequences. Oh, well.

I would be willing to protest another war (for different reasons than any of the above) in support of those who are against this one...if, the one's against this one would encourage our Congress to do whatever it takes to win in Iraq so our soldiers can come home and America will remain strong.

If anyone blew this up into... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

If anyone blew this up into "traceability" it was the media itself. To wit:

The TIME article:

(Baghdad, Iraq) -- U.S. military officials on Sunday accused the highest levels of the Iranian leadership of arming Shiite militants in Iraq with sophisticated armor-piercing roadside bombs that have killed more than 170 American forces.

But did they?

Then you read on:

Three senior military officials who explained the display said the "machining process" used in the construction of the deadly bombs had been traced to Iran.

Machining process traced to Iran

The experts, who spoke to a large gathering of reporters on condition that they not be further identified, said the supply trail began with Iran's Revolutionary Guards Quds Force, which also is accused of arming the Hezbollah guerrilla army in Lebanon. The officials said the EFP weapon was first tested there.

The officials said the Revolutionary Guard and its Quds force report directly to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

All accurate, no distinct accusations.

"We know more than we can show," said one of the senior officials, when pressed for tangible evidence that the EFPs were made in Iran.

An intelligence analyst in the group said Iran was working through "multiple surrogates" -- mainly in the Mahdi Army -- to smuggle the EFPs into Iraq. He said most of the components are entering the country at crossing points near Amarah, the Iranian border city of Meran and the Basra area of southern Iraq.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1588080,00.html

Again- no accusations of direct control at the top. The media itself has jumped the shark here, and they blame Bush for it. It looks clear, but they never said it was coming directly from the top, although it's hard to think it could anything other than that. This would be akin to Israel flying some F117's on missions over Lebanon and the US to say "We know nothing of it."

An honest question: Has any... (Below threshold)
Dave A.:

An honest question: Has anyone seen a poll that distinguishes between those who are against the war because it hasn't gone well versus those who are against the war ideologically?

In other words, I'm wondering what polls would look like if we'd already been successful and the troops had been home for the last year.

I think that's an important distinction to make.

The U.S. officials said ... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

The U.S. officials said weapons were smuggled into the country by the Quds Force, an elite unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard that U.S. officials believe is under the control of Iran's supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The officials in Baghdad said that Iranians recently detained in Iraq by U.S. forces belong to the Quds Force.

"US officials believe...."

Iraq's deputy foreign minister, Labeed M. Abbawi, said in an interview Sunday that the Iraqi government remains in the dark about the full U.S. investigation into Iranian activities in Iraq. "It is difficult for us here in the diplomatic circles just to accept whatever the American forces say is evidence," he said.

"If they have anything really conclusive, then they should come out and say it openly, then we will pick it up from there and use diplomatic channels" to discuss it with Iran, he said. "The method or the way it's being done should be changed, to have more cooperation with us."

"If they have anything really conclusive..." They obviously did not make any conclusive claims, contrary to what the media now reports.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/11/AR2007021100479_pf.html


This really is an atrocity. This is a story of an event totally molded into an albatross by the MSM to hang around Bush's neck.

drlava and civil behavior</... (Below threshold)
Chris G:

drlava and civil behavior

The whole premise of your assertions is based on the Middle East, partiualrly Iraq, was serene, tranquil region, before we kicked in their doors, to rape their women and grab-ass their oil. But alas even your posts betray the incomplete, scatalogical mis-firings of your brain nuerons.

Weapnns caches were looted? I thought Iraq not only didn't have WMD's, they were not a threat. So, we have peaceful country with weapons caches and 2 tons of uranium.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=5040

Note the link is an Al Jezeera archive. Not really Fox News, but hey..... Why would someone have a couple of tons of nuke material, and not be in the active stage of implementing a nuke program and still be peaceful? And how did the UN inspectors and Hans Blix miss them? Moving on.

And the whole China analogy is so flawed, a middle school student could dismantle that argument. Iran is not supplying arms to Iraqis to protect them from the US. If you got off Kos or DU, you would notice it's the Iraqi's that are being killed by car bombs and death squads..... by the hunderds each month. I would even guess for every American that dies, 50-100 Iraqis are kiiled by the insurgents.

Also, if China invaded Canada, (your words), it would not encourage Canada to hold elections, to write a constitution, nor would it pour billions of dollars to prop up the invaded infrastructure. Usually when an imperial bully invades a land, it taxes that country back to the stone age, and does not make attemps to train that country's military, lest it learn how to fight for itself.

A telling sign of your ilk, was when Bush reported the interference of Iran in Iraq, Hillary Clinton gave a speech lecturing Bush about Senate authority. Kerry visited Iran and Syria, Murtha calling for a troop increase, when the president agrees, he calls for a troop decrease. *Sigh* Nothing worse than a pampered, gutless person who actually thinks they have courage and reasons to complain.

You liberals are like spoiled, nagging housewives. Always bitchin', never satisfied, leaving the problem resolution to the hired helped, while you pat yourselves on the back for your courage over mint julips at the country club

You liberals are ... (Below threshold)
Dan Irving:


You liberals are like spoiled, nagging housewives.

That's an insult to housewives ...

God help us. I re... (Below threshold)
Dan Irving:


God help us. I really can't imagine where the he** my old country went.

You know civil - I actually agree with you on this one point. Richard S. Lowery says it best (HT: Op-For@ http://op-for.com/2007/02/fairweather_friends.html)

IN OUR RECENT HISTORY we have abandoned the Kurds, Shiites and Afghanis, not to mention our shameless withdrawal of support of the Mountainyards and our friends and allies in Saigon. Lord help the Somalis that befriended America in the 90s, for we deserted them, too. The World knows that we will turn tail and walk away from what was a noble cause in Iraq because the American people are weak and are so self-centered that we withdraw when the situation gets complicated.

After twelve generations, I am ashamed at what America has become. Most Americans are so self-centered in their daily lives that they can't take the time to learn about what is really happening in the Middle East. They can't tell you who Muqtada al-Sadr is, or even if he is Shia or Sunni. They are more interested in learning who is the father of Anna Nichole's baby rather than finding a way to win in Iraq.

Amen ...

Jay - Re: the beginning of ... (Below threshold)
GeminiChuck:

Jay - Re: the beginning of Islamist militant war against the West: I believe the attack on our embassy in '79 was the first major assault - the actual start was when Jimmy Carter assisted the Islamo-Fascists to overthrow the Shaw. Iran has been the force behind the battles in the ME and the Islamist terroists ever since - they supply armament to Hez, why would it surprise anyone that they supply the Iraqi insurgency? Everyone talks about "mistakes" in the war - the biggest mistake is not preventing Iran from being a factor - and the longer we wait the harder it will be to fix.

gc

June 5th, 1968, a palestini... (Below threshold)

June 5th, 1968, a palestinian gunman assassinates Robert F. Kennedy

Amen! Dan Irving... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Amen! Dan Irving

JayA couple of com... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Jay

A couple of comments

Your "3" example is from TruthOut and is a bit of a diversion on this blog site due to the adverse attitude toward that organization found here at Wizbang w/ you and and the Wiz commenterss, as evidenced as recently as yesterday. Perhaps you may have noticed that the TO is linked to the cover story of this week's Newsweek, altho I imagine that most readers here didn't go beyond the the TO banner, if they even clicked the link, and that was a sufficient discrediting in their eyes.

So, to be more balanced, rather than risk knee-jerk reaction from your minions, why didn't you use the original Newsweek link?

Second: The thrust of your post appears to be, like it or not, Bush, rather either of his 2 opponents, has done a more creditable job of handling the GWOT, that may date as far back as 1979.

If you bothered to read this article, you no doubt would notice this from a first-hand account by a former Bush official,

"Michael Gerson, now a NEWSWEEK contributor, headed the White House speechwriting shop at the time. He says Iran and North Korea were inserted into Bush's controversial State of the Union address in order to avoid focusing solely on Iraq. At the time, Bush was already making plans to topple Saddam Hussein, but he wasn't ready to say so. Gerson says it was Condoleezza Rice, then national-security adviser, who told him which two countries to include along with Iraq. But the phrase also appealed to a president who felt himself thrust into a grand struggle. Senior aides say it reminded him of Ronald Reagan's ringing denunciations of the 'evil empire.' "

If this is what you think amounts to the man better suited to the task of diplomacy, not to menbtion the quality of brilliance? exhibited by a Bush-selected chief advisor, Rice, then you are obviously ready to put your fate and your country's fate into the hands of a demonstrated nincompoop.

IN OUR RECENT H... (Below threshold)
stan25:
IN OUR RECENT HISTORY we have abandoned the Kurds, Shiites and Afghanis, not to mention our shameless withdrawal of support of the Mountainyards and our friends and allies in Saigon. Lord help the Somalis that befriended America in the 90s, for we deserted them, too. The World knows that we will turn tail and walk away from what was a noble cause in Iraq because the American people are weak and are so self-centered that we withdraw when the situation gets complicated.

After twelve generations, I am ashamed at what America has become. Most Americans are so self-centered in their daily lives that they can't take the time to learn about what is really happening in the Middle East. They can't tell you who Muqtada al-Sadr is, or even if he is Shia or Sunni. They are more interested in learning who is the father of Anna Nichole's baby rather than finding a way to win in Iraq.

Look at who was controlling the purse strings during those years. Yes, you all did guess correctly, it was the Democrats in the Congress, whom held the majority when all of these things happened. There were also two Democratic presidents during this time. They did not do anything to relieve the situation in the Mid-east. In fact they did their damnest to keep the pot boiling hoping that there would be no United States.

I also don't hear any of the anti-war people calling for the removal of the troops that are stationed in Bosnia or any other place that their great fearless leader, Slick Willie, put them. What I have been wondering, is why did we go to Bosnia in the first place? We had no national interest there and when it comes right down to brass tacks, we still don't have any business being there. The incursion did not win us any friends among the Muslims, anyway, so it is a total waste of resources that we could use in Iraq and elsewhere.

Yes, the drive by media is focused on Anna Nicole Smith, because they know that by diverting the attention of the sheeple elsewhere, they can drive their agenda under the cover of darkness and get it accomplished without undue scrutiny.

Wow...took a while for a me... (Below threshold)
MunDane:

Wow...took a while for a member of the Trollkyrka to show up, but I love the quote.

Wow.

Way to support the "Updating Santayana" above. You sure...well, you tried real hard.

Pukeboy, lemme give you two... (Below threshold)

Pukeboy, lemme give you two more things I don't give a rat's ass about:

1) The political party of the individual who did something I consider wrong. The last big betrayal of the Kurds was under a Republican watch; the pointless idiocy in the Balkans and bloody carnage of Mogadishu was done by a Democrat. Both were wrong.

2) You.

Of the two, I have little to no ability to sway the former.

J.

Chris G, where to begin:<br... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

Chris G, where to begin:
I thought Iraq not only didn't have WMD's,

They didn't. Yes, I know about the 1980's mustard shells, but these were suspecting to exist and no active nuclear program, UAVs, or mobile bio-weapons labs the administration sold the war with. We didn't go to war to find weapons buried in the desert.

they were not a threat.

A small one, that we were aware of and actively limiting.

So, we have peaceful country with weapons caches and 2 tons of uranium.

Caches of conventional weapons are necessary for any nation-state to defend itself. They are of little use for aggressive military manuevers.

Why would someone have a couple of tons of nuke material, and not be in the active stage of implementing a nuke program and still be peaceful?

They had a nuclear reactor back in the 80's that Israel bombed. Can't really do to much with the left over uranium, other than sell it, but that would have violated the sanctions.

And how did the UN inspectors and Hans Blix miss them?

He didn't. They've been accounted for since after the first Gulf War.

And the whole China analogy is so flawed, a middle school student could dismantle that argument.

You're right, and apparently one has.

Iran is not supplying arms to Iraqis to protect them from the US.

You're probably right. They're supplying them to fight/defend against the Sunnis.

you would notice it's the Iraqi's that are being killed by car bombs and death squads..... by the hunderds each month. I would even guess for every American that dies, 50-100 Iraqis are kiiled by the insurgents.

True. The Iraqis are in a civil war.

Also, if China invaded Canada, (your words), it would not encourage Canada to hold elections, to write a constitution, nor would it pour billions of dollars to prop up the invaded infrastructure.

Hypotheticals are pure speculation, so maybe China would have elections, etc. I'm just as right as you and prove me wrong.

Usually when an imperial bully invades a land, it taxes that country back to the stone age,

We're not directly taxing them, but we are trying to implement a corporate favored oil industry allowing them to walk away with 70% of the proceeds.

and does not make attemps to train that country's military, lest it learn how to fight for itself.

Empires do just that. They try and incorporate the populace as part of the empire so they don't rebel.

I won't bother with the rest, it's just bashing Dems and you have every right to do that.

here's proof of the 70% #. ... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

here's proof of the 70% #. It's actually 60-70% while recouping investment (normal 40%) and 20% after return on investment (normal 10%)

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132574.ece

The choice paragraphs:

It is also understood that once companies have recouped their costs from developing the oil field, they are allowed to keep 20 per cent of the profits, with the rest going to the government. According to analysts and oil company executives, this is because Iraq is so dangerous, but Dr Muhammad-Ali Zainy, a senior economist at the Centre for Global Energy Studies, said: "Twenty per cent of the profits in a production sharing agreement, once all the costs have been recouped, is a large amount." In more stable countries, 10 per cent would be the norm.

While the costs are being recovered, companies will be able to recoup 60 to 70 per cent of revenue; 40 per cent is more usual. David Horgan, managing director of Petrel Resources, an Aim-listed oil company focused on Iraq, said: "They are reasonable rates of return, and take account of the bad security situation in Iraq. The government needs people, technology and capital to develop its oil reserves. It has got to come up with terms which are good enough to attract companies. The major companies tend to be conservative."

"To them, it's entirely ... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

"To them, it's entirely a domestic, political issue. The defining element is not how many Americans have been killed or injured in the War, or what future threats we will be facing, but how this will affect political races."

If you had bothered to read the well-sourced Newsweek article, rather than simply use the TO link to induce automated yelps of condemnation of a source from the resident puppies , you would have learned about the US/Iran interactions during the Bush years. And, you would have had difficulty explaining away the BushCo team's comedy of errors in the field of diplomacy, which have made it highly more likely that the US will eventually respoind with some military clash with Iran w/ all the consequential disastrous results. This is what happens when one appoints a gaggle of neo-con warmongers and other assorted incompetents. presided over by a man of limited capability, all of whom who are strongly tilted to using the last resort first, mostly because of their self-inflicted errors.

Ultimately it's not "myopia," but rather thuggishness from the diplomatically autistic of which people must be wary.

Well Jay T, I think you sh... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Well Jay T, I think you should be thanking aRep, sean, lava, and civil for once again proving your point.

If you had bother... (Below threshold)
Dan Irving:


If you had bothered to read the well-sourced Newsweek article

Wasn't it one of Newsweeks "well-sourced" articles that got a buncha people killed when the misreported some Koran flushing?

Yeah - keep using Newsweek as a source. While you are at it you may also want to check out The Guardian, The New York Times and The National Enquirer.

Hey pukeface ani't your ass... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Hey pukeface ani't your ass getting kind of sore with the # of feet your had to remove lately? Yee haw!!

Dan Irving yea Dan... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Dan Irving

yea Dan, when reality gets in the way, shoot the messenger. That's why kooks like you know nothing but think you know it all.

yea Dan, when rea... (Below threshold)
Dan Irving:


yea Dan, when reality gets in the way, shoot the messenger. That's why kooks like you know nothing but think you know it all.

Nice ad hominem attack. Do you know anything other style of debate or did you just blow your whole wad?

Newsweek has a way of inventing their own reality to suit their agenda. I'm attacking your source. Apprently it's easier to obfuscate than actually counter with additional valid sources.

DUNCAN,Exactly at ... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

DUNCAN,

Exactly at what point would China have appointed itself Canada's protector as we have over Iraq and soon Iran?

BUNYAN,

Sort of hard to fit the shoe on the right foot when the size is all wrong isn't it. And you think the US would do what if China invaded Canada and did exactly what we have done in Iraq? Much different than Iran? P.S. The MSM is owned by your corporate buddies, that's why you get all the rah rah cheerleader sessions nightly.

CHRIS G,

By my caculations at present we have found no "smoking gun" much less a mushroom cloud. Iraq obviously was contained. As opposed to NK with "how many" nukes, but dang, no oil, just starving people.
Taxing the people back to the stone age? What do you think the PSA's are going to do for the oil companies? Who's to benefit from those?

And an easy damn solution to George's mess is to do exactly what he claims he wants. Let the iraqi's stand up. We've already had how
many "benchmarks" for all the "enormous successes"? Out now.

IRVING,

A noble cause for your oil addiction or was it because Americans were so worried prior to March 2003 that Iraqi's needed our help to throw off their chains? Yes, that was it. Freedom on the march around the world led by the American bush. What more blasphemy will you righties come up with......

A noble cause for... (Below threshold)
Dan Irving:


A noble cause for your oil addiction or was it because Americans were so worried prior to March 2003 that Iraqi's needed our help to throw off their chains? Yes, that was it. Freedom on the march around the world led by the American bush. What more blasphemy will you righties come up with......

Main Entry: blas·phe·my
Pronunciation: 'blas-f&-mE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -mies
1 a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God b : the act of claiming the attributes of deity
2 : irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. "

Civil,If Canada wa... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Civil,

If Canada was run by a dictator similar to Sadam Hussein, and was behaving as Hussein's regime was, the US would be China's ally in attacking Canada and overthrowing that government.

And you and the rest of the left would be opposed to it and hope for the US and China to be defeated.

The fact that your 8:35am post was so far removed from reality is very telling about your high level of informational retardation. You cannot tell the fascists from the liberators.

Jay Tea,I would ask,... (Below threshold)
catnip:

Jay Tea,
I would ask, as a newcomer to your site, that you please quit blogging. Common sense like yours is more than most lib'ers can handle. The next thing you know they will writing in telling you that you're full of coliform fecal. OH, I guess it's to late.

Wow, civil behavior, you're... (Below threshold)

Wow, civil behavior, you're way off the mark. Bunyan deftly countered your horribly ill conceived comparison of the US invasion of Iraq to China invading Canada. And you still want an answer to a wrong foot/wrong size question?

Then you move on to Chris G totaly ignoring certain facts. We found not one, not two, but three terror training camps. We found chemical munitions that were buried when they were supposed to be declared and/or destroyed. We found uranium. We found Russian migs buried in the sand. We found millions of hoarded American dollars, real and counterfeit. We found horror chambers (oh wait - that had nothing to do with us. We should have ignored it.) And we found that CNN had actively covered up those atrocities. This is all not including the issues Duncan Avatar brought up.

And it's so easy, not to mention glib, the way you started in on Irving with the tired old "oil addiction" meme while you inpugn the well meaning wishes of many more to actually HELP Iraqis. You're just like millions of the same mindset who think just throwing people a few bags of rice and some penecillin will absolve your conscience while it does nothing more than keep them healthy enough to withstand more brutality at the hands of their thuggish governments.

Oh, and in case you intend to attack me with more of your slathering inanities, I won't be reading it. But if it pleases you to entertain the rest of the crowd, then by all means....

Oyster: Most of us... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Oyster:

Most of us don't read them either.

Wavemaker, stop laying Carn... (Below threshold)
epador:

Wavemaker, stop laying Carnak the Magnificent. Though your prediction was inevitably true and on target.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

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

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

In Memorium: HughS

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

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

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

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

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

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

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy