« Conservative Democrats to Side with Bush on Iraq Funding? | Main | Well, This Will Be Interesting »

Balkan Blowback

Michelle Malkin links to a story by Julia Gorin which includes information I have not seen reported anywhere else.

On Monday, the FBI arrested six Muslims who were planning a commando-style attack on Fort Dix in New Jersey, to "kill as many soldiers as possible," authorities said. Four of the six men are Albanians...

This is Balkan blowback, and it's been happening since we stuck our nose where it didn't belong throughout the 1990s and, for good measure, bombed the wrong side. Maybe one day we'll finally start talking about it. This morning, Balkan experts Jim Jatras, director of the American Council for Kosovo, and Dr. Serge Trifkovic alerted all major on-air media of their availability to discuss this development and were told, "We have our usual terror experts."

Those would be the same terror experts who, in their daily opining on the War on Terror, haven't touched the Balkans -- a key region in the War on Terror, as it was the site of al-Qaeda's proliferation into a truly global network and now serves as the organization's European base and entryway for attacks on that continent and others. (Note to Fox News: "Balkans" includes Kosovo, Bosnia, Albania and others.)

So, we're in for yet another round of terror "experts" painting terrorism in and from the Balkans as a unique thing, suspended in a vacuum of context, lest Americans start piecing things together and surmising that perhaps what happened to the Serbs is in some way related to what's happening everywhere else on the globe...

But watch the Fort Dix story go away faster than the one about the Bosnian Muslim who killed five Americans and injured another four in Salt Lake City for Valentine's Day three months ago. Who even knows that at least two of the 9/11 hijackers were veterans of the Bosnian jihad, as Muslim sources now openly call it?

Read it all at Front Page Mag.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Balkan Blowback:

Comments (110)

I'd hate to let the air out... (Below threshold)
LJD:

I'd hate to let the air out of Gorin's tirade, but not all of the Muslims in "the Balkans" are terrorists. In fact, we got involved there because the Serbs were brutally exterminating (torturing, raping, and murdering) them.

To say we were on the wrong side is stupid and irresponsible. Of course, it may just be a sign that she has no F-ing idea what the hell she is talking about.

Thanks. Excellent post. <... (Below threshold)
Puck:

Thanks. Excellent post.

This is very important stuff. I've known for a long time that Clinton's bombing of Serbia was a war to protect Islam in Europe; intended to destabilize an economic competitor; and would rebound badly onto America.

Ultimately our bombing campaign against Serbia was an anti-Catholic assault on the ethnic and religious foundation of Europe. And now it's come to America.

Thanks Bill - and you too Hillary.

In fact, we got involved th... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

In fact, we got involved there because the Serbs were brutally exterminating (torturing, raping, and murdering) them.
-------------------------------------------------
Substituting Saddam for Serbs and these become invalid reasons to get involved in Iraq. Typical liberal doublespeak.

Yeah, I am such a liberal, ... (Below threshold)
LJD:

Yeah, I am such a liberal, let me just slip on my berkinstocks and roll another doobie...

Let me tell you buddy, I was in Bosnia and saw firsthand what the Serbs did. I have been in Sarajevo and Srebenica.

Milosevic made Saddam look like a boy scout.

If you want to argue reasons for Iraq, or terrorists coming out of former yugoslavia, that's fine. Just don't feed me a line of BS about 'bombing the wrong side'. It's disgusting. If we were to get involved, we didn't do it soon enough.

I'd hate to let the air ... (Below threshold)
BillyBob:

I'd hate to let the air out of Gorin's tirade, but not all of the Muslims in "the Balkans" are terrorists. In fact, we got involved there because the Serbs were brutally exterminating (torturing, raping, and murdering) them.

Actually we got involved because Slick Willy needed something to get Monica and his Willy out of the news headlines and to pacify the Saudis so oil would keep flowing. And yes, we did bomb the wrong side instead of defending Serbia from the head chopping islamofacists fresh from their victory over Russia in Afghanistan.

All we have to show for it now are illegal alien muslim Albanians who want to kill Americans the accelerated take over of Christian countries by radical islam.

If we were to get involved,... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

If we were to get involved, we didn't do it soon enough.
-------------------------------------------------
LJD,
Why can't the European big mouths take care of their own backyard? This is a "civil" war that we shouldn't get involved in the first place.

Did Milosevic use chemical weapons on the Albanians as Saddam did? Torture, rape ...? What happened to Kuwait? Saddam 's sons personally involved and supervised those activities. If you want to condemn the Serbs for their atrocities, that 's fine. Don't give me this crap that Saddam is boy scout compared to Milosevic.

I see the pro-Milošević cro... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I see the pro-Milošević crowd is well represented here. Exterminate the brutes, eh Kim?

Err, Lorie. Dammi... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Err, Lorie.

Dammit!

LDJ, In all fairnes... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

LDJ,
In all fairness, you are right that even in this case, we need help from other Muslims to infiltrate these cells. So a blanket condemnation is not warranted here.

Still Gorin 's point stands... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Still Gorin 's point stands: we got involved in a war to protect the Muslim in the Balkans. What do we get in return? We got the Cole attack and 9/11 (before the Iraq war, so let 's not recycle that spin again).

I don't really care what Mi... (Below threshold)
Puck:

I don't really care what Milosevic did to the Albanians. Serbia has a historic destiny as the bulwark of Christendom. It is a hatred of Christian Europe that fueled our destruction of Serbia and fuels LDJs support for Islam in Europe.

Be bobed the wrong side in Serbia.

LDJ would be whistling a different tune if we were talking about the West Bank.

I am not offering arguments... (Below threshold)
LJD:

I am not offering arguments for the Muslims. Bigots here would not even be able to recognize them with their blonde hair and blue eyes.

I am not trying debate our entering into Bosnia, Kosovo, or Iraq. That is another debate.

I am offer what I know first hand. I saw pits ful of bodies. People were gathered up, put in trucks, lined up over a hole, and shot to death. Their "services" consisted of a bulldozer passing overhead.

Women were taken to a nearby hotel and brutally raped. Their bodies thrown over the cliff and into the Drina river. The dam downstream could no longer function because bodies were cloggin up the spillways. The hotel came to be known as the f- and chuck.

So whatever your feelings about muslims and our foreign policy, don't give me any grief about that which you know nothing about. I don't care what transgression a person or group has committed against us, no human being deserves such treatment.

How many here still willing to stand up for a genocide?

Puck- you are an idiot. </... (Below threshold)
LJD:

Puck- you are an idiot.

Further, you have no idea of my opinion of islam in Europe. Try not to be a dink.

How many here still willing... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

How many here still willing to stand up for a genocide?
-----------------------------------------------
Good point. The question is why the European liberal leftists didn't do anything about it. It is in their backyard and they have the wealth and the big mouth to go with it.

I am with you here. If genocide is a MAJOR reason to get involved in the Balkans, then it is more so in Iraq because what they did there are "boy scouts" (using your terminology) compared to what Saddam did (and what the communists did in South East Asia - first hand experience here).


BTW, what was the scope of ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

BTW, what was the scope of the genocide in the Balkans. In Indochina it is between 3-5 million. IN Cambodia alone, the communists wiped out 1/3 of the population on the low end.

Be bobed the wrong side ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Be bobed the wrong side in Serbia.

Babye bou bould bo bob bourbelf.

Also what is happening to t... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Also what is happening to the reverse ethnic cleansing (ie. the reverse genocide in the Balkans now). What are the Europeans doing about it?

How many here stil... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
How many here still willing to stand up for a genocide?

The real question is should the U.S. go to war to stop genocide? Many libs didn't seem to think that was a valid reason for going into Iraq.

The real question is sho... (Below threshold)
mantis:

The real question is should the U.S. go to war to stop genocide? Many libs didn't seem to think that was a valid reason for going into Iraq.

Was there genocide occurring in Iraq in 2003 that I'm not aware of?

Reading comprehension sort ... (Below threshold)
LJD:

Reading comprehension sort of lacking here today. I already told you I would not debate our entry into the Balkans, or Iraq on this thread.

My whole point was that it is incredibly stupid and incorrect to say that we bombed the wrong side. I have no love for either group, but the Serbs are assholes. They would put a bullet in every American there- you included, given the opportunity.

Anyway, how many murders are o.k.? You know before it is considered a full-blown genocide? Do we just wait for something to compare it to?

Anyway, how many murders ar... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Anyway, how many murders are o.k.? You know before it is considered a full-blown genocide? Do we just wait for something to compare it to?
------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your answer to Mantis 's question below.

Was there genocide occurring in Iraq in 2003 that I'm not aware of?

Your answer is fine with me. If these reasons are valid for our involvement in the Balkans, then they should be more so for Iraq. The liberals are simply not honest enough to admit it.


Milosevic didn't exactly ar... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Milosevic didn't exactly arbitrarily take his measures either. They may have been wrong, but the KLA weren't boyscouts either and Milosevic was looking to deal with them.

Its funny that we never hea... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Its funny that we never hear about the region. No retrospecitves of what we did. The ongoing violence today between the Albanians against the Serbs. And after what we did, the Albanians definitely have the upper hand in that respect.

"Was there genocide occu... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"Was there genocide occurring in Iraq in 2003 that I'm not aware of?"

Obviously there was. The UN's oil for weapons, err I mean "food", scandal, err I mean "program" was killing around 60,000 per year.

I get a sense there are a lot of things going on of which you are not aware...

"Its funny that we never... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"Its funny that we never hear about the region."

Not funny at all. If it doesn't support the far leftist fabricateed worldview, it's not "news" to Katie or Brian or the NYT.

Obviously there was. The... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Obviously there was. The UN's oil for weapons, err I mean "food", scandal, err I mean "program" was killing around 60,000 per year.

Oil-for-Food was killing 60,000 per year? Don't you mean the sanctions? You're starting to sound like a leftist, you know.

I get a sense there are a lot of things going on of which you are not aware...

I get a sense that your brain is made from pudding. I suppose that could be wrong but...

Oil-for-Food was killing 60... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Oil-for-Food was killing 60,000 per year? Don't you mean the sanctions? You're starting to sound like a leftist, you know.
-------------------------------------------------
You sounds exactly like a leftist now. Oil-for-food is supposed to buy food/medicine for the Iraqui people. And you know what Saddam did with that money? His son build their castles so that they can torture and rape as LDJ pointed out. Given what we know now about the oil-for-food corruption I thought liberals would move beyond this old spin.

Yeah you're right Mantis. ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Yeah you're right Mantis. It was the UN's sanctions that were causing the starvation. The Oil for weapons food scandal program was supposed to stop that but did not thanks to John Kerry's allies corrupting the program for their own benefit.

Sorry. I often consdered the two as one, but you are correct that it was the sanctions which were causing a substancially larger number of deaths than the terrorists are currently causing.

The Oil for weapons food... (Below threshold)
mantis:

The Oil for weapons food scandal program was supposed to stop that but did not thanks to John Kerry's allies corrupting the program for their own benefit.

Don't forget Chevron (while our current Secretary of State was on the board no less), and Exxon, and El Paso Corp. I suppose those were all buddies of John Kerry, right?

Sorry. I often consdered the two as one, but you are correct that it was the sanctions which were causing a substancially larger number of deaths than the terrorists are currently causing.

The sanctions were very harmful to the Iraqi people, yes, but were in place to keep Saddam from restarting his weapons programs. The Oil-for-Food program was supposed to mitigate the harm of the sanctions, yes, and did so to some extent, but was certainly abused by Saddam and many businesses worldwide. However I've never heard it said that Oil-for-Food was responsible for the deaths of Iraqis, in fact I've only heard that it improved conditions of the Iraqis.

I have heard the sanctions called genocide before, by the left and by former UN Humanitarian Coordinator Denis Halliday. What I've never heard is the idea that we invaded Iraq to stop the deaths caused by the sanctions.

LJD -- Thanks for your insi... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

LJD -- Thanks for your insight. I, too, was horrified by that "we bombed the wrong guy" comment.

Was there genocide... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Was there genocide occurring in Iraq in 2003 that I'm not aware of?

Do you think Saddam reformed his ways?

"What I've never heard i... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"What I've never heard is the idea that we invaded Iraq to stop the deaths caused by the sanctions.'

Well there were plenty of other justifications, but that was as definitely postive side effect of the allied actions in Iraq.

What I've never he... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
What I've never heard is the idea that we invaded Iraq to stop the deaths caused by the sanctions.

I can see how you might think that's what I meant, but my point is that after no large stockpile of WMD was found in Iraq, many conservatives tried to justify the invasion, at least in part, on grounds of overthrowing a madman who had committed genocide. Who knows, Saddam may have even gone so far as making prisoners strip naked and pose for photos.

Anyway, liberals would have none of it. Stopping genocide was not sufficient grounds for invading another nation. So be it.

Don't forget Chevron (while... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Don't forget Chevron (while our current Secretary of State was on the board no less), and Exxon, and El Paso Corp. I suppose those were all buddies of John Kerry, right?
-------------------------------------------------
Typical liberal spin from Brian 's club: these American companies were fined and prosecuted. Yet their take was about 1% of the total oil-for-weapon bribery scheme. What happened to France, Russia, and the UN apparatus? Liberals have been trying to cover this up from day one. At the same time, they trust the UN wrt Iraq.

Again, this is another proof of anti-American attitude of the left. They are really tough on America, yet they go to the mat for the corrupted UN, which made a mess of a Balkan situation. Why do we still have reverse ethnic cleansing there now?

LJD -- Thanks for ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
LJD -- Thanks for your insight. I, too, was horrified by that "we bombed the wrong guy" comment.

That's the problem with taking sides is such conflicts. Maybe we should learn a lesson from the space alien in the 1951 film The Day the Earth Stood Still. Just tell them that if the don't stop their conflict we'll bomb both sides back to the stone age. I doubt we would be any worse off given the results from bombing just one side.

I, too, was horrified by t... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

I, too, was horrified by that "we bombed the wrong guy" comment.
------------------------------------------------
I was even more horrified at the determination of the liberals to see an even greater genocide in Iraq with the ways they are making excuses for the terrorists (liberals have the hindsight of Vietnam and Balkans now).


I can see how you might ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I can see how you might think that's what I meant, but my point is that after no large stockpile of WMD was found in Iraq, many conservatives tried to justify the invasion, at least in part, on grounds of overthrowing a madman who had committed genocide.

Oh, I took your words here:

The real question is should the U.S. go to war to stop genocide?

at face value. Guess I shouldn't have.

Anyway, liberals would have none of it. Stopping genocide was not sufficient grounds for invading another nation. So be it.

Are conservatives different? How many conservatives want to "invade another nation" to stop the genocide in Darfur?

Ohhhh boy.Thank yo... (Below threshold)
jim:

Ohhhh boy.

Thank you LJD for your immediate factual comment. It does indeed look like Malkin doesn't know (or care?) wtf she's talking about.

Standing up for innocents, even if they're (gasp!) muslims, is a good thing. Of course we went into the Balkans for other reasons, too - the US, like all other nations, has not ever and will not ever enter into ANY war without self-interested reasons.

Nevertheless, Malkin's crusade to blame everything on Clinton has pushed her to say that the US was wrong to side *against* Serbian rapist-murderers.

Way to go.

As a side note, not one US soldier died in combat in the Balkans. Imagine that - a competently executed plan, with allies sharing the deployment and the cost, that didn't even run up a budget deficit.

Are conservatives different... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Are conservatives different? How many conservatives want to "invade another nation" to stop the genocide in Darfur?
-------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't blink if we invade Sudan to get rid of that regime. The question is why the UN or the Europeans cannot take care of that little country? If you say that the UN and the European is useless, then let 's disband the UN and do it ourselves.

Nevertheless, Malkin's crus... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Nevertheless, Malkin's crusade to blame everything on Clinton has pushed her to say that the US was wrong to side *against* Serbian rapist-murderers.
-------------------------------------------------
Jim,
Are you siding with the rapist-murderers who are Saddam 's sons? Are you siding with the genocidical Saddam?

As a side note, not one US ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

As a side note, not one US soldier died in combat in the Balkans. Imagine that - a competently executed plan,
-------------------------------------------------
Are you sure there were no US soldiers killed in the Balkans?
Why do we still have troops there? Why is there still reverse ethnic cleansing? Why are there still terrorists there?

Jim, ARe you agains... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
ARe you against withdrawal from Iraq now given your own expert has predicted an even bigger catastrophe compared to the Balkans now?

I'm not sure which expert y... (Below threshold)
jim:

I'm not sure which expert you're referring to. Got a citation of that report, LAI?

LAI, please explain how wha... (Below threshold)
jim:

LAI, please explain how what I said about Serbia *possibly* means that I am "for" Saddam and his sons.

Yes, LAI; it is my understa... (Below threshold)
jim:

Yes, LAI; it is my understanding that there was not one single combat-related death among US soldiers in the Bosnian conflict.

There may have been some deaths due to traffic accidents, and the like; that I'm not sure of.

If I'm wrong, please show the link; I want to be with the facts.

LAI, please explain how wha... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

LAI, please explain how what I said about Serbia *possibly* means that I am "for" Saddam and his sons.
-------------------------------------------------
You said that we shouldn't invade Iraq and got rid of Saddam Hussein. This is a war we shouldn't get into. If I am wrong, please correct me here.

Typical liberal spin fro... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Typical liberal spin from Brian 's club: these American companies were fined and prosecuted.

Did I say they weren't?

Yet their take was about 1% of the total oil-for-weapon bribery scheme.

Interesting stance. The beltway sniper(s) committed less than 1% of the D.C. area homicides for 2002. Should we give them a pass?

What happened to France, Russia, and the UN apparatus? Liberals have been trying to cover this up from day one. At the same time, they trust the UN wrt Iraq.

Again, this is another proof of anti-American attitude of the left. They are really tough on America, yet they go to the mat for the corrupted UN, which made a mess of a Balkan situation. Why do we still have reverse ethnic cleansing there now?

None of this has to do with me or anything I've written, so I'll just ignore your babble.

Interesting stance. The bel... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Interesting stance. The beltway sniper(s) committed less than 1% of the D.C. area homicides for 2002. Should we give them a pass?
-------------------------------------------------
Did we ignore them? No. The US is the only country that prosecuted those companies that were involved in the oil-for-weapon scandal. This simply points out the typical hypocrisy of the liberal left. That 's all. If you feel strongly about it, then get rid of the Dem hypocrites in Congress.

So now you agree that it is foolish to continue the sanction regime with the oil-for-weapon scandal in place?

Are conservatives ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Are conservatives different? How many conservatives want to "invade another nation" to stop the genocide in Darfur?

We learned our lesson in Iraq. Genocide is not considered sufficient justification to invade another nation in the eyes of many liberals. The problem is that with the constant anti-war drumbeat liberals put up, no administration can maintain the needed public support to insure success in such ventures. Many of the people of Darfur are going to pay the consequences of the political rift that divides the U.S. so deeply that it's now unable to act to stop genocide.

LAI, please explain how ... (Below threshold)
jim:

LAI, please explain how what I said about Serbia *possibly* means that I am "for" Saddam and his sons.

You said that we shouldn't invade Iraq and got rid of Saddam Hussein. This is a war we shouldn't get into. If I am wrong, please correct me here.

OK, here's how I'll correct you:

1) Saying that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, doesn't mean that I am "for" Saddam and his sons.

We shouldn't have invaded Iraq, because it was a terrible idea that had been predicted beforehand by TWO administrations - Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton's - to be a disaster.

The Bosnian intervention was predicted to not be a disaster, and it wasn't a disaster.

2) we didn't invade Iraq because we wanted to save the poor Iraqis from mean ol' Saddam. If we cared for Iraqis that much, we wouldn't have put Saddam in power in the first place - and we wouldn't have *increased* our military and political support of him after he gassed his own people.

We learned our lesson in... (Below threshold)
jim:

We learned our lesson in Iraq. Genocide is not considered sufficient justification to invade another nation in the eyes of many liberals.

Come on. Genocide was in fact *NOT USED* by the Bush Administation as a justification to invade Iraq. WMD and terrorists were the justifications used. Don't you remember the "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud! Fear! Panic! Obey!" argument? I know it's felt like an eternity, but it was really only 5 years ago.

The problem is that with the constant anti-war drumbeat liberals put up, no administration can maintain the needed public support to insure success in such ventures. Many of the people of Darfur are going to pay the consequences of the political rift that divides the U.S. so deeply that it's now unable to act to stop genocide.

OMFG. Please.

You can not possibly be blaming Darfur on liberals. And further, because liberals are pointing out that Iraq is a disaster, and are right about it.

Did liberals force Bush to invade Iraq? No. Did liberals force Bush to mismanage Iraq? No. Did liberals force Bush to invade and occupy Iraq without support from so many of our previous allies? No.

Bush's failures are his own.

Maybe if we hadn't invaded Iraq, we could actually have the troops and resources to spare to actually go into Darfur - Bush's own Rwanda. Or finish Afghanistan, capture Bin Laden, and crush Al Qaeda rather than help them grow.

But the real deal is, Bush won't deal with Darfur any more than Clinton would deal with Rwanda - because the US, like all nations, is overwhelmingly not interested in getting involved in conflicts that dont' benefit us. And I as a liberal could wish this was different, but that's the reality of it - no matter who is President, Democrat or Republican.

Jim,We shouldn't ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
We shouldn't have invaded Iraq, because it was a terrible idea that had been predicted beforehand by TWO administrations - Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton's - to be a disaster.

The Bosnian intervention was predicted to not be a disaster, and it wasn't a disaster.

You forgot the Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" even before 9/11. If Bosnia is not a disaster, why we still have a reverse ethnic cleansing there and we still have terrorists there (using you own arg).

2) we didn't invade Iraq because we wanted to save the poor Iraqis from mean ol' Saddam. If we cared for Iraqis that much, we wouldn't have put Saddam in power in the first place - and we wouldn't have *increased* our military and political support of him after he gassed his own people.

This is typical spin. Do you remember and know why FDR and Churchill allied with Stalin during WW2? Definitely getting rid of Saddam to save the Iraquis from his genocide is one of the reasons (not the only one) for the invasion (we spent billions of dollars a year to have the no-fly zones in the NOrth for the Kurds and the South for the Shiittes. The Kurds were protected from Saddam 's genocidical intent by our and British airforces. If we don't care why did we do it? Other countries were deep into the oil-for-weapon corruption). In the end, we got rid of the genocidical dictator. Why are you so unhappy and advocating withdrawal now given that your own expert predicted even a worse catastrophe?

Jim,We shouldn't ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
We shouldn't have invaded Iraq, because it was a terrible idea that had been predicted beforehand by TWO administrations - Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton's - to be a disaster.

The Bosnian intervention was predicted to not be a disaster, and it wasn't a disaster.

You forgot the Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" even before 9/11. If Bosnia is not a disaster, why we still have a reverse ethnic cleansing there and we still have terrorists there (using you own arg).

2) we didn't invade Iraq because we wanted to save the poor Iraqis from mean ol' Saddam. If we cared for Iraqis that much, we wouldn't have put Saddam in power in the first place - and we wouldn't have *increased* our military and political support of him after he gassed his own people.

This is typical spin. Do you remember and know why FDR and Churchill allied with Stalin during WW2? Definitely getting rid of Saddam to save the Iraquis from his genocide is one of the reasons (not the only one) for the invasion (we spent billions of dollars a year to have the no-fly zones in the NOrth for the Kurds and the South for the Shiittes. The Kurds were protected from Saddam 's genocidical intent by our and British airforces. If we don't care why did we do it? Other countries were deep into the oil-for-weapon corruption). In the end, we got rid of the genocidical dictator. Why are you so unhappy and advocating withdrawal now given that your own expert predicted even a worse catastrophe?

That 's all. If you feel... (Below threshold)
jim:

That 's all. If you feel strongly about it, then get rid of the Dem hypocrites in Congress.

But not the Republican hypocrites?

How's this, LAI - we get rid of all the hypocrites involved in the food-for-ool mismanagement, Democrat and Republican. That also includes Condi Rice.

That's fair, right? Do you support that? Yes or no.

You forgot the Clinton s... (Below threshold)
jim:

You forgot the Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" even before 9/11. If Bosnia is not a disaster, why we still have a reverse ethnic cleansing there and we still have terrorists there (using you own arg).

What exactly are you arguing? I'm not sure.

facts 1:
Bosnia was not a disaster because we accomplished our goals there. We removed Milosevic and got out without a single US combat casualty.

fact 2:
Bill Clinton didn't invade Iraq!!!!

That bill you're mentioning included support for anti-Saddam groups, and speculation about a post-Saddam Iraq. It had nothing in it that said invading and occupying Iraq is a good idea.

Are you saying that because Clinton signed this bill, he invaded Iraq??

Did we ignore them? No.<... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Did we ignore them? No.

I just can't tell if you think we should have, what with your 1% hand-waving.

The US is the only country that prosecuted those companies that were involved in the oil-for-weapon scandal.

Hmmm. You sure about that?

Oil-for-food scandal: four people prosecuted by Swiss court

Switzerland has launched criminal proceedings against four people in connection with the U.N. oil-for-food program, the Economics Ministry said Thursday.

"If it turns out that firms operating in Switzerland behaved illegally, the authorities will investigate these allegations and will if necessary institute legal proceedings against those responsible," the Economics Ministry said in a statement, without giving names or further details, the AP reports. - 10/27/05

Australian oil-for-food probe advises charges against company officials, clears gov't

Prime Minister John Howard said the inquiry's key recommendations would be acted upon immediately. Howard's government launched the inquiry after AWB -- formerly the state-owned Australian Wheat Board -- was named as the largest single payer of kickbacks in the corruption-ridden U.N. program.

He said a police task force would be set up to investigate AWB executives mentioned by Cole, who identified possible crimes but did not have the power to file charges. - 11/27/2006

French judge ends investigation into oil-for-food scandal in Iraq

French officials have filed preliminary charges against 15 people in the case. The newly appointed chief executive of Total SA oil giant, Christophe de Margerie, was handed preliminary charges, as were former Interior Minister Charles Pasqua and two former high-ranking diplomats. - 4/12/07

There's more, but you don't really care, which is why you're perfectly happy to make baseless assertions, and when shown wrong you will not respond. I do wish Russia and China would prosecute the offenders too, but there's a lot of things I wish those countries would do.

This simply points out the typical hypocrisy of the liberal left. That 's all. If you feel strongly about it, then get rid of the Dem hypocrites in Congress.

How exactly will voting Republican spur criminal prosecutions in other countries?

So now you agree that it is foolish to continue the sanction regime with the oil-for-weapon scandal in place?

No. Oil-for-food should have been more strictly controlled, or scrapped altogether in favor of a different method for getting humanitarian aid into Iraq.

1) Saying that we should... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

1) Saying that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, doesn't mean that I am "for" Saddam and his sons.
We shouldn't have invaded Iraq, because it was a terrible idea that had been predicted beforehand by TWO administrations - Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton's - to be a disaster.
The Bosnian intervention was predicted to not be a disaster, and it wasn't a disaster.

You forgot that Clinton signed the "Iraqui Liberation Acts" before 9/11. And Bush Sr. is fully supportive of getting rid of Saddam Hussein after 9/11. If Bosnia was not a disaster, then why we still have a reverse ethnic cleansing there and there are still terrorists there? The UN has been running the place for how many years now?


2) we didn't invade Iraq because we wanted to save the poor Iraqis from mean ol' Saddam. If we cared for Iraqis that much, we wouldn't have put Saddam in power in the first place - and we wouldn't have *increased* our military and political support of him after he gassed his own people.
Do you remembe and know why FDR and Churchill allied themselves with Stalin during WW2? If we didn't care about the Iraqui people, why did we spent billions of dollars a year to enforce the no-fly zones to allow the Kurds to have a relatively dem society and free from Saddam 's genocidical attempt (while other countries were deep in the oil-for-weapon scandal). This was definitely one of the reasons for getting rid of Saddam (it is not the only reason). He was a threat to his own people, the region, and the US. That 's the rationale.

But the real deal is, Bush won't deal with Darfur any more than Clinton would deal with Rwanda
This is another spin. Clinton stopped the UN forces from acting in Rwanda. Bush has done for more for the Sudanese and Africa compared to Clinton. He has been pushing the UN for tough sanction and troops from the African Union to support such a mission. Why can't the Europeans and the UN take care of this? If you say that they are useless, and let 's bypass them, then I would agree with you.


Mantis, Thanks to t... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Mantis,
Thanks to the Iraq war that exposed the oil-for-food scandal at the UN that the French started looking into it. Look at the dates (2006 and 2007). It is a good unintended consequece of the war to get rid of Saddam, right. Otherwise, he would continue this oil-for-weapon program with the full support/cover up of the liberals at the UN and in the West.

Jim, ONe more point... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
ONe more point: the Iraq war got rid of Saddam Huessein and prevented him from continuing his genocidical streak, as a liberal you should be happy, right? Why would you want to withdraw from Iraq given that your own expert predicted a much bigger catastrophe.

Do you remember and kno... (Below threshold)
jim:

Do you remember and know why FDR and Churchill allied with Stalin during WW2?

Yes. Do you? I'll tell you: It was to help defeat Hitler.

Who are you saying we were propping Saddam up against - Iran? If so, why did the Reagan administration secretly sell Iran weapons also? I can guarantee you we weren't selling weapons to Hitler in WWII...

Definitely getting rid of Saddam to save the Iraquis from his genocide is one of the reasons (not the only one) for the invasion (we spent billions of dollars a year to have the no-fly zones in the NOrth for the Kurds and the South for the Shiittes. The Kurds were protected from Saddam 's genocidical intent by our and British airforces. If we don't care why did we do it?

Because we wanted someone to run Iraq who would do what we tell them to - and because Saddam stopped doing what we told him to when he invaded Kuwait.

The Kurds were a good destabilizing force for this purpose, and that's why we expended manpower and resources to keep them going.

Why are you so unhappy and advocating withdrawal now given that your own expert predicted even a worse catastrophe?

Which expert are you referring to?

The experts I am referring to are the US military. I once again point you to the 1999 War Games. Here the US military concluded that invading and occupying Iraq with anything less than 400,000 men would result in the following disasters. All of these have come true and are getting worse.

Don't take my word for it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/04/AR2006110400577.html

"A change in regimes does not guarantee stability," the 1999 seminar briefings said. "A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability."

_"Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic _ especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments."

_"Iran's anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq," the briefings read. "The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad."

_"The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development."

_"Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government."

_"A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners."

Those are my experts. What do yours say?

You forgot the Clinton sign... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

You forgot the Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" even before 9/11. If Bosnia is not a disaster, why we still have a reverse ethnic cleansing there and we still have terrorists there (using you own arg).

What exactly are you arguing? I'm not sure.

facts 1:
Bosnia was not a disaster because we accomplished our goals there. We removed Milosevic and got out without a single US combat casualty.
--------------------------------------------------
You are trying to say that Bin Laden was correct in his assessment that the US doesn't have a stomach for a real fight. You don't care much about ethnic cleansing or anything. Your outrage is simply a ploy. YOu really don't care whether there is genocide in the Balkans or not.


fact 2:
Bill Clinton didn't invade Iraq!!!!

That bill you're mentioning included support for anti-Saddam groups, and speculation about a post-Saddam Iraq. It had nothing in it that said invading and occupying Iraq is a good idea.

Are you saying that because Clinton signed this bill, he invaded Iraq??
------------------------------------------------
Remember this is before 9/11 and Clinton think the threat is enough to warrant a regime change. And you think after 9/11, we should ignore it. With the oil-for-weapon scandal, all the other countries (except the US and Britain) were deep into it, how are you going to help the people there? Or you simply said that liberals like Clinton simply did the talking. They didn't mean to do anything except kissing up to North Korea. Madame Albright was running after Arafat and Kim etc...

We learned our lesson in... (Below threshold)
mantis:

We learned our lesson in Iraq. Genocide is not considered sufficient justification to invade another nation in the eyes of many liberals.

Nice try, but genocide was insufficient justification for conservatives long before Iraq. Remember Bosnia?

"Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult speech for me to give, because I normally, and I still do, support our military and the fine work that they are doing. But I cannot support a failed foreign policy. ... But before we get deeper embroiled into this Balkan quagmire, I think that an assessment has to be made of the Kosovo policy so far. President Clinton has never explained to the American people why he was involving the U.S. military in a civil war in a sovereign nation, other than to say it is for humanitarian reasons, a new military/foreign policy precedent. ... Was it worth it to stay in Vietnam to save face? What good has been accomplished so far? Absolutely nothing."
House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-TX) 4/28/99

Remember Somalia?

Mr. President, can anyone seriously argue that another six months of United States forces in harm's way means the difference between peace and prosperity and war there? Is that very dim prospect worth one more American life? No, it is not. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) 10/14/93

Haiti?

I support the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces as soon as possible. That does not mean as soon as order is restored. It does not mean as soon as democracy is flourishing. It does not mean as soon as we have established a viable nation. As soon as possible means as soon we can get out without losing any more American lives. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), 10/16/94

There are tons more where that came from, but you already knew that. Full. Of. Shit. It is appalling how blatantly full of shit you are willing to be.

Jim, Here are my ex... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
Here are my experts: Dem pres, Dem administration, and Dem Congress. Unless you say that they are full of hot air, then I would agree with you.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/stacks/democrat.guest.html

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002


"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."



Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002
Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face -- and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm."

Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."


Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."



Hillary Clinton > January 22, 2003
"I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."

Jim, And this is yo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
And this is your own source. So why do you still support withdrawal from Iraq?

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/09/26/nie.declass.pdf

- Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority
nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit. Over time, such
progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the
vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al-Qa'ida,
could erode support for the jihadists

- Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves,
and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry
on the fight.

So, LAI - what exactly do y... (Below threshold)
jim:

So, LAI - what exactly do you think those quotes prove? I'm just curious.

LAI, the important differen... (Below threshold)
jim:

LAI, the important difference is this: Bill Clinton supported regime change by *intelligent* and *well-planned* means that wouldn't harm this country.

George Bush chose to disregard all experts, including his own father, and bring about regime change via invading and occupying Iraq - which has ended up harming this country far worse than allowing Hussein to simply remain in power.

I don't think this is a net gain for the US. I don't know, I guess I just value our soldier's lives too much.

For all the spin, the liber... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

For all the spin, the liberals have to face the difference between Rep and Dem when it comes to national security issue. What have Clinton and Carter been doing? What a shame!

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/Bosnia/updates/dec95/12-05/clinton/index.html

Bush urges support for Clinton

The White House welcomed support for Clinton's Bosnia policy on two fronts. Former President George Bush urged Congress to support the deployment of U.S. troops even though Bush said he had questions about "what our troops are expected to accomplish, and about when they can get out and come home." In a statement issued by his office in Houston, Texas, Bush said, "What is clear, however, is that it is in our national interest to maintain the integrity of the United States' credibility in the world."

White House press secretary Mike McCurry said Clinton understands that Bush has some concerns about the deployment, but "the president is grateful that his predecessor has issued a statement expressing support for our troops and for American efforts in Bosnia."

Also on Tuesday, a bipartisan group of U.S. foreign policy experts announced its support for the U.S. deployment. The group included Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to Democratic President Jimmy Carter; Alexander Haig, secretary of state under Republican President Ronald Reagan; and Frank Carlucci, who served as Reagan's defense secretary.

I don't think this is a net... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

I don't think this is a net gain for the US. I don't know, I guess I just value our soldier's lives too much.
-------------------------------------------------
It is hard for me to take this seriously. In this thread, you made a big deal about genocide as a reason to go to Serbia. Then in the next breadth, it doesn't matter.

If you truly care about the troops, please take care of Harry Reid and the dems who are playing politics (even doing the PR for the terrorists - intentionally or unintentionally) while the troops are in the field.

In the end, you conclude that genocide is not a sufficient reason to risk the lives of our troops. And another one is that you did confirm Bin Laden 's point that America, esp liberals , will cut-and-run at the first sight of casualties.

LAI, the important differen... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

LAI, the important difference is this: Bill Clinton supported regime change by *intelligent* and *well-planned* means that wouldn't harm this country.
------------------------------------------------
Bin Laden disagreed with you. Somalia and the air war gave him the idea that America would cut and run. That 's why we got the Cole attack and 9/11 after the Serbia war. And this thread shows that even now we are reaping the consequences of that war.

Sure, LAI - those are two *... (Below threshold)
jim:

Sure, LAI - those are two *possible* positive outcomes of our invasion and occupation in Iraq.

The *known facts*, from the very same pdf you post above, include:

- jihadists are increasing both in number and geographic dispersion

- threats against US interests are thus also increasing

- the Iraq invasion has caused a deep and INCREASING resentment of the US, which is fueling the increase in terrorism and the threats against US interests.

Possible good in the future vs. known bad know and *probable* known bad in the future - you do the math.

Well LAI, why in Hell shoul... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well LAI, why in Hell should the US formulate it's policy based on what 'Bin Laden' says?

I'd consider a far better policy to be one that grabs Bin Laden by the throat and hangs him for murdering scum. Boy, we sure showed him by invading Iraq and leaving Bin Laden to sneak away to Pakistan, didn't we?

I'd consider a far better p... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

I'd consider a far better policy to be one that grabs Bin Laden by the throat and hangs him for murdering scum.
-------------------------------------------------
Bin Laden was offered to Clinton on a platter by the Sudanese but he didn't want to have the trouble of a trial! Clinton just sent him these signals that America is afraid of the fight (Somalia, Serbia air war, missles attack on empty tents in Afghanistan). These signals had serious consequences that culminated in 9/11. Now Harry Reid and the dems are doing the same thing (sending the terrorists the wrong signal again.)

Jim, I simply point... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
I simply pointed out that this is your own source. With the conclusion based on this NIE, are you still for withdrawing from Iraq?

Also, from another favorite... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Also, from another favorite source of yours. If you agree that we should stay in Iraq now, then we can start the discussion how to win there.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/02/iraq.scenarios/index.html

Pulling U.S. forces from Iraq could trigger catastrophe, CNN analysts and other observers warn, affecting not just Iraq but its neighbors in the Middle East, with far-reaching global implications.

I don't think this is a ... (Below threshold)
jim:

I don't think this is a net gain for the US. I don't know, I guess I just value our soldier's lives too much.
-------------------------------------------------
It is hard for me to take this seriously.

Can't be because it disproves your argument.


In this thread, you made a big deal about genocide as a reason to go to Serbia. Then in the next breadth, it doesn't matter.

See, there's the problem.

I made a 'big deal' out of Malkin's breathtakingly ignorant statement that we bombed the wrong side, because we bombed the side that was *killing innocent muslims*.

Do you think that innocent muslims should be raped and murdered? Yes or no? If no, then you should agree with me.

I consider supporting the troops, to consist of not wasting their lives on ventures that leave the US more at risk than when we started.

Do you consider it a good thing to send our volunteers off to die, in a venture that leaves the US more at risk? Yes or no?

In the end, you conclude that genocide is not a sufficient reason to risk the lives of our troops.

Wrong again.

I pointed out to you that the ***US government*** has never considered genocide ALONE as a good enough reason to risk our troops. This is simple historical fact, whether you like it or not.

And another one is that you did confirm Bin Laden 's point that America, esp liberals , will cut-and-run at the first sight of casualties.

Is that so?

Please point out any time that I have said the US should pull out of Afghanistan.

You can't, because I have not.

The occupation Afghanistan was and is worth pursuing. The occupation of Iraq is not. See, that's the difference.

So now, please retract your pointless and factless insult.

LAI, I simply pointed out t... (Below threshold)
jim:

LAI, I simply pointed out to you, that you are cherry-picking parts of the NIE to support your argument; and that those arguments are outnumbered and outweighed by the arguments in the NIE which you wish to ignore.

Do you agree or disagree with my assessment?

If so, please explain where my assessment is wrong.

Hey LAI, is the Iraqi Parli... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Hey LAI, is the Iraqi Parliament "sending the terrorists the wrong signal?"

So, LAI - your argument re:... (Below threshold)
jim:

So, LAI - your argument re: Clinton and Bin Laden is what?

That once Bin Laden caused 3000 US civilians to die, and Bush didn't capture him but invaded Iraq instead, that it's ok because Clinton didn't capture Bin Laden earlier??

Is that what you're saying?

Do you think that innocent ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Do you think that innocent muslims should be raped and murdered? Yes or no? If no, then you should agree with me.
-----------------------------------------------
No and that 's why we got rid of Saddam Hussein and his sons who were raping and murdering the innocent Muslims in Iraq. That 's why it is good that our troops continue to work with the Iraqui allies to kill the terrorists that are blowing up women/children in Iraq.


The occupation Afghanistan was and is worth pursuing. The occupation of Iraq is not. See, that's the difference.
------------------------------------------------
This is a silly arg that has been dealt with before. The terrorists are flocking to Iraq (central battle for AlQ as they claim) because it is crucial for them as pointed out by your NIE.

Just like in WW2, Japan attacked us, so we should fight Japan, but we shouldn't fight Hitler in Europe. It is a silly arg.

Jim, I have given y... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
I have given you what your own sources are saying wrt a withdrawal from Iraq. If you want to pick and choose what "experts" you want to use, then don't make a big deal about "experts". Just be consistent

Here's a quote from your CN... (Below threshold)
jim:

Here's a quote from your CNN link, with emphasis:

A rapid withdrawal of all U.S. troops would hurt America's image and hand al Qaeda and other terror groups a propaganda victory that the United States is only a "paper tiger," CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen said.

Notice the emphasis.

Now note that I am not talking about a rapid withdrawal of all US troops.

We are in bad situation here, and there's no two ways about it. But this is the mess we are in, and this is reality we have to face.

We can either:
a) leave, and our soldiers will stop being killed, and things might get worse in Iraq - but we'll have more forces and resources to secure Afghanistan and pursue and crush Al Qaeda
b) stay, and our soldiers will continue being killed, and things WILL get worse - and we will have less forces for Afghanistan and Al Qaeda

That's reality.

So, LAI - your argument re:... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

So, LAI - your argument re: Clinton and Bin Laden is what?

That once Bin Laden caused 3000 US civilians to die, and Bush didn't capture him but invaded Iraq instead, that it's ok because Clinton didn't capture Bin Laden earlier??
-------------------------------------------------
Clinton was a threat to the US national security given his policies. Can we agree on that?

Both Bin Laden and Saddam are threats to American security as warned repeatedly by the Dems during the 1990s (Saddam was a much bigger threat). We deal with both of them as we dealt with all of them in WW2. And we are dealing with AlQ in Iraq.

So, to be clear, what I'm t... (Below threshold)
jim:

So, to be clear, what I'm talking about is a phased withdrawal of US troops - not an immediate pullout that leaves a power vaccum.

This includes an invitation of the UN to take control, and splitting Iraq into 3 areas - 1 for Sunnis, one for Shiites and one Kurds.

That last will piss off Turkey greatly, but there's no other way around it.

Come on. Genocide ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Come on. Genocide was in fact *NOT USED* by the Bush Administation as a justification to invade Iraq.

I didn't say it was. If you're going to reply to something I said at least look back a few posts to see what I was actually saying.

You can not possibly be blaming Darfur on liberals. And further, because liberals are pointing out that Iraq is a disaster, and are right about it.

Let me know when you run out of straw men so that we can have a valid discussion. I didn't blame anyone for Darfur, but the constant anti-war noise from the left makes it impossible for Bush to use the one tool that could end genocide in Dafur and that's military force.

Did liberals force Bush to invade Iraq? No. Did liberals force Bush to mismanage Iraq? No. Did liberals force Bush to invade and occupy Iraq without support from so many of our previous allies? No.

No, but liberals undermined Bush's efforts on every front and forced him to focus on stupid issues like the "Mission Accomplished" banner rather then on prosecuting the war in Iraq.

Maybe if we hadn't invaded Iraq, we could actually have the troops and resources to spare to actually go into Darfur - Bush's own Rwanda. Or finish Afghanistan, capture Bin Laden, and crush Al Qaeda rather than help them grow.

Maybe if we hadn't invaded Iraq Saddam would have succeeded in bribing the UN into withdrawing sanctions. We now know Saddam was well on his way to doing just that. Let's see, what could a vindictive fellow like Saddam cook up to take revenge on the nation that so humiliated him in the first Gulf war?

If we cared for Iraqis that much, we wouldn't have put Saddam in power in the first place - and we wouldn't have *increased* our military and political support of him after he gassed his own people.

Another liberal who doesn't understand the flow of time. Why do you put mouthwash in your mouth only to spit it back out, why do you put money in the bank only to take it out again, why go to work only to return home again? You do these things to accomplish a purpose and there's a time for every purpose. We bombed the crap out of Japan and German only to rebuild what we destroyed. Somehow liberals see that as hypocrisy.

A rapid withdrawal of all U... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

A rapid withdrawal of all U.S. troops would hurt America's image and hand al Qaeda and other terror groups a propaganda victory that the United States is only a "paper tiger," CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen said.
-------------------------------------------------
That 's what the Dems are trying to do. We agree that we should withdraw our troops when we consider the terrorists are sufficiently defeated. Fair enough.

Depends on what you mean by... (Below threshold)
jim:

Depends on what you mean by Clinton being a threat to US national security.

I guess we could we agree on that - if we can agree that Bush has been a much bigger threat.

Since 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, and Bush ignored repeated warnings beforehand; and then the WMD intelligence failure happened, and then Bush failure to capture Bin Laden, and then Bush disregarded of the US military in his invasion and occupation of Iraq; and then Bush ruptured alliances we've had for more than 50 years to invade - I feel that's all stuff Bush should be responsible for.

This includes an invitation... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

This includes an invitation of the UN to take control
-------------------------------------------------
Are you serious? After a long discussion in this thread, you don't see how the UN bungled the Balkan, oil-for-weapon corruption, Congo rape scandal etc...

You really don't understand national security, Jim. You simply repeat talking points from the liberal left.

Since 9/11 happened on Bush... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Since 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, and Bush ignored repeated warnings beforehand;
---------------------------------------------
Jim,
Are you honest here? Bush was barely in office 9 months. Liberals are carping about the Patriots Acts even now after 9/11. Gorelick wall to stop the sharing of the information between the CIA and FBI was in existent then.
Let 's use your silly logic here: before the Iraq war, we had 1st WTC and 2nd WTC bombing (9/11). After the Iraq war, there is none so far. Is that a success.
Here is how Clinton and Dem deal with intelligence
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODIzYjVmN2I2ZWE5NDBmMzU0Y2MwZTE4NjM2ZDMzODU=

Today the House of Representatives will debate whether global warming is so serious a threat to American national security that the Director of National Intelligence, normally busy with issues like al Qaeda, Iranian nuclear research, and North Korean missiles, should be ordered to put aside other projects to create a special National Intelligence Estimate on climate change.

OK, Mac, I'll break down wh... (Below threshold)
jim:

OK, Mac, I'll break down what I'm responding to in your comments:

We learned our lesson in Iraq. Genocide is not considered sufficient justification to invade another nation in the eyes of many liberals. The problem is that with the constant anti-war drumbeat liberals put up, no administration can maintain the needed public support to insure success in such ventures.

When you say "we learned our lesson", 'We' means people like you - conservatives. You here are clearly indicating that the invasion of Iraq was undergone, by conservatives, to save the Iraqis from 'genocide'.

That was what I was responding to, in telling you that stopping genocide was not any seriously considered reason for invading Iraq. I'm reminding you that 99.9% + of the reasoning presented was fear - fear of WMD's, fear of terror, and fear of Saddam's actions *towards us*.

Many of the people of Darfur are going to pay the consequences of the political rift that divides the U.S. so deeply that it's now unable to act to stop genocide.

Here you are implying that the US government WOULD intervene to stop genocide, if the darn liberals weren't so shrill and mean. So, effectively, Darfur is liberal's fault. So I'm telling you this is wrong also.

No, but liberals undermi... (Below threshold)
jim:

No, but liberals undermined Bush's efforts on every front and forced him to focus on stupid issues like the "Mission Accomplished" banner rather then on prosecuting the war in Iraq.

That's a nice theory, in that it enables you to blame Bush's failures on those who point them out.

But somehow Clinton was able to achieve all our policy goals in Bosnia and Kosovo, with the Republican GOP riding his butt all the way. How can that be possible?

In reality, you can't blame the mess on the messenger. I thought you conservatives are about accountability and personal responsibility. Doesn't Bush own responsibility for his own mistakes? Yes or no?


You here are clearly indica... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

You here are clearly indicating that the invasion of Iraq was undergone, by conservatives, to save the Iraqis from 'genocide'.
-------------------------------------------------
Jim,
Just to point out the typical liberal hypocrisy. What is the main reason for our involvement in Serbia? To stop genocide. If that reason is sufficient for liberals, then it should be more so for Iraq. Now we have other reasons to get rid of Saddam for sure, but at least this is a good consequence as well.

But somehow Clinton was abl... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

But somehow Clinton was able to achieve all our policy goals in Bosnia and Kosovo, with the Republican GOP riding his butt all the way. How can that be possible?
------------------------------------------------
Little McCain demanded/threated to insert ground troops. That 's how the war ended Jim. Forgot that little detail.

BTW,
here is how Bush rode Clinton 's butt. For a comparison, Clinton and Carter are so low-class, don't you think?

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/Bosnia/updates/dec95/12-05/clinton/index.html

Bush urges support for Clinton

The White House welcomed support for Clinton's Bosnia policy on two fronts. Former President George Bush urged Congress to support the deployment of U.S. troops even though Bush said he had questions about "what our troops are expected to accomplish, and about when they can get out and come home." In a statement issued by his office in Houston, Texas, Bush said, "What is clear, however, is that it is in our national interest to maintain the integrity of the United States' credibility in the world."


Maybe if we hadn't invad... (Below threshold)
jim:

Maybe if we hadn't invaded Iraq Saddam would have succeeded in bribing the UN into withdrawing sanctions.

And?

Let's say that's true.

With regular weapons inspections proving there were no WMD's, we could have captured Bin Laden, secured Afghanistan, and gone after Al Qaeda. Then we'd actually be in a strong position if we had to do anything about Iraq - or Iran or North Korea, who have both been able to run wild while we were distracted with Iraq.

We're better off now, how?

Let's see, what could a vindictive fellow like Saddam cook up to take revenge on the nation that so humiliated him in the first Gulf war?

I don't know. With regular weapons inspections proving he didn't have any programs, he couldn't have cooked up anything worse than a war that killed 3000+ US soldiers, wounded another 15,000+, expanded the power funding prestige recruiting and training of Al Qaeda and added $500 billion to our debt?

LAI, is the Iraqi Parliamen... (Below threshold)
mantis:

LAI, is the Iraqi Parliament "sending the terrorists the wrong signal?" If so, how do you propose we respond?

You meant taking 2 month va... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

You meant taking 2 month vacation? We sent Cheney there to talk to them and also to counter the wrong signal from the US Congress.

Nice try, but geno... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Nice try, but genocide was insufficient justification for conservatives long before Iraq. Remember Bosnia?

So in your mind it's a contest to see who opposed invading to stop genocide first. Well I really don't care and it misses the point I'am trying to make. Conservatives got caught short when Iraq didn't have the advertised WMD and they were making the case that stopping or preventing genocide justified or at least helped justify going into Iraq. If liberals had embraced that idea there would now be a consensus that stopping genocide is sufficient justification to go to war. What would the world be like if the U.S. and it's allies could make that case to the UN and have it stick? Instead of acting with wisdom for the good of humankind, liberals acted in a petty manner.

Full. Of. Shit. It is appalling how blatantly full of shit you are willing to be.

See that's what I mean. We can't have a constructive conversation and the reason is the pettiness of the liberals. Say, didn't Kevin give you guys your own playpen. It would be nice if you stayed there an let grown ups have a productive conversation.

With regular weapons inspec... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

With regular weapons inspections proving there were no WMD's, we could have captured Bin Laden, secured Afghanistan, and gone after Al Qaeda. Then we'd actually be in a strong position if we had to do anything about Iraq - or Iran or North Korea, who have both been able to run wild while we were distracted with Iraq.
------------------------------------------------
With the oil-for-weapon corruption and Saddam openly used that money to fund the Hamas terrorists. Do you seriously believe that he wouldn't do anything with AlQ. If you really believe that then pick it up with Biden
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002


"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."


We're better off now, how?
---------------------------------
Before the Iraq war we had 2 successful attacks on the US homeland 1st and 2nd WTC (9/11). After the Iraq war, there is none so far.

LAI, "the evil of the enemy... (Below threshold)
jim:

LAI, "the evil of the enemy" is how all wars are sold.

Sometimes the enemy actually is evil. Hitler was, Milosevic was, Saddam was. But those still aren't the main reasons we invade. We, and all other governments, ***always and only*** invade when it's in their best interest to do so.

This is a simple fact of history. This is how the people are convinced to risk their lives and livelihood.

I'm a liberal, but I consider myself awake to this fact.

So, I am ***not*** saying that Clinton invaded Bosnia to stop evil. It is my opinion that Clinton invaded Bosnia to support European economic interests, which were threatened by Milosevic's upheavals. Had Milosevic been evil in an area that did *not* threaten upheaval to our allies' interests, such as Africa or Asia, I expect the same thing would have happened as in Rwanda, Darfur under this Bush, East Timor under Ford, etc. etc. - *nothing*.

LAI, here's some other inte... (Below threshold)
jim:

LAI, here's some other interesting GOP quotes opposing Clinton and the Bosnian intervention. I think they seem to show some opposition to Clinton, don't you?

"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

Jim, It is cheap to... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
It is cheap to second-guess a decision as the Dems in Congress have done. It it even more despicable for Clinton as a former pres to do so.

We are here and the terrorists consider Iraq is a life-and-death situation for them. They are willing to blow up more women/children to weaken public resolve. You know the consequences of leaving Iraq now. So it is unconsionbale for the Dems to do what they are doing now.

I think I have done enough for you. I cannot go around in circles.

Before the Iraq war we h... (Below threshold)
jim:

Before the Iraq war we had 2 successful attacks on the US homeland 1st and 2nd WTC (9/11). After the Iraq war, there is none so far.

Sigh.

First, you're forgetting the Anthrax attacks. Funny how that always slips out of the picture.

Second. IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.

Do you understand that? Nothing.

Not.

One.

Thing.

What did have something to do with 9/11? Al Qaeda. What has the invasion of Iraq done? Increase the power, prestige, funding, training and recruitment of Al Qaeda.

That's it, I'm done.

Yup, we knew why people opp... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Yup, we knew why people opposed Clinton 's war (you forgot the Lewinsky trial). Yet Newt Gingrich stood behind their president when the war started until it ended. After the war was over, then you can discuss it. You don't know the difference, Clinton and Carter and others went over sea to bash America and Bush when the war is on.

Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is
------------------------------------------------
The exit strategy is victory over the terrorists. We had a plan to do that now. Patreaus is the general who knows how to deal with Iraq, right? (liberals kept quoting his book on insurgency). And it is working as have shown. There are up and down in war. But one thing should be constant: we shouldn't lend a hand (esp PR hand in the important PR war) to the enemies.

You know the consequences of withdrawing from Iraq.

When you say "we l... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
When you say "we learned our lesson", 'We' means people like you - conservatives. You here are clearly indicating that the invasion of Iraq was undergone, by conservatives, to save the Iraqis from 'genocide'

No, I never said we invaded Iraq to stop genocide. You quoted what I said, but you took it out of context and then misunderstood it. We (the U.S.) invaded Iraq for a number of reasons, but high on the list was WMD. Only after the invasion and only after no stockpiles of WMD were found did conservatives float the idea the stopping or preventing genocide justified, at least in part, invading Iraq. Had liberals had the wisdom to seize the moment and embrace that idea the world would likely see less genocide in the future. Yes it would have required liberals to put aside politics and petty vendettas and act with wisdom. I'm not blaming anyone I'm just making the point that an opportunity was lost. Perhaps we should all be watching for such opportunities.

Here you are implying that the US government WOULD intervene to stop genocide, if the darn liberals weren't so shrill and mean. So, effectively, Darfur is liberal's fault. So I'm telling you this is wrong also.

If conservatives and liberals had not lost the opportunity to agree that stopping genocide justifies war then doing so in Darfur may have been possible. If so, then those who would practice genocide in the future would do so in fear for their own lives.

No, I don't mean the vacati... (Below threshold)
mantis:

No, I don't mean the vacation. Scroll up to what I linked the first time I asked you the question. Or just go up to the mainpage and read Jim's post about what the bill the Iraqi parliament is preparing.

Mantis, This is bad... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Mantis,
This is bad news. No way around it. We should have killed Sadr. If the majority of elected officials want the terrorists to win in Iraq. So be it. This is their country. They get to deal with Sadr now or we will have to withdraw. I would expect the Kurds to separate out and we need to protect them so at least we have one friend in that region. Let the Sunnis and Shiittees experience their mullahocracy if that 's what they choose.
This still doesn't excuse the terrorist-cheering rhetoric coming out the US congress. This kind of rhetoric encouraged the enemies to fight on. If the liberals have called for more boots on the ground or tougher measures to deal with these bad guys, then I can see it. The liberals in this country are only interested in American defeat in Iraq. Unfortunately, the Shiittes in Iraq didn't take the opportunity they have. It is bad.

Yes, and Bill and Hillary l... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Yes, and Bill and Hillary led us into the Balkans without a UN resolution, or a national security stake in the region.

But it's not OK if Bush does the opposite.

Hypocrites.

Democrats hate America and ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Democrats hate America and what we stand for. Republicans love America and all the wonderful things it has done for the world for 200+ years.

That's all you have to know. All the truth on this subject.

Fuck yourselves, libs. Go hate somewhere else.

American deaths due to comb... (Below threshold)
jim:

American deaths due to combat in Balkans involvement: 0

Terrorism increased as result? No
US national security threatened as a result? No

American deaths due to combat in Iraq: 3000+

Terrorism increased as result? Yes
US national security threatened as a result? Yes

The above facts are also important facts of "All the truth on the subject", don't you think?

Oh and just so you know, Mi... (Below threshold)
jim:

Oh and just so you know, Mitchell: a majority of Americans agree with the Democrats.

That means that either

a) a majority of Americans hate America

or

b) you're wrong

Why don't you try 'b' on for a bit? You know, it's actually possible for people to disagree with you and *not* hate America. Me personally, I'd think it would be more comforting to think that Democrats simply disagree with me, than to think that most of America hates America. Just a thought.

So in your mind it's a c... (Below threshold)
mantis:

So in your mind it's a contest to see who opposed invading to stop genocide first.

No, it is my intention to point out to you how full of shit in implying that conservatives really like to intervene to stop genocide, and it's those nasty liberals who have ruined it for them. You know it's bullshit, but you don't care. You know that liberals have supported military intervention to stop genocide far more than conservatives, and you know that our invasion in Iraq was nothing of the sort. You try a little sleight of hand with this:

but my point is that after no large stockpile of WMD was found in Iraq, many conservatives tried to justify the invasion, at least in part, on grounds of overthrowing a madman who had committed genocide.

That's punishment, not stopping genocide. But you continue with this:

Anyway, liberals would have none of it. Stopping genocide was not sufficient grounds for invading another nation. So be it.

You say that we are in Iraq to "stop genocide." By whom? Saddam? What genocide? You also ignore liberal support and conservative opposition to stopping actual genocide in the past. That's why you are full of shit.

Well I really don't care and it misses the point I'am trying to make. Conservatives got caught short when Iraq didn't have the advertised WMD and they were making the case that stopping or preventing genocide justified or at least helped justify going into Iraq.

When did they make this case? All I've heard about is terrorists terrorists terrorists. And what genocide is being stopped or prevented?

If liberals had embraced that idea there would now be a consensus that stopping genocide is sufficient justification to go to war.

Oh yes, if only liberals had embraced the idea that you just made up that conservatives have not been espousing, we would be unified. Good theory.

What would the world be like if the U.S. and it's allies could make that case to the UN and have it stick? Instead of acting with wisdom for the good of humankind, liberals acted in a petty manner.

It's not genocide we're stuck with now, it's the centuries-old religious struggle between Shia and Sunni, which neither we nor the UN can resolve. Added to which the fact that our adventure in Iraq has only served to dramatically increase terrorism in the world, your "stopping genocide" theory is a non-starter.

See that's what I mean. We can't have a constructive conversation and the reason is the pettiness of the liberals.

No, you and I can't have a constructive conversation because you are full of shit, grasping at straws, and blaming everything on "liberals" (boo!). I have plenty of constructive conversations with conservatives who don't spew bullshit all the time.




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