« The New York Times on the Attorney Firings | Main | On Rumors of a Gonzales Resignation »

Where is the outrage?

The latest tactic by the terrorists in Iraq is the use of chlorine gas in their bombs.

Time for a little lesson in the language of war:

  • Chlorine gas is a poison gas.
  • Poison gas is what is described as a "chemical weapon" -- a weapon that kills by a chemical reaction other than combustion.
  • "Chemical weapons" are considered "non-conventional" weapons, along with nuclear and biological weapons.
  • The prior collective term for these weapons was "NBC" -- easily remembered thanks to the television network of the same name.
  • The current term for these classes of weapons is WMD, or Weapons of Mass Destruction.
  • The term "NBC" fell out of favor when "radiological" weapons -- the use of radioactive material in a non-nuclear-explosive weapon -- became a real possibility.
  • The use of WMDs is considered a major war crime.
  • The possession of WMDs in violation of treaties and other agreements is considered grounds for war.

But that's not what's really important. I hear that there are X-rated photos of that hottie on American Idol on the internet, and -- can you believe this??!? -- that one-legged model who was married to Paul McCartney's going to be on Dancing With The Stars this season!


Comments (80)

Where is the outrage?... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Where is the outrage?

I'm not happy about it. I don't know of anyone who's happy about it. It's a terrible thing.

Jay, it is the four year an... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Jay, it is the four year anniversary of the war. The traditional 4-year gift is linen or silk. I think that is very appropriate since Muslims wrap their dead in linen (kafan) before burial, and we line our coffins in silk.

The linen/silk trade has done well under the Bush administration.

Barney, you really are a ho... (Below threshold)
metprof:

Barney, you really are a horses ass. Instead of having athoughtful discussion on Jay's topic, you make some assinine off-topic comment.

I'm sure you're considerably more outraged by the "torture at gitmo" than the use of CL2 to kill people.

I'll bet you'd be screaming your little socialist head off if the US had done it.

You disgust me.

Chemical weapons?W... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

Chemical weapons?

WMD's?

I thought there were NO WMD's!

Isn't this sort of a violation of the Geneva Convention?

Where's the damned IRC?

Where's the freakin' UN?

Where's the outrage????

Oh wait! Someone else is the culprit! Not the US.

(In my best Emily Latella) Nevermind.

It's funny I didn't forget ... (Below threshold)
Craig:

It's funny I didn't forget what brought us into Iraq (some people never understood and never will). It wasn't that Iraq had CL2 (it's used to clean oil pipelines), the problem was HOW MUCH they had aquired. Yet they were not using to clean the pipelines (hence the condition of the oil industry). So what else can you make?

"The vapors of chlorinated solvents exposed to high temperatures have been known to produce phosgene. Chlorinated solvents are chlorine-containing chemicals that are typically used in industrial processes to dissolve or clean other materials, such as in paint stripping, metal cleaning, and dry cleaning."

What is Phosgene?

What phosgene is
Phosgene is a major industrial chemical used to make plastics and pesticides.
At room temperature (70°F), phosgene is a poisonous gas.

Hmm where have I heard that we found pesticides before?

Did people really think Saddam was buying tons of CL2 to clean up the oil industry? If so I have a bridge I am selling.

John Siegenthalellllelelell... (Below threshold)

John Siegenthalelllleleleller, or whatever that guy's name is, called the chlorine bombs "unconventional weapons of war" on the NBC nightly news this weekend.

It was blatantly obvious that the producers wanted to avoid telling the public that it was possible for terrorists to gather and use Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Barney,Who has kil... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Barney,

Who has killed more Muslims...the U.S. or Muslims?

Apparently they are good for both the silk trade and the linen trade.

I'll bet you'd be screaming... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

I'll bet you'd be screaming your little socialist head off if the US had done it.

You disgust me.

Posted by: metprof

It is our responsibility! As Colin Powell said (about the invasion) You break it, You own it.

It this war had been properly managed, this would not be happening now!

This is beyond a reasonable... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

This is beyond a reasonable doubt a chemical weapon of mass destruction. I do not know why you commenters pay any, any, attention to Barney and his ilk. They have nothing to offer and basically hate America and everything we stand for. Don't take the bait. Ignore. They won't go away, but they also won't be sitting at their terminal snickering at those that fall for their BS. Lefties are a pathetic, hateful bunch. NO good comes from a motivation of hate. ww

Good idea WW. From now on n... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Good idea WW. From now on no one answer any of their pathetic post.

Chlorine gas is not just <e... (Below threshold)
a4g:

Chlorine gas is not just a WMD, it was the very first WMD. Used first by the Germans in WWI in 1st & 2nd Ypres, it caused the very first casualties from chemical warfare, IIRC.

Barney:It is ou... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Barney:

It is our responsibility! As Colin Powell said (about the invasion) You break it, You own it.

And if someone else comes along as you're trying to put things back together and stomps on the shards, kicks them around, and does their damndest to KEEP you from fixing it, who's responsible for THEIR actions?

BarneyG2000 says "It this w... (Below threshold)
Fred Z:

BarneyG2000 says "It this war had been properly managed, this would not be happening now!"

Yah sure Barney, you're a tactical and strategic effin genius. Alexander the Great, Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Rommel, Patton, Montgomery, et al. are what you read all day long, although I don't know why you bother because you and the Democrats are clearly twice as smart as the whole bunch of them.

But who knows, Barney, you may be right. If the war was improperly managed, Barney old beast, was it because of traitorous, carping, snaveling, Democrat liars? Because, y'know, Bush is for sure imperfect, but at least he's trying, not pissing on everything and claiming it's rain.

So you sit there saying the war was mismanaged. And have you ever set out how to manage it? C'mon Barney, it's free, costs you nothing, post your 5 point plan for 'management' of the war.

Or is it the usual Democrat 2 word war management plan: "Run Away".

Where is the outrage? What... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Where is the outrage? What form should the outrage take, exactly? The chlorine gas story is being well covered in the news thus far. Is someone other than terrorists celebrating this?

Or should the outrage be over the fact the chlorine gas exists in Iraq? That it is a WMD and thus proof of, well, something? Find me a country where liquid chlorine is not available.

Barney,My question... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Barney,

My question was not rhetorical. Perhaps you could answer me?

If I'm not mistaken, you ca... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

If I'm not mistaken, you can create chlorine gas from mixing amonia and bleach.

"If the war was improperly ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"If the war was improperly managed, Barney old beast, was it because of traitorous, carping, snaveling, Democrat liars?" by fred

Which Dems are you talking about? The Dems that controlled the House, Senate or White House back in '03 to '06?

Or, are you talking about Bremmer and de-Bathization? Was he a Democrat? Maybe you mean Rummy or Cheney? I heard they were closet Democrats.

Here's what Bush didn't ... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Here's what Bush didn't say when he got us into Iraq:

"Iraq has chlorine gas. If we invade and topple Saddam's government, we will eventually be attacked by Al Queda using bombs containing chlorine gas."

"Of course, Al Queda, being a fanatical religious terrorists group doesn't operate in Saddam's secular dictatorship: they hate each other. But after we destroy Saddam, chaos will ensue and Al Queda will add Iraq to it's bases of operation."

"Now, I hope the American people will rally around me to get rid of Saddam, and send our young soldiers around the world where they can be easily attacked by terrorists using IED and the WMDs we warned you about."

I'm one of those crazy people who don't think we should send 22 year olds into that hell hole...

"Chemical weapons?... (Below threshold)
crazylibs:

"Chemical weapons?

WMD's?

I thought there were NO WMD's!"

I laughed really hard when I read this. I love the attempt to act as if the invasion were justified, not because iraq had WMDs, or because Saddam used them against the U.S., or because there actully was a WMD program. Nope insurgents have started using them FOUR years later. Wow! We were right all along, all it took was an invasion for them to start producing them! Good to make America safe.


Isn't this sort of a violation of the Geneva Convention?

Where's the damned IRC?

Where's the freakin' UN?

Where's the outrage????

Oh wait! Someone else is the culprit! Not the US.

(In my best Emily Latella) Nevermind.


Barney, I was thinking more... (Below threshold)
gattsuru:

Barney, I was thinking more the Democrats that voted for the authorization of war, while getting the exact same information (pre-analysis) thanks to being a member of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Or the one that voted for the War in Iraq, suggested that we should have started the War in Iraq back when her husband was President (and likely had some access to information).

I find it impressive how simple it is for these folk to suddenly do a 180 and claim Bush lied without sullying their own record, given that most of them made similar statements before the war.

But, hey, we've got to assume that Bush managed to fool more than [i]25%[/i] of the American people to win the 2004 elections. Despite the complete lack of planted WMDs, it's not that unreasonable for someone to assume the former that Bush somehow managed to universally alter data well enough to fool 20+ (29?) Democratic Senators and 81 Democratic Representatives; not one individual that voted against willing to filibuster the action to even make a symbolic motion.

Despite the [i]supreme[/i] idiocy that has to have been required to actually be fooled by Chimpy McBush or whatever the current popular DU name for the President is, those who were fooled have largely been reelected and left in positions of power, including one who went from Minority Whip to Senate Democratic Leader and Senate Majority Leader.

I wonder exactly how you justify someone who's more easily fooled than you running your party.

It must be nice to use publ... (Below threshold)

It must be nice to use public office to slander our military, insult our allies, and preach and call for abandonment and defeat and then get to turn around and deny responsibility for the consequences because the other party had the majority.

"It must be nice to use pub... (Below threshold)
crazylibs:

"It must be nice to use public office to slander our military, insult our allies, and preach and call for abandonment and defeat and then get to turn around and deny responsibility for the consequences because the other party had the majority."

Funnier though, would be to control every branch of government, so you you could do whatever you wanted unchecked, and then use that power to start a war that PISSED off nearly all of allies (and the rest of the world), with most of the American people on your side; and then turn around and blame the small segment of people (completly out of power) who thought you were batshit crazy to begin with for causing defeat.

Does Iran have chlorine? Ho... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Does Iran have chlorine? How about North Korea?

Saddle up fighting keyboardists! There are more mistakes to be made in the Global War on Terror! Hi-ho!!!

WMDs my ass. You lament the lack of interest on the part of the American public? QUIT LYING TO THEM ABOUT WMDs for a start. Quit making noise about nothing - Quit attempting to terrorize your fellow citizens - they're tuning you out.

I favor nuclear, myself.</p... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

I favor nuclear, myself.

Right atop of DNC Party headquarters.

Ummm Barney??How d... (Below threshold)
914:

Ummm Barney??

How do muslims bury their homiciders in linen? Theres not even enough left to fill a thimble..

And there are no terrorists in Iraq! or any kind of weapons either.

Jay Tea:I agree wi... (Below threshold)
Rance:

Jay Tea:

I agree with everything you say up to the the statement "The possession of WMDs in violation of treaties and other agreements is considered grounds for war."

As far as I know, the insurgents aren't signatories to any known treaty. Even if they were, what would that change? We're already at war with them.

crazylibs,<blockquote... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

crazylibs,

Funnier though, would be to control every branch of government, so you you could do whatever you wanted unchecked, and then use that power to start a war

Funnier though, would be if you didn't hinge your argument on circumstances that never were.

Our government is set up in a fashion to disallow such a situation from occurring, o ye of little faith. It's a little too soon to be trying to revise history. At least wait 20 years until some people have forgotten what occured.

Rance:Good point. ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Rance:

Good point. You can also add the Geneva Conventions to that list of internationally recognized treaties that the Islamofascists haven't signed but idiot leftists in the West believe applies to the Allah-praying fascist scumbags.

You'll find plenty of outra... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

You'll find plenty of outrage from the Iraqi victims of these chlorine bombs -- and rightly or wrongly much of the outrage is directed at the U.S.

"Funnier though, would be i... (Below threshold)
crazylibs:

"Funnier though, would be if you didn't hinge your argument on circumstances that never were."

They weren't? Then the republican controlled excutive branch and Republican controlled Exutive branch and Republican controlled judicial branch was a figment of my imagination?

But you see, if liberals do... (Below threshold)
hermie:

But you see, if liberals don't mention that the terrorists are violating the very GC that they are supposedly protected by (even though nothing in the GC applies to them), then there is no 'violation'.

Like seeing a tree fall in the woods. If you don't tell anyone it's fallen, then you can claim the loggers should be responsible for damaging the ecostructure.


Barney, hello, hello.... (Below threshold)
Fred Z:

Barney, hello, hello.

You didn't answer my question - where's the 5 point "Barney's War Management Plan". OK, I'll give you a few more minutes.

As for your question of me, gattsuru answered it better than I could. He left out a few thousand lying Dems, no doubt because of the natural nobility and kindness of us righties.

So anyhoo, Barney ol' beast, ol' Blitzkrieger, when should I check back for Das Demokratische Kriegplan von Barney?

Perhaps I should get it from Valerie Plame? I watched blondie on the tube and between you two and the rest of the Dem valley girls I am sure the Republic is safe.

However, enough of the pleasantries: Where's the plan?

What? No link to the Ameri... (Below threshold)
George:

What? No link to the American Idol hottie pictures?

crazylibs,The circ... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

crazylibs,

The circumstances are, i.e., "to control every branch of government, so you you could do whatever you wanted unchecked"

By 'control' you would be referring to a majority, rather than unlimited power to do whatever you like. Democrats supported the invasion as well as Republicans, so your quasi-monarchial memories of Iraq pre-invasion are a little hazy.

914: Get out of Comic Book ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:
Fred, Barney can't answer. ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Fred, Barney can't answer. He's still a little behind on answering tough questions asked of him from last year.

Barney has left the building!

"By 'control' you would be ... (Below threshold)
crazylibs:

"By 'control' you would be referring to a majority, rather than unlimited power to do whatever you like."

Uhh, maybe you you are not real clear on what a mjority means. it means more votes. meaning in any vote in Congress the side with more people wins. Republicans controlled all branches of government. if every single Democrat voted against the war. There still would have been a war.

"Democrats supported the invasion as we ll as Republicans, so your quasi-monarchial memories of Iraq pre-invasion are a little hazy."

I think you memory is far hazier. In the House:
127 democrats voted against the war. 81 voted for it.

in the Senate 23 voted for the war. (22 if you count Liberman as a Republican) 23 voted against.

Democrats did not support the invasion. Those that voted for the war were fooled by Cheney's cherry picked intelligence.

Umm? actually Bryan I colle... (Below threshold)
914:

Umm? actually Bryan I collect high grade comics!

Ok I was overly stating the leftovers..! You r right!

It's interesting, once agai... (Below threshold)
metprof:

It's interesting, once again, that the libs (Barney, Lee, etal) resort to raving moonbat crap instead of straight-up answers.

Hey Lee, I guess the stupid chimp Bush, (who can't do anything right as he IS a chimp after all) must have fooled your democrat pals into believeing in WMDs. Quite an accomplishment that Jane Goodall would appreciate.

Crazylibs"Those th... (Below threshold)
914:

Crazylibs

"Those that voted for the war were fooled by vaders cherry picked intelligence."

Maybe? maybe not? but why did they ask to have a vote on it then? instead of just biding their time to see what happened?

Gosh, how could that possib... (Below threshold)
metprof:

Gosh, how could that possibly have happened. You liberals are just so...so...so...SMART, and worldly, and polished, and understand nuance, and (fill in the blank).

"Hey Lee, I guess the stupi... (Below threshold)
Cecelia:

"Hey Lee, I guess the stupid chimp Bush, (who can't do anything right as he IS a chimp after all) must have fooled your democrat pals into believeing in WMDs. Quite an accomplishment that Jane Goodall would appreciate"

Lying they are good at. Governing... not so much.

fred and gat, you can spin ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

fred and gat, you can spin it all you want, but it was George's decision, and Rummy's plan that have us where we are today.

You want my plan. OK, I would not have invaded in the first place. I would have kept up the inspections and the sanctions until after the Taliban was defeated, al Qaida was destroyed and Afghanistan was secure. Then if the inspections or Saddams' actions required an assault, then you attack with overwhelming force. That was my plan.

SInce they did not do that, and choose to go to war, the next best thing was to follow the original plan and not change it in the middle of an occupation.

Gen. Garner was put in place to transition post war Iraq. His plan was to turn over as much of the day to day operations of running the country to vetted Bathists. The plan was to turn over full control to the provisional Iraqi government in June or July.

Since they didn't do that, and we are still there, we are left with almost no acceptable options. Personally, I could give a rats ass if the Iraqis want to kill each other. Maybe we should pull out, and let the Saudis carry the load for the Sunni, and the Iranians for the Shiites. Let them finance this shit-sandwich for awhile.

Why not bog-down the Iranians for awhile, and let US recupe and regroup.

914: Fair enough! By the ti... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

914: Fair enough! By the time Eerie and Creepy went out of production I could con a purchase of Hustler as long as I bought enough extra crap for the storekeep to "not notice" it. I've loved mom and pop stores ever since!

Cecelia,You make a... (Below threshold)
metprof:

Cecelia,

You make an ass of yourself by quoting my reference, and then calling Bush a liar.....jeez, back to logic 101, sweetheart.

But not before you can scream "BUSHHITLER", "WARFOROIL", ROVECHENEYHALLIBURTON", one more time.......whew, now you feel better, don't ya?

How are ya going to destroy... (Below threshold)
914:

How are ya going to destroy Al Quaeda when they are in Iraq and Your not there??

I personally think that since were there already We shoulde go across the border and take an Iranian town to draw the terrorists there? then Iraq will settle down and the focus will be Iran?
Of course the same thing will be happening in Iran that is happening now in Iraq but whats the dif? Its going to continue either way? the can is open now! no going back.

Cecelia,"You make ... (Below threshold)
Cecelia:

Cecelia,

"You make an ass of yourself by quoting my reference, and then calling Bush a liar.....jeez, back to logic 101, sweetheart."

Yes, I can see how referencing anything you say might make me look bad. People might think I wrote that nonsense. good luck in logic 101. you'll need it to pass.

But not before you can scream "BUSHHITLER", "WARFOROIL", ROVECHENEYHALLIBURTON", one more time.......whew, now you feel better, don't ya?

I'll feel better when this incompetent, lying administration is out of office.

Hustler? You mean the blueb... (Below threshold)
914:

Hustler? You mean the bluebag specials? yes.

There are hardly any Mom and Pop stores left unfortunately? This whole war thing sucks but what can you do? Men have always warred against each other for ages. You either fight or die!

crazylibs,I know w... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

crazylibs,

I know what a majority means, and what it entails. Overall, 60% of Democrats voted against the resolution, hardly a mandate on your end.

The much dreaded "if every single Democrat voted against the war. There still would have been a war" scenario never took place. There was no gross abuse of power. Bush (or Cheney, whichever evil villain suits your fancy) were not hijacking this country and railroading us into a war as you seem to suggest.

Can you tell me how many countries have taken part in this war? (hint, it's above 25).

BarneyG2000 qoutin... (Below threshold)
doubled:


BarneyG2000 qouting ColinPowell : "You break it, You own it."

Of course, this implicitly implies that 'it' wasn't broken before we 'got there'.

You know, the usual 'trains ran on time', who cares who or how many were run through the wood chipper or thrown off roofs.

Facist dictators are only in America in the minds of the blindered.

The public is so angry and ... (Below threshold)

The public is so angry and burnt out over Iraq, that they are tuning out more and more news from there. The media realize this and are offering more junk news like Britney Spears or Anna Nicole Smith to add some comparable "comic" relief. Look for the Phil Spector trial to soon dominate the airwaves.

Expect all news, both good and bad from Iraq to compete less well with junk news as the war continues to drag along into this fourth year, longer than WWII and the public is both tired and depressed.

crazylibs,"I know ... (Below threshold)
crazylibs:

crazylibs,

"I know what a majority means, and what it entails. Overall, 60% of Democrats voted against the resolution, hardly a mandate on your end. "

No, 40% ( a minority) of Democrats supported this disaster. Every Republican but 3 in congress voted for it. Meaning if this thing went well you would have gotten the Lion's share of the glory. As it is (unless this thing is somehow turned around) Republicans have to accept the majority of the blame.

"There was no gross abuse of power. Bush (or Cheney, whichever evil villain suits your fancy) were not hijacking this country and railroading us into a war as you seem to suggest."

No, I never suggested that at all. I suggested that the crowd that blames the "anti-war left"
for failures in Iraq, when Republicans controlled all three branches of government, is absurd. I never said Republicans hijacked the government. I said you controlled it, and therefore are primarily to blame for any bad governmental policies that occurred during that period. The 40% of Democratic congressman who voted for this mess bear responsibility as well. Although I believe not as much. the 60% who voted against are looking like the deserve credit for beling right all along.

I love to hear the dimmers ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I love to hear the dimmers go on about republicans were in charge and that is why we are in Iraq. It seems I remember senate democrats filibustering judges to stop them from getting in. I guess the senators really believed we should go into Iraq, because they did not stop the authorization. They had in fact approved it. Wow. Let's see, the demo's could have stopped the war but approved it. Now, how did just the republicans do this? Before we entered the Iraq campaign the middle east really, really hated us to a point they wanted us to die. Now the really, really, REALLY hate us and want us to die. The dimmers just make me laugh at their lack of understanding of history. I don't think they remember what they had for breakfast yesterday. ww

Cecelia,Thanks for... (Below threshold)
metprof:

Cecelia,

Thanks for the childish response. Why not address the content of the thread instead of issueing the usual BDS responses

crazylibs,<blockquote... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

crazylibs,

No, 40% ( a minority) of Democrats supported this disaster

I agree. I said 60% (a majority) were against it. Not a large majority of Democrats, which was my point.

You mentioned unchecked Republican power, which given the percentages was only a possibility, not a reality.

No, I never suggested that at all (re:gross abuse of power). I suggested that the crowd that blames the "anti-war left" for failures in Iraq, when Republicans controlled all three branches of government, is absurd. I never said Republicans hijacked the government. I said you controlled it, and therefore are primarily to blame for any bad governmental policies that occurred during that period.

Apparently I've taken a part of your original post and expounded on it without catching your overall meaning. My apologies for that.

Can ask if you think that the far left tends exacerbate the situation?

Am I the only one impressed... (Below threshold)
Candy:

Am I the only one impressed by a one-legged woman competing on Dancing with the Stars?

:)

I'd be even more impressed ... (Below threshold)
tr19667:

I'd be even more impressed if she had NO legs.

Well Jay Tea, I guess you c... (Below threshold)
tyree:

Well Jay Tea, I guess you can get your answer from the comments. All of the outrage has been expended on the Republicans. There isn't any left in some circles for the terrorists.
On the other hand, I am outraged. When I call my Congresswomens office to express my outrage they tell me it is all Donald Rumsfelds fault. BDS goes all the way to the top of the Democrat party and it will not save us.

Yes, Barney, that's right. ... (Below threshold)
gattsuru:

Yes, Barney, that's right. Thanks to Bush and Rumsfield, we've taken out a despotic government that was successfully bribing three minor and two major world powers, all but Germany having nuclear weapons technology perfected. The same despotic government that tested and deployed NBC weapons against its own populace, that had over 600 old NBC weapons laying around, and nearly a million tons of yellowcake. The same despotic government that retained basic components to nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. The same despotic leadership known to support suicide bombers. The same despotic leadership both Clintons wanted to overthrow not ten years ago.

Yes, it's truly horrible that a plan didn't survive first contact with an enemy. It's truly horrible that we couldn't throw more people into a war zone, since you with no provided knowledge of military logistics other than what you've read on the net are so damn certain we could maintain those supplies and levels of manpower.

But to run? Do you realize exactly how idiotic that sounds? Nevermind explicitly providing a victory for terrorist groups -- and anyone with an IQ over 20 should realize exactly how powerfully Skinner behaviorism is in rabid groups -- do you realize exactly how quickly the death toll would skyrocket? Assuming (and this is a very unlikely assumption/i>) that the Sunnis and the Shiites don't start launching chlorine and conventional weapons at each other until everyone is dead or converted, while annihilating any infrastructure that could possibly be used by the other side (death rate ~10%-40% of the Iraqi population), we'd still be looking at the deaths of hundreds of thousands from lack of supplies, whether they be medical, monetary, or structural. It wouldn't even be feasible to distribute those supplies since any international group would be seen on one side or the other, and warlords would 'redistribute' it to themselves.

From a humanist viewpoint, running away would be one of the single most evil possibilities. From the other side where the lives of Iraqi innocents are worth little or nothing, we could just nuke the whole damn area into a nice flat circle of green glass.

"You want my plan. OK, I wo... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

"You want my plan. OK, I would not have invaded in the first place. I would have kept up the inspections and the sanctions until after the Taliban was defeated, al Qaida was destroyed and Afghanistan was secure. Then if the inspections or Saddams' actions required an assault, then you attack with overwhelming force. That was my plan."
Barney

It amuses me when mental midgets get mad that the President won't call Iraq a failure after 4 years, yet insist that we should have continued the failed 12 years of sanctions. Plus, you were against invading ("OK, I would not have invaded in the first place.") before you were for it ("...then you attack with overwhelming force.")

Beyond that the Taliban WAS defeated...they have rebuilt a bit since 2003, but I doubt you would be lauding the President had we followed them into Pakistan. Instead you'd be raging about more "imperialism" or some such crap.

Al Quaida WAS destroyed. We captured or killed, what 80% of their leadership and thousands of their followers. They've been able to rebuild even less, since they've managed to carry out only a few small bombings abroad since.

Next, inspectors were still being jerked around, Saddam would not comply with any of the 18 odd UN resolutions against him and he violated the cease-fire agreement constantly. Were you just admitting that nothing the guy could have done would be enough for you to attack?

As for using "overwhelming force," Saddam fell in about a week. How much more overwhelming do you get?

So.....or you for or against the war? Apparently you're confused or lying to make it look like you actually had a pair.

barneyRUBBLE:"... (Below threshold)
marc:

barneyRUBBLE:

"You want my plan. OK, I would not have invaded in the first place. I would have kept up the inspections and the sanctions until after the Taliban was defeated, al Qaida was destroyed and Afghanistan was secure. Then if the inspections or Saddams' actions required an assault, then you attack with overwhelming force. That was my plan."

But...but... but what about al-Qaeda that also existed at the time (and still does) in the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Morocco, Malyasia, Bangladesh, Germany, England and Spain.

Need more? They also existed in various forms and strengths in many other places.

Can we get back to the orig... (Below threshold)
gattsuru:

Can we get back to the original topic, anyway?

I mean, even assuming George Bush is the spawn of satan, that doesn't exactly make using chlorine gas against civilian populations exactly a nice action.

marc, "Philippines, Thailan... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

marc, "Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Morocco, Malyasia, Bangladesh, Germany, England and Spain" Why are you naming friendly countries? Have you been reading the Anarchists' Cookbook again?

You are right brainy and ma... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

You are right brainy and marc. Iraq is a garden spot, al Qaida is a distant memory, and the Taliban converted to Christianity.

How did I miss all that. It must be blamed on the MSM? Though that doesn't explain 3,200 dead Americans (it's a good thing we were greeted as liberators and not invaders) but I am sure you will have a spin for that.

"Can ask if you think that ... (Below threshold)
crazylibs:

"Can ask if you think that the far left tends exacerbate the situation?"

It does depend on the activity we are talking about, but I would say sure, some things can exacerbate the situation. But it is my opinion that the Bush administration has, due to having control of the presidency and a Republican Congress, been able to conduct this war as he felt best. For better or worse. I think that means that if iraq were now a resounding success, Bush would (rightly) be taking the glory. I also think it means failure in Iraq has to lie with him.

You mentioned unchecked ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You mentioned unchecked Republican power, which given the percentages was only a possibility, not a reality.

Oh, c'mon. The Republicans controlled the committees whose purpose is to exercise oversight of the President. Those committees exercised historically low use of that power. You might enjoy quibbling about how many Democrats voted for this and that, but you know that the real power is in the hands of the majority. This is evidenced by the stream of investigations and subpoenas that are now coming out of Congress... oversight that was objectively and measurably almost non-existent with the Republicans in power.

You mentioned unchecked ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You mentioned unchecked Republican power, which given the percentages was only a possibility, not a reality.

Oh, c'mon. The Republicans controlled the committees whose purpose is to exercise oversight of the President. Those committees exercised historically low use of that power. You might enjoy quibbling about how many Democrats voted for this and that, but you know that the real power is in the hands of the majority. This is evidenced by the stream of investigations and subpoenas that are now coming out of Congress... oversight that was objectively and measurably almost non-existent with the Republicans in power.

I never said it was an idyl... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

I never said it was an idyllic garden Barney, but the fact that it is not does not make it a failure.

With that in mind, read this and realize that without us it would not have been possible:
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001407.html

(I know YOU, specifically, won't actually read it since you're intellectually bricked off from real debate, but someone with your views who isn't as dishonest as you may find it enlightening.)

crazylibs, I agree, in gene... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

crazylibs, I agree, in general, about the Presidents ownership of Iraq. The thing I definitely DO NOT agree with is that there is any way to declare Iraq a failure or success. It's in progress.

marc, "Philippines, Tha... (Below threshold)
marc:

marc, "Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Morocco, Malyasia, Bangladesh, Germany, England and Spain" Why are you naming friendly countries? Have you been reading the Anarchists' Cookbook again?
Posted by: bryanD

Maybe because there are jihadist-cut-throats in all of those countries.

Regardless of what I may or may not be reading if you fail to acknowledge the fact they are located there may explain some of your comments.

Funny you note Spain. Once "friendly," now less so after the Socialists assumed power yet they are still uncovering terrorists in country and not associated with their home grown separatists ETA.

A object lesson in the "turn tail and run" strategy.

barneyRUBBLE - Can you quot... (Below threshold)
marc:

barneyRUBBLE - Can you quote any portion of my comment in this thread that is even remotely related to Iraq being "a garden spot?"

I suspect it's just another case of you "reading" what you want not what is there.

Meanwhile, as I wait for your quotes proving your point I'm going on a 90 day trip around the World.

By the time of my return you should have had enough time to pull proof out of your anal orifice.

Or taken a talking point from Atrios, TPM, dKos, Loose Change or the Man in the Moon who I hear is also a "far out leftist."

WildWillie (if that is your... (Below threshold)
ChrisO:

WildWillie (if that is your real name) - You said "It seems I remember senate democrats filibustering judges to stop them from getting in." Oh really? Please tell me when that happened. I'll save you some time - it didn't. The you said "The dimmers just make me laugh at their lack of understanding of history." So I guess you'll be responding any time now with some facts about the Dems filibustering judges. Because if you can't, then gee, your comments about history look a little, I don't know, kind of foolish, don't they?

As for Fred Z and gattsusru, you ask what possible alternative plan there could have been for the war, then pull the old "I guess no one can answer me" dodge. Perhaps you don't get any answers because your moronic question has been answered repeatedly by military and civilian commentators, on both the left and right. Putting aside the question of whether an invasion should have taken place, if it did have to happen, we could have started with the number of troops that the head of the joint chiefs, as well as the actual war planners, said was needed; we could have understood how insurgencies work, and that toppling Saddam was only one step in the process; we could have kept elements of the police, army and civil service employed, so we didn't create a vast reservoir of suddenly unemployed men with a great deal of anger towards the U.S. Is that enough for you? Bush and company have totally screwed up this war from the start. Many of the senior generals planning the war have said that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were continually arguing with their troop strength projections, whittling them down repeatedly. They finally submitted plans that Rumsfeld would approve, and he has the nerve to say he was only following their recommendations. That's quite simply a lie. And if you're so critical of Barney's lack of miitary planning experience, how about Wolfowitz? He dealt with the generals like he was always the smartest guy in the room, even though they had all of the military planning experience and he had none.

And brainy435's comment that "Saddam fell in about a week" echoes what was so wrong with the planning. Tommy Franks, in particular, was going by the philosophy that the war's over as soon as you take the capital. That's why he thought we could dramatically scale back operations in Afghanistan, because we nominally controlled Kabul. But as we've seen, that did us little good in the rest of the countryside. Saddam falling was the beginning of the war, not the end. Generals presented projections that we would need more troops in the aftermath of Saddam's fall than we did to defeat him, but Wolfowitz refused to believe it. Of course, who's going to know better than a guy who never planned a militsry operation in his life?

As for all the talk about the President "fooling" the Democrats, I guess mischaracterizing the circumstances is about all you guys have left. How much of the intel the Congress looked at came from sources other thasn the administration? When the White House decided to cherry pick the intel, and to lean on CIA analysts to only give them what they want to hear, then they don't have to "fool" anybody. It's called just plain dishonesty. Here's just one example: every expert who looked at the famous aluminum tubes agreed that theye were not suited for use in centrifuges. Yet when the scientists from the DOE, the guys who actually build centrifuges, tried to tell that to Bush's guy at CIA, he refused to listen to him. Despite his lack of scientific training, the tubes were his pet theory and he wasn't going to be denied. So next thing you know, there's Colin Powell testifying about the aluminum tubes to the UN.

You may recall that the seond part of the Senate Intelligence Committee report was supposed to examine whether the intel was manipulated. The Dems agreed to sign off on the first report as a result. But Pat Roberts stalled the second part, then pulled the old "why rehash the past" bullshit, and the investigation never even started. And you wonder why the Dems are holding hearings now? Because the Republicans totally abdicated their duty to provide oversight. They enabled Bush's mistakes, and now the pigeons are coming home to roost. We wouldn't have all of the investigations if the Republicans had put their concern for the country ahead of their party and actually done their jobs.

As for the original post, this silly construct is like a high school debating team tactic. So if an Iraqi terrorist commits an atrocity, anyone who doesn't immediately condemn them is tacitly supporting them? Of course gassing people is an outrage. So is blowing yourself up in a family restaurant. The terrorists aren't acting in my name, unlike the US government. Is the idea here that we should be writing angry letters to the terrorists? I suspect that the right isn't particularly outraged about this, either. What I'm mostly seeing is a certain amount of glee at the prospect that the discredited WMD argument can be brought up again. How in the world does this in any way equate with Saddam's supposed WMDs? Are we contending that this use of chlorine gas in any way supports the idea that he had WMD? What a weak link.

It's also interesitng how many comments I've seen on different right wing blogs about how that old bogeyman, the MSM, is "burying" the story. And almost every one of the blogs links to a different MSM outlet reporting the story. Just do a quick Google search and you'll see links to the New York Times, AP, LA Times, CNN, MSNBC, etc., all reporting on the story. Sometimes I think you guys just use those little refrigerator magnets and rearrange them into a different outrage each time. Why worry about the facts when you can just hit the knee jerk outrage button?

ChrisO, nice way to take my... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

ChrisO, nice way to take my remarks completely out of context, asshole. Barney wanted to attack Saddam with overwhelming force to remove him in his little quasi-manly scenario. In reality, something you appear not to be familiar with, we removed him in an unbelievably quick amount of time. (Which, by the way, you retards didn't even think we could do without tens of thousands of US casualties...even Joe Wilson was arguing that we should not attack because Saddam would hit us with WMD's) You don't get any more overwhelming than that. And that was AFTER Turkey screwed us and we had to divert our northern forces. Retard.

"Of course, who's going to know better than a guy who never planned a militsry operation in his life?" Say, maybe, Gen Tommy Franks who insists he always got the troops he asked for. I think he has a little more knowledge than you of what it takes to run a war, dipshit. Heh, I don't even have to resort to "generals" and other unnamed, and probably non-existant, people like you do.

"How much of the intel the Congress looked at came from sources other thasn the administration? When the White House decided to cherry pick the intel, and to lean on CIA analysts to only give them what they want to hear, then they don't have to "fool" anybody. It's called just plain dishonesty." Yeah, Bush was right there lying throughout the 90's, just WAITIN' to start killin' A-rabs for oil when he stole the election. To think he had pretty much the entire democratic leadership believing his tripe throughout the Clinton Administration and even fooled Slick Willy into bombing Iraq in '98. That's pretty goddamn clairvoyant.

To think that my taxes paid for what passed as your "education."

How much of the intel th... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

How much of the intel the Congress looked at came from sources other thasn the administration?

The Senate Intel Committee, whose members supported the war, saw the identical intel that the WH saw.

So, no, they didn't get their intel from Bush. They got what Bush received.

But if the Dems are stating that they simply take somebody they loathe's word for stuff, then they REALLY shouldn't be given any semblance of power.
-=Mike

Chlorine gas is a poison... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Chlorine gas is a poison gas.
...
The possession of WMDs in violation of treaties and other agreements is considered grounds for war.

Oh, no! I have the means to make WMD in my garage! I sure hope Bush doesn't declare war on me! The bronze statue of myself looks so good in my living room!

LOL! Jay, you should go on the Tonight Show with this material!

I have to agree that it rea... (Below threshold)
epador:

I have to agree that it really doesn't matter a whole lot to me what means the terror folks are using to kill people. Chlorine is a non-issue. It could be gunpowder, anthrax, radiation or plain old carbon dioxide and nitrogen without oxygen. Its still terror.

Of course if we'd targeted the entire hostile Iraqi population and annihilated the entire Iraqi army with our own means of mass destruction in the early days of the war, there would have been only a few American casualties, we'd have had no trouble inserting a puppet government without opposition, and the only arguments would have been feeble protests about the lack of a Geneva Conventions trial against the horrible American aggressors.

Something tells me Iran would be pretty mute about nukes too.

That's the reason Americans, other allied troops and Iraqi civilians are still dying today. Blame Bush and the Sec Def. Its all their fault for being softies.

brainy 435You real... (Below threshold)
ChrisO:

brainy 435

You really don't know shit, do you? We needed more troops when we went into Iraq, as evidenced by the fact that we were unable to secure the necessary mistries and other buildings, and to prevent looting. The society broke down very quickly, and we were undermanned. You really think that Saddam's fall was the end of the story?

As for Tommy Franks, yeah, he was a real whiz kid. That's why things have gone so swimmingly in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Franks has said that he had the troops he needed, which is why the generals under him hated him. He was seen as a total suck-up to Rumsfeld, and failed to support his generals when they needed it. The generals doing the actual tactical planning kept submitting plans for more troops, and kept getting them rejected. Franks was so intent on racing to Baghdad that he bypassed the fedayeen who would become the heart of the insurgency, as well as their weapons caches. Gen. Shinseki said we would need hundreds of thousands of troops. Rumsfeld responded by leaking the name of Shinseki's successor 18 months before his retirement, instead of waiting until the last minutes, as was customary to avoid turning the retiring commander into a lame duck. The military planner kept saying they needed a plan for Phase 4, the occupation, but Rumsfeld refused to listen. According to Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, the Army's chief of logistics war plans, Rumsfeld said he would fire the next person who asked about Phase 4. That's a great way to make sure the generals tell you what you want to hear.

General David McKiernan, who was in charge of the actual tactical planning of the invasion, kept submitting plans that were rejected because of the troop levels.

Colin Powell, secretary of state, former chairman of the joint chiefs and the man who ran the first Gulf War, made it clear that he was very concerned about troop strength. Is that enough names for you, dickwad?

And keep repeating the Clinton stuff, just to confirm for everyone what a retard you are. The intel the Clinton administration had would only matter if nothing had changed in the ensuing years. Are you seriously suggesting that we should have gone to war based on 5 year old intelligence? And you might have noticed that Clinton didn't invade Iraq, so apparently he didn't see things the way you guys on the right like to portray them. It's a big step to go from saying Saddam's a bad guy and a threat, to actually invading Iraq.

OK, you can apologize now.

ChrisO:You may... (Below threshold)
marc:

ChrisO:

You may recall that the seond part of the Senate Intelligence Committee report was supposed to examine whether the intel was manipulated. The Dems agreed to sign off on the first report as a result. But Pat Roberts stalled the second part, then pulled the old "why rehash the past" bullshit, and the investigation never even started.

Do you mean this one (151 page pdf file) "that never started?"

Question: If never started why is this one called "Phase II" entitled

Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments

ChrisO, you worthless basta... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

ChrisO, you worthless bastard. You mean THIS Gen. David McMillian:
"URBAN:
So with even the fate of Saddam won't end resistance, how will the US Army sustain 150,000 man commitment. The system is already showing signs of strain. What about the keys to change?

McKIERNAN:
Well, I think, certainly if the US Army presence were to remain at that number, for an indefinite period of time, it would put some degree of stress, as it already has, on forces available. That's, that goes without saying. But I will tell you that the intent is that as Iraqi institutions are rebuilt, that should intuitively lead you to believe that the force levels could go down from coalition forces. Also, as there is a more multi-national participation in this campaign, that intuitively will also lead you to believe that US force presence can be reduced in the future. How fast, and in terms of what capabilities that happens, I think is still to be determined."

Yeah, he was all about more troops, since he was looking at beginning drawdowns 5 months after the war started.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/3128561.stm


And since you obviously agree with the man: "THE senior American general in Kuwait said yesterday that any use of chemical weapons by Iraqi forces would be met with a "dramatic" response.

Lt. General David McKiernan confirmed that the threat of biological and chemical weapons is regarded as the biggest risk to 100,000, mostly American and British troops under his command.

"It would be a hugely bad choice on the part of any Iraqi military formation or leader to employ chemical weapons," he said."
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=518&id=335462003

As for General Shinseki:
"That is not true, and even Bush critics in the Pentagon know it. The truth is that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, demanding control of the Army, collided with Shinseki on issues unrelated to Iraq. In March 2002, Rumsfeld announced that Shinseki's term as chief of staff would end as scheduled in June 2003 without extension -- an unprecedented action that made the general a lame duck. It was after that, not before it, on Feb. 25, 2003, that Shinseki told a Senate committee the United States would need ''several hundred thousand'' soldiers (not precisely 200,000) for Iraq occupation duty."

So "Rumsfeld responded by leaking the name of Shinseki's successor 18 months before his retirement, instead of waiting until the last minutes, as was customary to avoid turning the retiring commander into a lame duck." Unfortunately for you, the Gen made his remarks only a month or so before his retiement. Lets see, 18-1=...17. So Rumsfeld "leak[ed] the name of Shinseki's successor" 17 months before the General made the comments you think got him forced out. Once again, the Republicans need to be supernaturally clairvoyant to be guilty of what you accuse them of.

And how, exactly, would we have maintained a "several hundred thousand" force in Iraq if just the 150,000 we have there now is destroying the Army, which is another Dem talking point?

Ignorant fool.

ChrisO just retails the tal... (Below threshold)
kim:

ChrisO just retails the talking points. It is not his job to fact check them.
===================================




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

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

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

In Memorium: HughS

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

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

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

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

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

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

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy