« Employee Free Choice Act Dies, Employee Free Choice Lives | Main | The Senate Votes for Cloture on the Immigration Bill »

This War is Right

America is at war. There are millions of people in the United States who are upset about that, some to the point that they are demanding we simply give up and leave Iraq, and hoping we just cut out and leave everywhere else we have troops. Others have grown tired of the war and quit the cause because it is not fun for them anymore, an option not available to the men sent to do the actual fighting. The President is unpopular, in part for doing the right thing and sticking to the commitment, knowing that many millions of lives depend on his decisions. The troops are largely well-motivated and determined to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan until those countries can defend themselves, and not succumb to the raging tide of Islamists who would kill or enslave all who stand in their way.

Thousands of American troops have died since the war began. War means death and destruction, and there is no possible way to conduct a war without some degree of injustice and suffering by innocents. So, I can understand the pain of loss and the fear that we might do evil by going to war. I could quote any number of wise sages and veterans, who warn against eagerly sending our young men to slaughter, to either suffer the pain or inflict it. Yet those who oppose all war are often unwilling to face the fact that war is sometimes necessary, sometimes right, sometimes ... inevitable, and the only way to deal properly with the situation is to win the thing so the same enemy won't have to be fought over and over and over again.

This war is right. Those who blame President Bush are short-sighted or liars. This war began when the nations of the Middle East gave way to the despots and extremists, who foolishly thought that the terrorists they created would not attack anyone in their number, but only go after external enemies, to dismay the West and make them leave the region and its treasures to the men who already held palaces and arrogant titles. This war was not declared by anyone in America, Republican or Democrat, but by the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. It grew and consumed first Iran, then spread through the Middle East, converting terrorists from greedy rabbles and craven opportunists, into religious monsters such as we have not seen in any country which keeps religious leaders and government power separate from each other. The enemy used oil as an early weapon, then added hijackings, kidnappings, the odd assassination and random murders in its arsenal, all the while proclaiming its victimhood to the media, which defected from the West and renamed itself the arbiter of the co-called 'Global Village' in order to collect more international subscribers.

The men who hijacked airliners, flew them into buildings and murdered thousands of innocent people in one day, they were not Americans nor did they love anything about America. It was not any American's fault that 9/11 happened, but it fell to America to answer in force. Because nothing but force would suffice.

Afghanistan and Iraq were legitimate targets. Afghanistan for harboring Al Qaeda, and Iraq for its many violations of the 1991 Cease-fire agreement. This war was approved by Congress, no matter what some pretend to say now. This war was not the only course considered, but other options proved unfeasible for the needs. Invading Afghanistan and Iraq was necessary, in order to prevent another 9/11-style attack on U.S. soil, in order to remove tyranny where it was most volatile, and to provide a check on the two most diabolical nations in the region; Iran and Syria. If nothing else, the war has demonstrated to the mullahs in Teheran and Damascus that they cannot dispatch terror with impunity.

This war has also reaffirmed America's post as the dominant force for stability. No one else has the ability or the will to remove significant threats from the region. Find any military officer and ask him what would happen if Russia or China tried to remove a despot from the Middle East, and they will remind you about Lebanon and Cambodia, about practical limits and psychological barriers. No, I am not saying America is better than other countries, but there are jobs which only America can do.

The cost of war is heavy and sharp, but the need for it cannot be ignored.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/22080.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference This War is Right:

» American Geek linked with Well said

Comments (172)

Yup.===... (Below threshold)
kim:

Yup.
===

Like it or not, the US, and... (Below threshold)
kim:

Like it or not, the US, and a variable coalition of the world's democracies is the world's civil authority. Would you have a more humane cop? Could you?
===================================

We were right to go into Af... (Below threshold)
Vegas Vic:

We were right to go into Afghanistan and Iraq. But Bush has refused to stop both Iran and Syria from exporting their terrorism. If you commit this country to war, you go to win and damn the politics! Give Iran & Syria 24 hours to remove their troops from Gaza, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Lebanon. If not, destroy their ability to wage war!! :-}

DJ, it is too bad we cannot... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

DJ, it is too bad we cannot get the President to use the bully pulpit, as he should have to counter the lying lefts spin on all of this. I understand there are democrats who want us to remove our troops from Afghanistan. Do you think the left is using a 1917 Russia template here. The idea being if the US is defeated, they can take over after disaster strikes us?

The war is great! Everythin... (Below threshold)
jim:

The war is great! Everything is awesome! It's good that we lost Osama Bin Laden!

Saddam caused 9/11 somehow! He's brown too! They're all brown, they're all in it together!

We never installed any despots in the Middle East! All who remember us supporting Saddam or the Shah of Iran or the Saudi Royal Family are liars who hate our freedom!

Iran/Contra never happened!

The emperor has clothes! Clap louder! Clap louder!

You sound bilious, jim. Ar... (Below threshold)
kim:

You sound bilious, jim. Are you feeling the surge to urp?
========================

This War is Right</p... (Below threshold)
jim:

This War is Right

Which war? The War against Terror? Or the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq? Because they're two different things.

The President is unpopular, in part for doing the right thing and sticking to the commitment, knowing that many millions of lives depend on his decisions.

And in part for letting members of his administration deliberately mislead and frighten the public; for completely ignoring any contrary information about the wisdom of invading Iraq; for putting complete incompetents in charge of the military and refusing to admit his mistakes until it's too late to salvage anything....

The troops are largely well-motivated and determined to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan until those countries can defend themselves, and not succumb to the raging tide of Islamists who would kill or enslave all who stand in their way.

Right. The raging tide of Islamists who are shooting at each other, and us who just happened to invade their country.

Yet those who oppose all war are often unwilling to face the fact that war is sometimes necessary, sometimes right, sometimes ... inevitable, and the only way to deal properly with the situation is to win the thing so the same enemy won't have to be fought over and over and over again.

And all those who are for war are often unwilling to face the fact that sometimes war is ***not necessary*** - and when it is not necessary, it is among the worst tragedies that can befall mankind. And the only way to deal with it properly is to face facts, so the same type of invasion for no good reason is never done again.

[cough]Viet Nam[/cough]

Those who blame President Bush are short-sighted or liars.

So Pat Buchanan is short-sighted, or a liar?

All those retired generals who spoke out against Rumsfeld - which are they?

General Shinsecki, who said we weren't invading with enough troops - which is he?

All those who said that the Bush administration's claims of the war paying for itself with the oil we're get - they're somehow short-sighted or liars, even though they've been proven right?

This war began when the nations of the Middle East gave way to the despots and extremists....

Oh, silly me. I thought it began on 9/11.

How did those despots get in power, do you think? I suppose it has nothing to do with how we ***put them there**** ????

This war was not declared by anyone in America, Republican or Democrat, but by the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979.

Sorry, who was taht before him? it was the Shah. The guy we put in, who so abused his people that they revolted and kicked him out - and who we then put in ***again***. So, the second time, his country went with a government that they could count on ***not*** to be our puppet - an American-hating extremist Islamic regime.

But we had nothing to do with causing this problem. It just happened. NOthing to see here.

People, this is how history repeats itself: when we refuse to think about where this mess came from. We caused it because we supported the oppression in the Middle East. That doesn't justify the murders committed against us - but if we want to eliminate the effects, we have to realize how we are contributing to the creation of these homicidal freaks. It's not about us taking blame for their actions - it's about preventing their creation in the first place.

Afghanistan and Iraq were legitimate targets. Afghanistan for harboring Al Qaeda, and Iraq for its many violations of the 1991 Cease-fire agreement.

I know you want to believe that. it would be a tragedy if we went into Iraq just because George Bush wanted to, and saw an opportunity.

Nevertheless, that's the way it is.

This war was approved by Congress, no matter what some pretend to say now.

a) it was not approved by Congress, no matter what some pretend to say now.

What was approved, was invasion IF Saddam refused to disarm. He was being inspected, no WMD's were found, no weapons program was found; and since we've invaded, nothing has been found.

All Bush had to do to be sure, was wait until the Inspectors finished, and then invaded. He didn't; he invaded before they finished their negative report. Why is that?

Invading Afghanistan and Iraq was necessary, in order to prevent another 9/11-style attack on U.S. soil,

!!!!

How was Saddam going to do that? Light a Persian rug on fire and put it in a catapult? 'Cause that's about all he had; and there *were no* Al Qaeda in Iraq until we invaded!!!

Why do you people continue to deny and avoid reality??

I know it can hurt your ego to be wrong, but come on!!


in order to remove tyranny where it was most volatile, and to provide a check on the two most diabolical nations in the region; Iran and Syria.

And now Iran and Syria have holds in Iraq, on the Civil War brewing between the Sunnis and the Shiites. Great.

If nothing else, the war has demonstrated to the mullahs in Teheran and Damascus that they cannot dispatch terror with impunity.

Uh-huh. The vast increase in the prestige, recruitment and funding of Al Qaeda, and the increase in terror attacks around the world, has sure shown that. Riiiiight.

The cost of war is heavy and sharp, but the need for it cannot be ignored.

The cost of war is heavy and sharp, and unnecessary wars that hurt our country while increasing the power of our enemies can not be ignored - they must be faced.

There's my urp.Jes... (Below threshold)
jim:

There's my urp.

Jesus, people.

And Zeldorf, just put that ... (Below threshold)
jim:

And Zeldorf, just put that stuff straight in a science fiction script and sell it to Fox. You'll probably be able to buy a house in Beverly Hills.

Thank-you for that Jerry Ri... (Below threshold)
Vegas Vic:

Thank-you for that Jerry Rivers moment jim.

jim,Thanks for put... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

jim,

Thanks for putting so many lies, distortions, half-truths, mindless rhetoric, anti-war talking points and samples of BDS into one glorious post.

In a word, which is all I have time for: retarded.

jim, you've not absorbed th... (Below threshold)
kim:

jim, you've not absorbed the lessons of Duelfer and Rossett. Saddam needed to be deposed. You've bought Joe Wilson's lie.
===================================

jim:Why do you pe... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

jim:
Why do you people continue to deny and avoid reality??

Talking to the voices in your head again ?

jim, you're a sad goofball.... (Below threshold)
SAHMmy:

jim, you're a sad goofball.

Reacting with violence is the only thing those bastards understand. Anything else is surrender.

Bush has let this mission get all effed up from here to Sunday, but that doesn't change the fact that a military reaction is the right reaction to these evil thugs. Murderers of innocent men, women and especially children. Why the HELL am I supposed to care what happens to jihadis?

So many govts and organizations are squeezing their sphincters SO tight in hopes of NOT enflaming the muslims, well, that just ain't possible. They are afraid. We cannot be. We have to be willing to fight them, not negotiate.

And our military, while not perfect (human as they are) have conducted themselves tremendously and deserve nothing but our deep gratitude and unflinching support.

Which war? The War again... (Below threshold)

Which war? The War against Terror? Or the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq? Because they're two different things.

So there's never been terrorists in Iraq and we're not fighting them there?

Funny, AlQ seems to think Iraq is a big deal to them, too bad you libtards can't take this seriously.

jim, you've not absor... (Below threshold)

jim, you've not absorbed the lessons of Duelfer and Rossett.

But has taken well the historical legacy of Joe Kennedy and Lindbergh

Thanks for putting so ma... (Below threshold)
jim:

Thanks for putting so many lies, distortions, half-truths, mindless rhetoric, anti-war talking points and samples of BDS into one glorious post.

I guess I shouldn't have quoted so much of Drummond
s piece. Oh, sorry, that's BMLS - Bush Man-Love Syndrome.

In a word, which is all I have time for: retarded.

That's quite a logical refutation.

jim, you've not absorbed... (Below threshold)
jim:

jim, you've not absorbed the lessons of Duelfer and Rossett. Saddam needed to be deposed. You've bought Joe Wilson's lie.

Jim, you've not absorbed the lessons of news reporting of the last 5 years. Saddam didn't need to be deposed. You've bought that Joe Wilson lied, when he was proven right.

I'm sure this will now balloon into an argument where I prove every one of my citations, and you will all conveniently forget it the next time someone brings up the same soothing points again.

Nevertheless: saying he lied doesn't make it so. Reality remains.

Don't bother jim, really. ... (Below threshold)
SAHMmy:

Don't bother jim, really. Delusions based on lies and distortions aren't impressive to non-liberals.

*shrug*

"This war has also reaffirm... (Below threshold)
rob:

"This war has also reaffirmed America's post as the dominant force for stability."

DJ,

good post, but i have to call you out on this one. where, in the theater of which you speak, have we sewn this "stability"? Even an optimist has to concede that Iraq and Afghanistan are 2 of the more unstable countries in the entire world, despite the injection of hundreds of billions of dollars of western capital, supervised elections and coalition blood. Foreign Policy magazine recently out both in the top 10 (with Iraq at #2) on its Failed States index. We may be good at brandishing our notion of morally sound justice around the world, but calling us a stabilizing force is just way off the mark.

Sahhmy, you're a happy goof... (Below threshold)
jim:

Sahhmy, you're a happy goofball.

Reacting with violence is the only thing those bastards understand. Anything else is surrender.

So it's great that we didn't actually defeat Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda or the Taliban, isn't it? Instead we invaded a country that didn't attack us - Iraq.

Boy, we sure showed our attackers.

Why the HELL am I supposed to care what happens to jihadis?

You aren't.

here's the point:

Because of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the jihadis who attacked us ****are getting away****.

Do you understand that?

Iraq didn't attack us. Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda attacked us.

Now OBL is free and hiding in Pakistan, Al Qaeda is flourishing, and the Taliban is resurging.

And our military, while not perfect (human as they are) have conducted themselves tremendously and deserve nothing but our deep gratitude and unflinching support.

They absolutely do.

What they don't deserve is to be marched off into a battle that has ****nothing to do with the people who attacked us*****.

Do you understand this???

Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.

Not one thing, zero, nada, zilch, zippo. As many human languages that containt the concept "nothing", are the many different ways he had anything to do with 9/11.

Do you understand this? Please tell me that you understand this.

So there's never been te... (Below threshold)
jim:

So there's never been terrorists in Iraq and we're not fighting them there?

You're half right, steve of Norway.

Iraq had less Al Qaeda than perhaps any other Middle Eastern nation, before we invaded. Except in the North region, which Saddam didn't control.

They came to the rest of Iraq ***because*** we invaded. Now they're fighting and training against us, and encouraging a Civil War so we can be caught in the middle.

Funny, AlQ seems to think Iraq is a big deal to them,

Sure it is! It's a great way to strike at us. It's like we've stuck our face through a hole in a fence, and they can keep wacking it with a plank. That what makes Operation FaceFence a bad idea.

That's what you Rightards don't seem to get.

You know, why do I bother?<... (Below threshold)
jim:

You know, why do I bother?

Go ahead and believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11;

that Saddam had WMD's which no one's found any evidence of;

that Al Qaeda's post-Iraq surge in funding, recruting, and prestige means we're winning;

that the Iraq ***and*** worldwide increase in terror attacks means we're winning;

that the Taliban's resurgence in Afghanistan means we're winning;

and that the constant escalation in troops means we're winning.

Have fun in fantasy land.

If nothing else, the ... (Below threshold)

If nothing else, the war has demonstrated to the mullahs in Teheran and Damascus that they cannot dispatch terror with impunity.

Jim
This was, in my opinion (but DJ's words) the linchpin of the argument for war.

Terror was dispensed with impunity in the 1990's...how often does this have to be repeated?:

First WTC Bombing
US African Embassay bombings
Khobar Towers Bombing
Attack on the USS Cole

Like I said, delusions.... (Below threshold)
SAHMmy:

Like I said, delusions.

Apples and oranges, jim. No one did I say that Saddam orchestrated 9/11. Sheesh.

And enticing jihadis TO Iraq to kill them there was part of the plan, btw. And by golly we are killing them there. Go figure.

jim, Duelfer detailed that ... (Below threshold)
kim:

jim, Duelfer detailed that Saddam intended to get WMD, and Rossett showed how he was going to do it. Joe Wilson, in a Feb. 6, 2003 op-ed in the LATimes said we should not invade Iraq for fear that Saddam would use his chemical and biological WMD on our troops. He is a liar, and either a coward or a traitor, yet to be determined.

Surely you are not really going to defend the tyranny of Saddam. If not, how else was he to go?
==============================

NoWHERE did I say Saddam or... (Below threshold)
SAHMmy:

NoWHERE did I say Saddam orchestrated 9/11, rather.

Who sent Joe Wilson to Afri... (Below threshold)
kim:

Who sent Joe Wilson to Africa in 2002? Val Plame now has three different stories. Who sent him the previous three trips he had made to Africa for the CIA?
===============================

Hugh - exactly what of thos... (Below threshold)
jim:

Hugh - exactly what of those 1990 incidents has anything to do with Iraq in 2003?

Why do you bother, jim, wit... (Below threshold)
kim:

Why do you bother, jim, with tired talking points. All these things that you ironically ask if they are signs of winning, do you believe they are signs we are losing? If so, do you propose to keep losing, or do you have a better plan? You could go point by point.

Remember, I quarrel with some of your putative signs of losing, but we can get into that in a minute, if you care to address them.
========================

Sahhmmy, if you read the re... (Below threshold)
jim:

Sahhmmy, if you read the reports, we are creating terrorists fasting than we're killing them, **because** we're in Iraq.

That's the problem. Killing one and creating two is a net loss - and the more you kill this way, the **worse** things get.

Well, since you are all at ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well, since you are all at least aware that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 - why even talk about them in the same breath?

The War on Terror is not, and has nothing to do with, any reasonable rationale for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

jim, in 2003 most of the De... (Below threshold)
kim:

jim, in 2003 most of the Democrats thought it was a good idea to go to war with Saddam. Duelfer and Rossett have detailed why they were right.

You are stuck with defending the rule of Saddam, if you think it was wrong to get rid of him. Why would you defend Saddam?
==========================

September 29th, 1992,... (Below threshold)

September 29th, 1992, Al Gore at the Center for National Policy

Go find this speech on YouTube if you can. I found it on a password protected site.

Then tell me that Bush lied. If he did, and he wasn't President yet, maybe your guy lied too. Look it up.

And Jim,

Iraq had less Al Qaeda than perhaps any other Middle Eastern nation, before we invaded .
And Belgium had fewer Nazi's before Normandy, but the Nazi's somehow "found" their way there when the 101st Airborne arrived.

Your ignorance of millitary strategy, tactics and history is stunning.
When Japan invaded Pearl, their millitary presence on Iwo Jima was minimal. When Allied forces invaded Iwo four years later Japenese positions were fortified and reinforced by orders of magnitude. I guess they did that because of a failed U S President that stirred their hornet's nest and pissed of all U S allies.

Kim, whatever. Wilson said ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Kim, whatever. Wilson said Saddam was not trying to get uranium from Niger, and couldn't get it even if he ***was*** trying because the mines were closely managed by our international allies. This was subsequently proven right.

Whatever foo-foo-rah about exactly who sent him, is entirely besides the point.

Hugh - exactly what o... (Below threshold)

Hugh - exactly what of those 1990 incidents has anything to do with Iraq in 2003?

Bin Laden
Bin Laden
Bin Laden
Bin Laden

But, I'm only taking the guy at his word.

Nor do I say that Saddam ha... (Below threshold)
kim:

Nor do I say that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. There are more links now than when the anti-war crowd developed the meme that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. You have a worn out loser ethic and attitude. The Iraqis are glad we got rid of Saddam; not the Sunni, however even they are adapting to a democratic Iraq.
=============================

And Belgium had fewer Na... (Below threshold)
jim:

And Belgium had fewer Nazi's before Normandy, but the Nazi's somehow "found" their way there when the 101st Airborne arrived.

And only the first two of at least seven reasons why this metaphor doesn't at all fit, is that:

a) Al Qaeda was in no way in league with Saddam, and in no way invaded or was going to invade Iraq

b) FDR did not get bogged down in Belgium and allow Hitler to run free and disappear, and then later say "Oh, I'm not really concerned about him."

I'll leave the other 5 reasons to you all as an exercise.

That WWII metaphor, Hugh, i... (Below threshold)
jim:

That WWII metaphor, Hugh, is an example of why I put such emphasis on the utter, total and complete lack of any connection between 9/11, Saddam and Al Qaeda.

You guys say and say that you know there is no connection - but you keep making arguments that imply there is one.

****There is no connection.****

JimHugh - exac... (Below threshold)

Jim
Hugh - exactly what of those 1990 incidents has anything to do with Iraq in 2003?

I almost forgot J's "rule": diversion. You didn't address MY point.

Hugh - exactly what of t... (Below threshold)
jim:

Hugh - exactly what of those 1990 incidents has anything to do with Iraq in 2003?

Bin Laden
Bin Laden
Bin Laden
Bin Laden

But, I'm only taking the guy at his word.

OMFG!

Wow.

****Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.****

Do you all understand this? do you get it?

And further:

*****Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.****

Do you get this? If you do not, please tell me and we can go over this again.

No, who sent him is precise... (Below threshold)
kim:

No, who sent him is precisely the point because among the lies sourced to him was that Cheney had sent him. Kristoff and Pincus said it, but Joe and probably Val told them.

Joe's original report to the CIA was ambiguous but tended to support the idea that Saddam had sought Nigerien yellow cake in 1999. After the start of the war, he misrepresented what he had told the CIA a year earlier.

You cannot find citations that refute that paragraph above. Joe Wilson is a liar, and is about to be revealed, again. The SSCI did a pretty thorough job of it in 2004, but the beast has reared its ugly head again.
===========================

The only problem with the w... (Below threshold)
Gator:

The only problem with the war is it's not a war. One soldier goes down to get a pack of cigarettes and gets blown up by an idiot. This is the way I see this so called war, if not, show me the casualties. Already a news blip says, we're going to sue Iraq 10 billion a year, for WMD investigations. Why 10 billion ? I wanna see how we're going to pull that off by next year anyway ?

Do you really think you can park this ship of democracy in the middle of Islam ? Three billion Islamics respecting it ? Somewhere along the lines we're going to have to make a good policy instead of using wishful thinking as our directives.

If they were like the inhabitants of the Figi Islands during 1839, the lord would've took care of them with "measles", but this is different, vastly different; they're on the threshold of nuclear !?

We're all going to have to wake up, the Islamics didn't take down our Towers, there's more to the story and by keep blaming Islamics, this sets a president for future, and more deadly attacks.

Hugh, I've seen the 1992 sp... (Below threshold)
jim:

Hugh, I've seen the 1992 speech, and commented on it extensively...while arguing with a lot of people on this site, including even you I think.

Here's the thing: 1992 is not 2003.

In the intervening 11 years, under relentless pressure, Saddam got rid of his WMD's and was forced to quit any and all WMD programs.

Thus, in 2003, Saddam Hussein was thoroughly inspected and no weapons were found.

Do you understand this?

You can bury your head in t... (Below threshold)
kim:

You can bury your head in the sand and refuse to see connections between Saddam and international Islamic terrorism but that doesn't mean they don't exist. You do know he regularly paid the families of suicide bombers in Israel? What was to prevent him from supporting such here?
===========================

Hugh, you are either missin... (Below threshold)
jim:

Hugh, you are either missing my point or creating a new one.

My point is: the war on Terror is ***not*** served by the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Your bringing up of terror incidents in the 1990's do not at all provide a reason for why I am wrong, and we ***should have*** invaded Iraq to reduce terror.

jim, you bullheaded thing y... (Below threshold)
kim:

jim, you bullheaded thing you. I've told you that Duelfer claimed Saddam wanted WMD and Rossett showed how he was getting them. Please don't keep repeating your tired old talking points about how harmless Saddam was. We know better.
==========================

So how would you confront r... (Below threshold)
kim:

So how would you confront radical Islam?
==========================

You can bury your head i... (Below threshold)
jim:

You can bury your head in the sand and refuse to see connections between Saddam and international Islamic terrorism but that doesn't mean they don't exist. You do know he regularly paid the families of suicide bombers in Israel? What was to prevent him from supporting such here?

I think I am now bringing this up for the 10,000th time...for some reason it never sticks. But you are aware that Saudi Arabia, our alleged ally, has far exceeded Saddam Hussein in funding Palestinian bombers in every single way?

As for what was to prevent him from doing such here - how about what prevented him from doing that throughout the entire 1990's? How about we deal with real threats, before we invent hypothetical ones?

I mean besides confronting ... (Below threshold)
kim:

I mean besides confronting state sponsors of terrorism, and pursuing renegades?
===================

Saddam was a real threat. ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Saddam was a real threat. Duelfer and Rossett document it. I'm sorry you refuse to see it.
===================

So how would you confron... (Below threshold)
jim:

So how would you confront radical Islam?

Before or after the unnecessary invasion of Iraq?

Before it, I would:

1) capture Osama Bin Laden, hang him from a scaffold the height of the WTC, let vultures pick his bones for three months, then have him burned, and have the ashes fed to pigs.

2) capture and round up Al Qaeda, and execute them

3) stabilize Afghanistan, give them a different crop to grow than Heroin

4) then deal with the next actual threat

Saddam was a real threat... (Below threshold)
jim:

Saddam was a real threat. Duelfer and Rossett document it. I'm sorry you refuse to see it.

Sorry, Kim - where were those WMD's again?

Kim, Saddam could have want... (Below threshold)
jim:

Kim, Saddam could have wanted laser-headed death robots. The point is, he didn't have them and couldn't get them. Therefore he was not a threat. Therefore you deal with the actual threats before you create ones that don't yet exist.

American soldiers are worki... (Below threshold)
Jessica:

American soldiers are working arduously for peace and stability in Iraq, risking their own lives to do so. Yet, the evidence has shown and continues to show that we are attempting to fight a battle which has already been lost.

Today, the defense budget is $522 billion, largely due to the war in Iraq. To put this number in perspective, one needs only to know that it would take only $19 billion--a fraction of this year's defense budget--to eliminate starvation and malnutrition worldwide. Recognizing the achievability of eliminating global hunger, the United States has publicly committed itself to this goal by signing the United Nation's Millennium Development Goals, which call for cutting world hunger in half by 2015 and eliminating it altogether by 2025. Hence, by disengaging in the Iraq War, which has cost the United States upwards of $340 billion dollars thus far, the United States can begin to fulfill its international commitments and addresses, among other pressing world problems, the easily combatable one of world hunger.

Gator, that 'disturbance in... (Below threshold)
kim:

Gator, that 'disturbance in the ether' you sensed was the Towers falling into your fever swamp.
=============================

Jessica, 9/11 was a trillio... (Below threshold)
kim:

Jessica, 9/11 was a trillion dollar hit to the economy. So far, Bush's policies have prevented another similar hit.

The threat is there in Rossett and Duelfer if you care to read it. Where are his WMD? Maybe buried, maybe in Syria and Libya, but more precisely in his ability to ramp up production, particularly of anthrax, quickly, once sanctions were removed. It is naive of you to claim Saddam was no threat. He was every bit as dangerous as we suspected.
==========================

"Afghanistan and Iraq were ... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

"Afghanistan and Iraq were legitimate targets."

A few things we can agree on..

After 5 and 1/2 years the U.S. and Nato have been unable to stabilize the Afghan economy to a point where they are not dependent on increasing poppy cultivation. Tribal warlords control more of Afghanistan than we do...

Iraq?

The reason for our continued failure..the reality in both nations does not demonstrate success..
Is a direct result of the leadership from Cheney/Bush and a Republican Congress for 6 years...and of course those who blindly support this failure with no demand for accountability..

We attacked Afghanistan because 9/11 would not have happened without that nation being the base...but instead of putting 150,000 troops and hundred of billions of $$ there....Afghanistan could have been a strong democracy with a revitalized economy...
We went into Iraq...

Now...if Iran or any other place would demand a military response...we maybe we could respond...but it is clear our nation is now incapable of a successful follow-up...

So go ahead and continue to shift the blame from those who deserve it....

You support Bush/Cheney...not the troops or their families

http://icasualties.org/oif/


You are a joke. I ask you ... (Below threshold)
kim:

You are a joke. I ask you how you would confront radical Islam and you give me Monday Morning Quarterbacking.
===============================

"Tribal warlords control mo... (Below threshold)
kim:

"Tribal warlords control more of Afghanistan than we do." That's like saying the government of Iraq controls more of Iraq than we do.
====================

This is hysterical; the wor... (Below threshold)
Aria:

This is hysterical; the worse the war gets, the more raving and loony the most diehard war supporters get.

Hey DJ maybe its time for y... (Below threshold)
dr lava:

Hey DJ maybe its time for your family to step in and get you some help.

You have been dead wrong on every aspect of this Iraq occupation just as you have been wrong in your submissive surrender to all policies coming out of this administration.

You know for a fact that if this was a Democrats war you would have been advocating impeachment years ago.

Do you have any self respect left?

Saddam is rightfully dead..... (Below threshold)
mogo postal:

Saddam is rightfully dead...shouldn't our problems be over?...Mission accomplished?....and please don't claim that U.S. KIA and wounded are all the action of Al-Q....

so jim, how do you explain ... (Below threshold)
SAHMmy:

so jim, how do you explain the existence of all those terrorists BEFORE we invaded Iraq?

They are opposed to US, they intend to destroy US no matter what we do or don't do.

Why don't you get THAT?!

The threat is there in R... (Below threshold)
jim:

The threat is there in Rossett and Duelfer if you care to read it.

Well, Kim, can you quote it for me? Because here's what I found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Group#Duelfer_Report

"Saddam ended his nuclear program in 1991. ISG found no evidence of concerted efforts to restart the program, and Iraq's ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after 1991."

In January 2005, the group announced the conclusion of its search. The ISG stated that while it had, "not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003," they acknowledged "the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability."

At the same link, another later 2005 addenda included:

"ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place"

However, I know you don't trust wikipedia. So, please please quote me something directly from either of the reports that contradicts it.

Because the bottom line is:
The Weapons Inspectors didn't find them when they were there, looking, and didn't think they were there in 2003. Right before they had to flee for their lives when Bush invaded anyway.

Just popping in to see how ... (Below threshold)

Just popping in to see how things are going.

[] Wild, unsupported claims by the Left: check

[] Personal smears from the Left: check (sadly, also a couple from the Right against the trolls)

[] Near-panic in the Left that we might actually win this war: check

Yep, right on schedule.

Thanks for all your hard work, Jim. You do realize that most of what you have written in these comments, actually proves my secondary points? Ahhh, gotta love the irony.

Where are his WMD? Maybe... (Below threshold)
jim:

Where are his WMD? Maybe buried, maybe in Syria and Libya,

And maybe they were spirited to Smurfworld by a squadron of Gargamils.

However, the overwhelming evidence points to the WMD's not even existing in the first place.

...but more precisely in his ability to ramp up production, particularly of anthrax, quickly, once sanctions were removed. It is naive of you to claim Saddam was no threat. He was every bit as dangerous as we suspected.

So, keep sanctioning his butt, and keep inspecting him until he dies of old age!

Meanwhile you deal with the threats that are on the table.

Hey, DJ. Glad to help. Can ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Hey, DJ. Glad to help. Can you help me even more?

Wild, unsupported claims by the Left: check

Which claims are these? I'd love to see what they are, so I can correct them.

Personal smears from the Left: check

Which personal smears are these? I assume you're not accusing me of anything. If you are, let me know.

Near-panic in the Left that we might actually win this war: check

I understand you think that victory is just around the corner. Hey, I hope you're right. I'm just looking at the facts. Sorry you think dealing with facts and evidence is panic. You're welcome to your fantasyland calm.

They are opposed to US, ... (Below threshold)
jim:

They are opposed to US, they intend to destroy US no matter what we do or don't do.

I get that.

What I'm telling you is, they weren't in Iraq!!!

Invading a place where the enemy is ***not***, so he can escape and you get bogged down in a new front, is ****not a success****.

Wild, unsupported claims... (Below threshold)
Aria:

Wild, unsupported claims by the Left: check

Like, there were no WMDS in Iraq
There was no Saddam-Al Qaeda connection
That'd we be greeted as liberators
That the oil would pay for itself
That 'when they stand up, we'll stand down.'

[] Personal smears from the Left: check

You mean like these:

jim,

Thanks for putting so many lies, distortions, half-truths, mindless rhetoric, anti-war talking points and samples of BDS into one glorious post.

In a word, which is all I have time for: retarded.
Posted by: Peter F. at June 26, 2007 07:04 PM

jim:
Why do you people continue to deny and avoid reality??

Talking to the voices in your head again ?
Posted by: _Mike_ at June 26, 2007 07:32 PM

I read the post a few times to be sure, but I didn't see any personal smears against you DJ. Perhaps you can point them out?

Near-panic in the Left that we might actually win this war:

And your evidence, other than your laughably bad personal assertions that we might actually win the war are, what exactly? And again, did we invade Iraq to capture it? What does winning entail?

Your dishonestly and delusions are really getting the better of you DJ. And I have to ask, when are you going to put a link on this site endorsing the US Army, since this war is so right?

I'm not even looking for su... (Below threshold)
SAHMmy:

I'm not even looking for success thus far, Bush has allowed so much crap to get in the way of success it's pathetic, and it's asinine to imagine a struggle of this magnitude to be over in 5 short years.

This is one of my favorites from you...

"Thus, in 2003, Saddam Hussein was thoroughly inspected and no weapons were found."

Thoroughly? REALLY?

See, that is why it's impossible to take you seriously. You put words in the mouth of others and make ridiculous statements like that.

Jim said,<br /... (Below threshold)

Jim said,

****Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.****

Do you all understand this? do you get it?

And further:

*****Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.****

Do you get this? If you do not, please tell me and we can go over this again.

No, we are not going over this again.

Jim, you have no historical knowledge that exceeds KosKids talking points. Here is the historical case:

Did Mussolini design the strategic and tactical plan to invade Pearl? If not, why did we invade his conquered territory in 1942?

For that matter, why did we invade North Africa after we were attacked on our own soil by the Japanese?

The US does not prosecute strategic military campaigns based on the theory that "I'll hit the guy who hit me". That is schoolyard strategy, but I think you'll never grasp the meaning of strategic response.

UBL struck our country repeatedly in the 1990's. We responded, only after 9/11, by destroying his base and future proxies (except Iran)...Afghanistan, Hussein and hopefully Iran.

Here is some historical perspective that I'm certain you haven't studied but I'm sure Hussein and Iran studied from their Russian tutors. Hitler despised and loathed Mussolini. But he coddled him, even made his greatest field commander (Rommel) grovel before him. Hitler did this because the Italian was useful to him for a period. You deny that Hussein used UBL. You deny that Hussein was involved in 9/11. Maybe he wasn't. But you ignore their strategic response after the attack (UBL taking credit for everything), or better said, you ignore that either or both might exploit the aftermath of the attack.

Jim, guys like you make conservatives worry because you constantly react to events instead of anticipating and executing actions that are in our own national security interests. You rush to blame and fail to lead.

If you're a real liberal Jim, look to the leadership of the father of American liberalism: FDR. He knew who the enemy was and destroyed them. Do you think he stayed awake a few nights answering the notes of Pearl Harbor widows as he prosecuted a Europe first strategy? Bush is prosecuting a strategy that will gain the US a military presence in the Middle East just as we maintained one in Germany for over half a century. That is the end game.

You are a joke. I ask yo... (Below threshold)
jim:

You are a joke. I ask you how you would confront radical Islam and you give me Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

It's not Monday morning quarterbacking. If anything, it's Sunday morning quarterbacking, 6 weeks before the game.

How often do I go through this? Do I need to post the sources again? The results of the 1999 War Games, that showed we'd need a minimum force of 400,000 soldiers to succeed in Iraq? The statements of General Shinseki? The statements of Bush's own father, on the folly of invading and occupying iraq? The results of the multiple post-2001 weapons inspections, ignored by Bush? The results of the reports of the IAEA, also ignored by Bush? The information which Bush had, but which he deliberately held back from the Congress and the public because it would weaken the case for invading?

If I provide a citation for each and every one of those things, showing the information that was able to Bush before he invaded that showed it was a terrible idea to invade because it was unnecessary and would prove a **detriment** to the War on Terror - would you believe it this time?

Evening, Jim. I'm working ... (Below threshold)

Evening, Jim. I'm working up for midterms, so I don't have a lot of time, but I do like clarity.

So to your questions:

First, your 6:12 post set the tone, by falsely trying to build a strawman instead of addressing the actual article. I never connected Saddam with 9/11, I connected him with the threat of Terrorism. We found Abu NIdal in Iraq, we found Carlos the Jackal in Iraq, we found literally tens of thousands of suicide-bomber vests in warehouses in Iraq, we found several terrorist training camps in Iraq, we found documentation that Saddam was funding and supplying terrorist groups ... et cetera. You ducked those so much you're looking a bit, well, Daffy.

The personal smears were not from you. Read through the thread again if you're keen to see them, I don't plan on highlighting a boor.

And if you want to be treated with respect, you'll need to show a bit more attention to the facts. You're arguing with emotion, but not really proving your case. Granted, I tossed off my claims as well, but at least my position held some cogency.

While we're chatting so amiably, can you tell me why you obsess with Osama? Yes, I'd like him neatly dead as well, in fact I think he's been dead for a while, but we both know that one terrorist with an ego is hardly all of the problem. Al Qaeda could be wiped off the map, and frankly for all intents the original organization was blown to smithereens, few people seem to pay attention that all the top leadership have been killed, captured, or pop off from locations so dubious that no one knows if they are still coughing out orders, have been killed and are existing only as a propaganda tool, or have simply become irrelevent because the group wants fresh leaders. That's one reason why the War on Terror is being fought the way it is; to eradicate the notion that state-sponsored terrorism and patron-sponsored terrorism will prove costly and futile, and therefore nations like Iraq and Syria will abandon that practice. How, by the way, do you think Hamas gets its weapons? A Mid-east Wal-Mart for killing?

The worst thing that could happen for the Left, politrically, is to have it proven that they backed the wrong horse. If we get a clear win, the fact that the Democrats were on the wrong side most certainly will cost them at the polls, while - cynical as it is - heavy casualties of troops in the Middle East can and will be played by the Left as a scare tactic to grab more power. Hey, it's the Gore/Kerry/Obama/Clinton playbook, but I'd sure think it sucks to be rooting against the Marines the way you guys do.

Wait a second, I defend my ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Wait a second, I defend my remark that jim's second post was, in fact, retarded; it contained everything I said it did--lies, distortions, half-truths, mindless rhetoric, etc. It is intellectually and factually delayed. By calling his post "retarded", I was in no way calling jim himself "retarded". Sorry if you took it that way, but it wasn't the case.

I've lurked here quite a bi... (Below threshold)
dc64:

I've lurked here quite a bit but feel this commentary deserves a response. I've always felt that invading Iraq was unnecessary and strategically unsound. When the white house started talking about Iraq and WMD's, I made 3 predictions:

1. We were going to invade, _regardless_ of what inspectors found or didn't find

2. No WMD's would be found.

3. The occupation would be disaster (as predicted by some historians and middle eastern experts)

I never believed that Iraq had WMD's and even if they did, so what? The Soviet Union planted WMD's in Cuba in 1962 and we managed to face down that threat without invading Cuba. In the post 9/11 era, we've seem to set the bar for what constitutes a threat to our existence much lower.

We've also lost our patience. We faced down the Soviet Union for about 50 years and found the policy of containment worked well. We talked tough when needed and the USSR always knew we had the muscle to back it up if needed. General Anthony Zinni, who was in charge of CENTCOM before being removed by Bush, lays out this argument well in this speech:

http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=2208

If we hadn't invaded Iraq, Saddam would probably still be doing his best to get under our skin, but we're adults - we could've handled it.

Did Mussolini design the... (Below threshold)
jim:

Did Mussolini design the strategic and tactical plan to invade Pearl? If not, why did we invade his conquered territory in 1942?

I'll stop you right there, Hugh:

Mussolini and Hitler were allies.

Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were ***not*** alies.

Do you get that?

Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were ***not*** allies.

Therefore any and all metaphors for our invasions in WWII do not fit.

For that matter, why did we invade North Africa after we were attacked on our own soil by the Japanese?

We attacked the Japanese because they attacked us. Did Saddam attack us in 2001? No. Nor was Saddam allied with anyone who attacked us.

We invaded North Africa to drive the Nazis out, get a strategic base, cut off supplies to the Nazis, and weaken them before invading their country.

When we invaded Afghanistan, we had ***already invaded**** the home base of Al Qaeda.

The US does not prosecute strategic military campaigns based on the theory that "I'll hit the guy who hit me".

Then why did we invade Afhganistan?

That is schoolyard strategy, but I think you'll never grasp the meaning of strategic response.

I hope you'll grasp the strategy of invading nations to reduce threats to our country...not to increase them.

Here is some historical perspective that I'm certain you haven't studied but I'm sure Hussein and Iran studied from their Russian tutors. Hitler despised and loathed Mussolini.

here is some historical perspective: Saddam and Bin Laden were not allies ***even though*** they hated each other.

Saddam and Bin Laden have ****never done anything for each other****, and hated each other.

You deny that Hussein used UBL. You deny that Hussein was involved in 9/11. Maybe he wasn't.

Thanks for at least giving me that.

But you ignore their strategic response after the attack (UBL taking credit for everything), or better said, you ignore that either or both might exploit the aftermath of the attack.

HOW???

With what - flinging camel dung across the border??

Jim, guys like you make conservatives worry because you constantly react to events instead of anticipating and executing actions that are in our own national security interests. You rush to blame and fail to lead.

Hugh, guys like you worry me because you apparently refuse to acknowledge factual evidence. You rush to excuse Bush because you'd hate to admit that it's possible, that a Republican conservative could make decisions that badly. You rush to excuse and fail to face reality.

You shuold look to FDR, yourself. He didn't attack the Nazis by invading India.

Bush is prosecuting a strategy that will gain the US a military presence in the Middle East just as we maintained one in Germany for over half a century. That is the end game.

Sure - and he's ****failing**** at the end game. And this is because he refuses to acknowledge, and has refused to acknowledge, reality. He wanted to think with his "gut" - and forgot why we have brains as well. And now he's just waiting out the clock, to hand the bag to another President so he can say "not my fault".

Jim: Quaack!... (Below threshold)

Jim: Quaack!

He wanted to think... (Below threshold)
John in CA:
He wanted to think with his "gut" - and forgot why we have brains as well.

And the last president only thought with his political brain, and didn't have any guts; hence, a large part of the reason we ended up with a smoking hole in the ground in NYC.

jim, Duelfer also showed th... (Below threshold)
kim:

jim, Duelfer also showed that Saddam intended to get WMD, and Rossett shows how he was subverting the sanctions and the inspections. You selectively quoting from Wikipedia does not diminish the menace that Saddam was. You don't seem to understand that we were not going to be able inspect and sanction him forever. Nice dream, though.
==============================

Like the war? Send your kid... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Like the war? Send your kids to the front lines!

dc64, even Joe Wilson belie... (Below threshold)
kim:

dc64, even Joe Wilson believed that Saddam had WMD, as did many.
========================

thanks for taking the time ... (Below threshold)
jim:

thanks for taking the time out, DJ.

So to your questions:

First, your 6:12 post set the tone, by falsely trying to build a strawman instead of addressing the actual article. I never connected Saddam with 9/11, I connected him with the threat of Terrorism.

Exactly my point. And I was addressing the article directly - because you are directly linking the War on Terror with the invasion and occupation of Iraq - when they are two different and separate things.

Saddam had nothing to do with any acts of terrorism against us. And very specifically nothing to do with 9/11. And that's all there is to that.

We found Abu NIdal in Iraq, we found Carlos the Jackal in Iraq,

And we found terrorists in Germany, France and Brooklyn. Does that mean we should invade Bed-Stuy?

Meanwhile the support for Al Qaeda and other organizations who hate us come from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Syria. Great.

we found literally tens of thousands of suicide-bomber vests in warehouses in Iraq,

Years after we invaded.

we found several terrorist training camps in Iraq,

In the Northern part of Iraq, that Saddam did not control.

we found documentation that Saddam was funding and supplying terrorist groups

Palestinian bombers, which as I've already noted in another comment is far outweighed by Saudi support of same. Happy to cite this if you wish.

... et cetera. You ducked those so much you're looking a bit, well, Daffy.

Looks to me like that's the first time you've made those specific points. Prove me wrong, and show me where you posted them earlier. Otherwise please retract this and admit you're wrong.

The personal smears were not from you.

OK then. Just being sure.

And if you want to be treated with respect, you'll need to show a bit more attention to the facts.

It seems to me I'm posting them. But whatever. I am ready and willing to respond to any claim I've made here, with cited sources and facts.

it's just so frustrating to me to make the same point for the 10,000th time. And then have it forgotten again. but so mote it be.

While we're chatting so amiably, can you tell me why you obsess with Osama?

Since he's the guy who killed 3000 + of our civilians, and heads an international terrorist organization dedicated to same. And since every day he is free, we look like a blind idiot giant to the entire world.

but we both know that one terrorist with an ego is hardly all of the problem.

All I know is, if Clinton said this, the GOP would be yelling for his head. And they'd be right.

few people seem to pay attention that all the top leadership have been killed, captured, or pop off from locations so dubious that no one knows if they are still coughing out orders...

Because terrorism is like a snake that constantly grows new heads. That's why it takes effort and hard work to eradicate. That's why invading a secondary nation that had nothing to do with terrorism, is not working in stopping it. Quite the contrary, it's spreading it.

That's one reason why the War on Terror is being fought the way it is; to eradicate the notion that state-sponsored terrorism and patron-sponsored terrorism will prove costly and futile, and therefore nations like Iraq and Syria will abandon that practice.

So exactly how does invading Iraq stop this?

How, by the way, do you think Hamas gets its weapons? A Mid-east Wal-Mart for killing?

From Saudi Arabia and other nations - which now hate us more than other, because we invaded a nation which was no threat to us and did not in any way harm us.

The worst thing that could happen for the Left, politrically, is to have it proven that they backed the wrong horse.

Whatever. I would sincerely love to be proven wrong. I don't like thinking that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is the tragic disaster that I think it is.

But that's where the facts lead me.

Hey, it's the Gore/Kerry/Obama/Clinton playbook, but I'd sure think it sucks to be rooting against the Marines the way you guys do.

Here's one of the many things that's wrong with this statement:

a) I don't root against the Marines, and none of the people you mention root against the Marines, and no reputable liberal ever has or ever will root against the Marines.

Any more than that "God Hates Fags" freak who protests military funerals represents conservative thought on the subject.

b) Saying that Marines shouldn't be marched off a cliff ****is**** supporting them. It is not wanting them to die in a tragic unnecessary failure of a war.

That is the politest response I can muster to that ridiculous statement.

DJ;Baaaaa!... (Below threshold)
jim:

DJ;

Baaaaa!

I understand you t... (Below threshold)
I understand you think that victory is just around the corner. Hey, I hope you're right. I'm just looking at the facts. Sorry you think dealing with facts and evidence is panic. You're welcome to your fantasyland calm. Posted by: jim at June 26, 2007 09:00 PM

No, I don't think you want us to win because if we win, you have nothing to offer America but defeatism. Have fun trying to explain that to future generations as to why you should be entrusted with defending this country.

And the last president o... (Below threshold)
jim:

And the last president only thought with his political brain, and didn't have any guts; hence, a large part of the reason we ended up with a smoking hole in the ground in NY

Yep, John, that's definitely Clinton's fault.

From outside the White House, Clinton used his psychic powers to make Bush demote Clarke, and refuse to hold one single meeting or take one single action about domestic terrorism until after 9/11.

Amazing, the abilities Clinton has.

JimMussolini... (Below threshold)

Jim

Mussolini and Hitler were allies

They were allies like road runner and coyote. Read some history. Hitler despised him. You are simply wrong on this historical point. That diminishes the rest of your point. Jim, if you want to bet this whole argument on the Hitler/Mussolini dynamic then step right into to quicksand. Your rejection of the example is insouciant.

As to Hussein and UBL, you simply can't state that they didn't share the same objective, destruction of the US.

Your last comment is laughable:You should look to FDR, yourself. He didn't attack the Nazis by invading India.

You have ignored my previously made point and used the FDR example to divert attention. India?


jim, stop saying that Iraq ... (Below threshold)
kim:

jim, stop saying that Iraq was not a state sponsor of terrorism. It's not true.
==========================

No, I don't think you wa... (Below threshold)
jim:

No, I don't think you want us to win because if we win, you have nothing to offer America but defeatism. Have fun trying to explain that to future generations as to why you should be entrusted with defending this country.

Fair enough. I think you don't want to admit reality, because you can't handle the embarrassment of admitting that a man you voted for is an idiot.

Have fun trying to explain that to future generations, who will have to clean up the mess made by the man you make excuses for.

No, but we attacked the Naz... (Below threshold)
kim:

No, but we attacked the Nazi's allies by invading Burma from India.
=================================

jim, stop saying that Ir... (Below threshold)
jim:

jim, stop saying that Iraq was not a state sponsor of terrorism. It's not true.

Kim, I have not and never said that. Please read again. I'm pointing out that Iraq was nothing compared to the state sponsor of terror Saudi Arabia, who not only far eclipse Iraq as supporters of Palestinian bombers, but also gave us Al Qaeda.

Kim,So what if Sad... (Below threshold)
dc64:

Kim,

So what if Saddam had WMD? Other countries have had WMD's in one form or another for decades. Other than some gas attacks during WWI, I think the only country to ever use WMD's was us on Japan during WWII. On 2nd thought, Iraq did use nerve gas during the 80's that we supplied to him.

Our ability to serve overwhelming and swift response to any nation that actually used a WMD against us has served as a wonderful deterrent for years.

And I won't buy the argument that Saddam was a madman who would have used WMD's against us. Saddam was a brutal dictator but he was planning to live to a ripe old age.

And think back - when we knew the Soviets had successfully stolen the atom bomb secret from us, we took no pre-emptive even though they had become our mortal enemy and a real threat to our existence.

Sooner or later, jim, more ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Sooner or later, jim, more moderate voices have to speak up from Islam for it to survive. Radical Islam hasn't the wherewithal to reverse the forces of the enlightenment and when it is de-emphasized, Bush will be credited by historians for confronting the radicals when the moderates feared to speak.
======================

They were allies like ro... (Below threshold)
jim:

They were allies like road runner and coyote.

So, they were allies.

Hitler despised him. You are simply wrong on this historical point.

What point? Where did I say Hitler loved him?

Your rejection of the example is insouciant.You are simply wrong on this historical point. That diminishes the rest of your point.

Your continued insistence that Hitler is to Mussolini as Saddam is to Osama Bin Laden, is jejune.

Here's the difference, I'll spell it out again:

- there's direct and voluminous evidence, that Hitler was allied with Mussolini. Besides the obvious, that they declared they were allies.

- there is absolutely no evidence, none, zero, zip, zilch etc., that Saddam and Osama were allies.

Please understand this basic point. This is what has made all of your attempted WWII metaphors completely irrelevant.

"Saddam Hussein had nothing... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.

Not one thing, zero, nada, zilch, zippo. As many human languages that containt the concept "nothing", are the many different ways he had anything to do with 9/11.

Do you understand this? Please tell me that you understand this."

Hey you stupid fucktard , who said he did?
Do you understand this? do you stupid ? It was your fat drunk Barstool Kennedy I remember hearing repeating that line of bullshit.

If democrats are so arrogant to commit treason , betray our Country and undermine our President in a time of war, when are we going to execute these traitorous democrat scum and their blowhards in the media too?

Sooner or later, jim, mo... (Below threshold)
jim:

Sooner or later, jim, more moderate voices have to speak up from Islam for it to survive. Radical Islam hasn't the wherewithal to reverse the forces of the enlightenment and when it is de-emphasized, Bush will be credited by historians for confronting the radicals when the moderates feared to speak.

Kim, besides all the rancor of argument here, I really sincerely hope you're right.

Hey you stupid fucktard ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Hey you stupid fucktard , who said he did?
Do you understand this? do you stupid ? It was your fat drunk Barstool Kennedy I remember hearing repeating that line of bullshit.

Was that before or after you shat on the keyboard and thought it was an argument?

If democrats are so arrogant to commit treason , betray our Country and undermine our President in a time of war, when are we going to execute these traitorous democrat scum and their blowhards in the media too?

How about, when you can put together a coherent argument?

PS - fucktard doesnt' count.

dc64I never ... (Below threshold)

dc64

I never believed that Iraq had WMD's and even if they did, so what? The Soviet Union planted WMD's in Cuba in 1962 and we managed to face down that threat without invading Cuba.

We "managed" to face down that threat at incredible risk. And you have conveniently forgotten the Bay of Pigs invasion when we left Cuban freedom fighters to die on beaches.

But back to the Missile crisis: We came very close to nuclear war then. I remember well the "Duck and Cover" drills in school and going home early on the day before embargoes of Sov vessels started. The consequences then were considerable.

You are developing a mistak... (Below threshold)
kim:

You are developing a mistaken notion, dc64, comparing Saddam to the Soviets. Saddam was, as you say, a madman, and used suicide bombers. You have no, I repeat, no guarantee he wouldn't do something foolish over here. Don't you remember, that was the rationale, supported by manifold Democrats, of invading Iraq.

We didn't supply nerve gas to Iraqis. What else do you have wrong?
==================================

DJ, it is not possible to h... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

DJ, it is not possible to have any convesation with people like, um, you know who, that do not have a firm grasp on reality. Bill Clinton launched several hundred million dollars worth of cruise missles into Iraq because he thought Saddam had WMD. If people like jim could read, they could check out UN Resolution 1441 and note that Hans Blix found Saddam in material breach of that resolution. That was the cause of the invasion. If Saddam didn't have WMD, how did Chemical Ali get his name? From a Gilbert Chemistry set?sd There is none so stupid as those who will not recognize the truth, jim.

Rob, you know what? I'll st... (Below threshold)
jim:

Rob, you know what? I'll step this down a bit. I take back the attacks on you in my previous post, Rob. They were returning yours, and it was fun to bat it back, but that's no excuse.

Rob, the argument I was responding to was Hugh's at 9:45 PM. Go to his post before mine and you can see it.

Rest assured, jim, radical ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Rest assured, jim, radical Islam is only puffed up by windfall money. Islam is a comfort to over a billion people.
===================================

Fair enough. I thi... (Below threshold)
Fair enough. I think you don't want to admit reality, because you can't handle the embarrassment of admitting that a man you voted for is an idiot.

Have fun trying to explain that to future generations, who will have to clean up the mess made by the man you make excuses for.
Posted by: jim at June 26, 2007 09:47 PM

So, you'd rather use this as tool to spear Bush rather than actually fight terrorists, where ever they may be?

And we are cleaning up a mess, one that was ignored from 1993-2000.

JimYou got one thing... (Below threshold)

Jim
You got one thing right in your response: the synonym.

Hi Kim,Sorry, I sh... (Below threshold)
dc64:

Hi Kim,

Sorry, I should have said we failed to take action to prevent their use:

"Declassified State Department documents show that when he had an opportunity to raise the issue of chemical weapons with the Iraqi leadership in 1983, he failed to do so in any meaningful way. Worse, he may well have given a signal to the Iraqis that the United States would close its eyes to Iraq's use of chemical weapons during its war with Iran, providing an early boost to Iraq's plans to develop weapons of mass destruction."

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2692

You're right, there's no guarantee he would not have used them but he probably had plenty of opportunities during Desert Storm to use WMD's if he had them and did not.

As to your question - If we're having a debate, it's not my job to correct myself - it's yours.

Bill Clinton launched se... (Below threshold)
jim:

Bill Clinton launched several hundred million dollars worth of cruise missles into Iraq because he thought Saddam had WMD.

And he didn't invade, because he thought it was a terrible idea. Just like Bush's dad didn't invade, because he also thought it was a terrible idea.

If people like jim could read, they could check out UN Resolution 1441 and note that Hans Blix found Saddam in material breach of that resolution.

No, Zeldorff, he did ***********not************ find Saddam in material breach of that.

Did.

Not.

The closest I've been able to find of that, is Blix not being fully satisfied with Iraqi cooperation and finding some materials, in Dec. of 2002.

By March of 2003, Blix found no WMD's, and was still inspecting and preparing his final report before we invaded anyway.

Can you all ****please***** update your facts on this?

That was the cause of the invasion.

Then why did we invade, when no WMD's were found and no report had yet been made?

If Saddam didn't have WMD, how did Chemical Ali get his name? From a Gilbert Chemistry set?

That's a good point. One of my nicknames is "Supreme God of the Universe Jim". I guess that means you better start bowing. Now, before I get angry.

There is none so stupid as those who will not recognize the truth, jim.

You might be right there. Where are those WMD's again?

So, you'd rather use thi... (Below threshold)
jim:

So, you'd rather use this as tool to spear Bush rather than actually fight terrorists, where ever they may be?

I'd rather be fighting the terrorists - and our effort in Iraq is a **distraction** from that which is hampering all our other anti-terror efforts.

And we are cleaning up a mess, one that was ignored from 1993-2000.

Let's say for a second, as you're implying, that this **is** Clinton's fault.

Invading and occupying Iraq is still a tragic distraction from the War on Terror.

JimYou said...... (Below threshold)

Jim
You said...

And he didn't invade, because he thought it was a terrible idea. Just like Bush's dad didn't invade, because he also thought it was a terrible idea

Go read this and respond.

September 29th, 1992, Al Gore at the Center for National Policy

Cool, Hugh. Please show how... (Below threshold)
jim:

Cool, Hugh. Please show how the rest of my response is wrong, by showing how Saddam was allied Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda, that is in any way similar to how Hitler was allied with Mussolini.

Since my whole post was so wrong, that should be quite easy for you.

Hugh, I've already responde... (Below threshold)
jim:

Hugh, I've already responded to Gore's 1992 statements. Go read my post at 8:26 PM.

I'm not going to read 100+ ... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

I'm not going to read 100+ comments. There's nothing to discuss anyway.

Fact:
Saddam invaded Kuwait during Pres. GHWB

Gulf War. We drove Saddam out of Kuwait. He surrenders UNCONDITIONALLY for us letting him live and he agrees to not invade Kuwait and to weapons inspections.

Saddam then repeatedly does not allow weapons inspections.

What do you do you dumb liberals?

It's that simple. Duh! Doesn't matter whether there were WMD's. He did not abide by the terms of the surrender.

Like the war? Send... (Below threshold)
John in CA:
Like the war? Send your kids to the front lines! Posted by: Publicus at June 26, 2007 09:40 PM

This is the stupidest of all the stupid things the anti-war cheerleaders espouse.

Do you support fighting fires? Have you joined a fire department?

Do you support policing and crime fighting? Have you joined a police department?

Dumbass.

Jim and the rest of the r... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Jim and the rest of the retards are here to lie and distract us from what they are desperate to forget. That it is Bill J Clinton we have to thank for this continued democrat betrayal and deceit. Eight years of getting his pecker pollished was his major accomplishment. Now they want to put that witch criminal partner of his back to complete her looting of the White House and the beginning of her dictatorship.

Democrats are a greater threat to our Country and they are here now. Time to get rid of their traitorous lying asses.

Ok, neh - I'll just respond... (Below threshold)
jim:

Ok, neh - I'll just respond to your post:

Fact:
Saddam invaded Kuwait during Pres. GHWB

Fact: GHWB didn't invade Iraq, because he thought it would be a terrible idea.

Saddam then repeatedly does not allow weapons inspections.

Except in 2002 and 2003, he did allow weapons inspectors everywhere they wanted to go.

You do realize this, right?

What do you do you dumb liberals?

Well, let's see:

If:

1) my own military tells me I need 400,000 plus soldiers to make it work, and even then it's iffy;

2) weapons inspectors find absolutely no weapons

3) we're already involved in one nation to begin with, Afhganistant, and we haven't even caught the murderers who attacked us

....us "dumb liberals" would continue to inspect and blockade Iraq until Afghanistan was stabilized and Al Qaeda was exterminated.

Oops.

dc64, it is not my job to c... (Below threshold)
kim:

dc64, it is not my job to correct your mistakes; it is your job not to make them.

The mid-80's had a different set of geopolitical realities than either the '90's or the present. That we supported Saddam then and not later is not hypocritical on the face of it.
===========================

Look,I've been bac... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

Look,

I've been back to Wizbang now just a couple weeks or so after a long absence.

the only thing new is that lee became lee ward and jim overtook lee as the guy who thinks he is making logical arguments being unaware of the stench of the stuff he's shoveling.

Get it through your head, i... (Below threshold)
kim:

Get it through your head, inspections and sanctions weren't working. This talking point is refuted by Duelfer and Rossett.
====================================

After reading the rants of ... (Below threshold)
Don:

After reading the rants of the left wing and the responce that are always given, pretaining to the WMDs, I am at a lost to understand why no one recalls what happened when Hussien let the inspectors back into Iraq. A man rushed to the inspectors and tried to give them piles of papers. He stated to them that the documents related to Hussien's WMD. (I think the lead inspector was Hans Blick or something like that) The inspectors refused to take the papers and the man was draged away by Hussien's men. When questioned about this, the lead inspector stated that he refused the documents because the man should have gone through the proper channels (ie: Saddam Hussien) Ever time that I read the rants of the left concerning WMDs, I think of the man that gave his life trying to get the word out to the world.

Kim,You pointed on... (Below threshold)
dc64:

Kim,

You pointed one mistake, which I acknowledged, and then tossed out this:

"What else do you have wrong?"

Did you find something else that needs correcting?

"dumb" jim,you you... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

"dumb" jim,

you yourself state that he allowed inspections only in 2002/03. It is not Saddam's call. There were 16 UN resolutions warning Saddam to behave. Why do you think he suddenly allowed inspections in 2002 when the war ended in 91? Because he was aware that for the first time we meant it when we were threatening the use of force. So how do you "continue" inspections if Saddam doesn't allow (like his palace grounds, probably half the size of NYC which he did not allow inspections. So that's brilliant jim. like usual.

3) we're already involve... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

3) we're already involved in one nation to begin with, Afhganistant, and we haven't even caught the murderers who attacked us...

Whoa, whoa, whoa....

Wait, according to liberal dogma, our attackers came from SA, UAE, etc. And this is true; many of them are from those countries. Therefore, the thinking goes, we invaded the wrong country, and it was morally and militarily bankrupt (however you want to frame it) for us to invade Iraq since that country was not the source of terrorism.

YET, by the same thinking, the same argument can be made for Afghanistan, can it not? Very few of those fighters based in Afghanistan came from Afghanistan, YET it's hunky dorey if we go THERE and kill them. (True, many AQ asshats came from SA, UAE, etc.)

So are they solely based in AG or what? Or is it just a little more complicated than that...

dc64, since you ask, pursue... (Below threshold)
kim:

dc64, since you ask, pursue 'nerve gas' a little more. Did Saddam use it, whether it came from us or not, or whether we encouraged it or not? How did that compare with his use of a respiratory gas?
===============================

I think the biggest point t... (Below threshold)
John in CA:

I think the biggest point that is always overlooked about weapons inspections in Iraq is that it was incumbent upon Saddam to prove that he had gotten rid of his WMD. Not the the weapons inspectors to prove it. They were only supposed to verify that fact, or refute that fact.

When inspectors say Iraq had X drums of VX gas and Iraq says we got rid of them, then the inspectors ask, "When, how, where?" When Saddam says, ummm, we don't know, then there is no way to verify it. If Saddam says "Oh, we dumped it in the desert" then the inspectors ask "Where." Because the inspectors can verify that kind of stuff.

Except Saddam didn't do that. He just claimed he had gotten rid of his WMD, and obstructed the inspector's ability to check and verify.

Jim, you f**king dolt, I wa... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Jim, you f**king dolt, I was watching TV and I saw and heard Hans Blix declare Saddam in material breach. F**k you, you lying idiot. I apologize to those I offend here, but I am tired to death of the bull shit put forth by a babbling idiot. I do not know why you are tolerated on this site. You are incapable of telling the truth. I do not know what your source of material is, but is not the truth. WMD was but one of the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq. Only the anti war left made it the main reason after and insignifact amout was found. they have found over 1000 WMD shell, so that makes you a liar in another sence Jim. Old new or what ever, they were there and one last question, that I know you will lie about. Why did Saddam have 1,000,000 doses of atropine and why did his troops have new bio/chem suits? And don't f ing say it was because we have WMD, that is purely idiotic.

John in CA --Befor... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

John in CA --

Before you dismiss the notion that war supporters might show their support by sending their kids to the front lines...

1. Many people DID just that in wars like WWII.
2. In what sense DO you support the war? Do you simply cheer sending these young people to be maimed and/or killed, and ignore when they need better equipment and medical care? Is your yellow sticker really support? Would you be willing to PAY TAXES to cover the cost of the war?

OF COURSE NOT. You are simply happy to have other people's children sent overseas for some unknown reason. Perhaps lack of empathy. Or a sense of machismo. Who knows? But its not "support" in any meaningful way.

Of course, the easiest and laziest thing to do is simply call me a "dumbass." BTW - I support the police and fire departments by paying taxes to support their efforts. What's your share of this war?

Isn't it convenient to simply add the cost of the war to the national debt so the THOSE KIDS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN KILLED fighting this war can PAY FOR IT LATER...while you do nothing at all?

Jim is another I hope to fi... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Jim is another I hope to find in the street minus and arm and leg. It would be fun watching him bleed to death at the hands of a terrorists. If I knew him and actually found him he would do just that, bleed to death with no sympathy and no help from me. Is that a bad attitude for someone with years in the Fire/Rescue field? Some say I must provide basic care, some say the he** with it at a lot of scenes (drugs and drunk drivers). I'm in the latter and would not even respond out of my neighborhood.(I did on 9-11) to another attack like 9-11. The American public by and large don't deserve the help they already get. I'm tired of the Anti-American left and think it's time for the night riders to start hanging them. They're cowards, so a dozen or so hanged with a sign around their neck, and the rest would slither back under their rock for several years.

Why the current rants on WMD, the world knows that they were there and were not destroyed. They just don't know where 'Russia' moved them to. It will come out in about 50 years and a lot of families are going to suffer the after effects of today's democrat, aka communist party.

Chicken hawk is another sil... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Chicken hawk is another silly phony argument from the liberal left. Using this standard, these anti-war leftists are phony unless they are willing to be the human shields against the terrorists. Unless these leftists are willing to do that, their anti-war rhetoric is simply cheap talk. I remembered before the Iraq war, some British anti-war folks went to Iraq to form a human shield on behalf of Saddam. Then they came back to complain that Saddam 's people actually put them on real bombing targets. These people expect to be a show.

Before you dismiss... (Below threshold)
John in CA:
Before you dismiss the notion that war supporters might show their support by sending their kids to the front lines...

1. Many people DID just that in wars like WWII.

I seriously doubt that parents in WW2 sent their kids to the front lines.

I bet there were a lot of young men who volunteered to join and fight. I bet there were a lot of others who were drafted.

What's that you ask? You mean, during WW2 they had a draft? Really?! You mean, every single one of those guys who fought weren't volunteers? Say it ain't so. You mean there was actually had a draft during WW2?

Imagine that. And how many of those young people fighting today were drafted? None of them? No kidding, you don't say. You mean every single one of them are volunteers. Hmmm. Go figure.

Of course, the eas... (Below threshold)
John in CA:
Of course, the easiest and laziest thing to do is simply call me a "dumbass."

No, the easiest thing to do is call someone a chickenhawk.

Would you be willi... (Below threshold)
John in CA:
Would you be willing to PAY TAXES to cover the cost of the war?

No, I wouldn't be willing to pay more taxes to cover the cost of the war.

I would be willing to shut down the Dept of Education. I'd be willing to shut down CPB and cut off all federal funds that subsidize NPR/PBS. I'd be willing to shutter National Institute for Humanites and National Endowment for the Arts.

I'd be willing to cut off rebuilding funds to Louisiana, except for the money that would normally go for federally funded requirements.

How's that for starters? And what's this with paying taxes? You mean people actually pay taxes? Aww, the hell with it. Let the rich people pay for the war.

jim, you can't reason with ... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

jim, you can't reason with these loony fucks, no matter how hard you try. And you have admirably tried, my friend. They don't understand what is actually happening in the real world, like you and I do. They only comprehend what Rush and Sean tell them to. Give it up. They are only the proud 25%. On an episode of South Park, Stan rightly affirms this "25% of this country are retards." "Let's take a sample: there's four of us, You're a retard." That's 1 in 4. That's also the approval rating.

Isn't it convenient to s... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Isn't it convenient to simply add the cost of the war to the national debt so the THOSE KIDS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN KILLED fighting this war can PAY FOR IT LATER...while you do nothing at all?

What a craptastic argument, considering OUR military is ALL volunteer, asshat.

Are you trying to imply/say those lives were wasted? Go on. Say it. Be a man....is that what you really think? You punk...

"...us "dumb liberals" woul... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"...us "dumb liberals" would"

THIS IS THE EXTENT OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY.

COWARDS SPEWING WORDS , NO ACTION AT ALL.

In the intervening... (Below threshold)
In the intervening 11 years, under relentless pressure, Saddam got rid of his WMD's and was forced to quit any and all WMD programs.

Thus, in 2003, Saddam Hussein was thoroughly inspected and no weapons were found.

These two sentences show the utter naivety of libtards like jim and most of the left.

Jim:Well, maybe.</... (Below threshold)
marc:

Jim:

Well, maybe.

But what about the scuds with illegal extended ranges?

What was he trying to do start his own air mail business?

Ah, yes. Thanks for the kin... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Ah, yes. Thanks for the kind words, jim and ryan, and the rest of our left-wing brethren. And now, repeat after us: "no blood for oil...Bush lied, people died...torture....yada, yada, yada..."

Sincerely,
The Headless Sorpse of Sadam Hussein
Abu Masab al Zarqawi

p.s. We are truly kindred spirits. Piss on the miliions of Kurds and Marsh Arabs we murdered.

Steve, your exactly right. ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Steve, your exactly right. If Saddam "got rid of the WMD" as Jim says, where did they go and who has them? Isn't that bad enough? I guess playing "keep away" is fine with Jim. ww

Rob in LA =So, the... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Rob in LA =

So, the upshot is, you're happy to sacrifice other people lives and money for the war. And there isn't a single thing you'd do in support of it that involves any inconvenience or effort on your part.

BTW - extraordinary lame excuses in "response" to my points.

Well, sit back and enjoy the carnage...

jim: BRAVO! Hugh S... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

jim: BRAVO!

Hugh S: What is your source for Hitler "loathing " Mussolini. He tried to have him reinstalled in 1943 after his arrest by the king.
Granted, the sr-jr partnership changed after the Anschluss, but Hitler was an admirer and immitator (Blackshirt-Brownshirt). Mussolini was the world's preeminent Marxist economist and a father of modern propaganda (which Hitler aped).
Sure, the Italians getting embarrasssed by Greece was galling, but Hitler entrusted a whole section of Army Group South to the Italians (and Romanians) during operation Barbarossa. The critical oil fields were in Army Group Souths' area of operations (Black Sea).
Or did you attend Ragshaft Academy?

Heh, heh, Mussolini a Marxi... (Below threshold)
kim:

Heh, heh, Mussolini a Marxist. bD, reach a little deeper into that bureau.
===============================

People can't support a war ... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

People can't support a war they don't believe is just. It's a total failure of war supporters to "sell" the war. You might say you shouldn't have to sell an invasion and occupation but that's the reality of it.

Why have the war supporters have failed so miserably to win over the apathetic?

People don't even think of it as a "war" any more but rather an "occupation" More disconnect = more apathy = less support. Sell the occupation if you want an occupation.

Pssst, bryanD, Area 51 is o... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Pssst, bryanD, Area 51 is open and they are giving classes on "How To Melt Steel". sni.....

Excellent point, AB, thanks... (Below threshold)
kim:

Excellent point, AB, thanks. You know the Sunni and the Shia need an unbiased referee for the coming bout, don't you.
==================

Heh, heh, Mussolini a Marxi... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Heh, heh, Mussolini a Marxist. bD, reach a little deeper into that bureau.
===============================
Posted by: kim

Of course. Like the inimicable Ragshaft, you fail to comprehend the family feud in Marxist theology resulting in a nationalist subset of ideologies with Historical Marxist underpinnings. Fascism in Italy drew from the workers' movements in the north (where, not coincidentally Communism was most strong. Mussolini edited several socialist papers, his VIP writer status propelled his fame).

And the Nazis and Communists ran an opposition coalition ticket (in Nazi's first race) in an attempt to bring down the "Weimar" democratic government. Tne eventual Nazi victory was self-named "Brown Revolution" which puts to lie Hitler's sincerity as being amenable to sometime-allies monarchists. Hitler's Junker support stemmed from anti-BOLSHEVIK program. But Bolshevism is only the Leninist wing of Marxism. Small wonder that the eventual anti-Hitler conspiracies stemmed from the army and it's traditional Junkers protestant class. The Frederick the Great-Bismarck-Hindenberg types.
(Try to keep up)

jhow, Don't you just hate w... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

jhow, Don't you just hate when you leave a pot on the stove burner? It always melts! On second thought...

I gotta agree with bryanD o... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

I gotta agree with bryanD on Mussolini, he was a Marxist. He thought up fascism because he got kicked out of the communist party.
In communism you work for the People
In fascism you work for the State.
In communism the People own everything.
In fascism the State owns everything.

And both the State and the People are the same thing.

WildWillie<blockquote... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

WildWillie

If Saddam "got rid of the WMD" as Jim says, where did they go and who has them?

Just for the sake of clarification, they were supposedly destoyed, so they were not meant to "go" anywhere.

Though one of Sadaam's Generals swears that many were sent to Syria before the invasion. That charge, to my knowledge, has been largely ignored.

Why, bD, that is very infor... (Below threshold)
kim:

Why, bD, that is very informative, but it is not keeping up, it is getting behind.

sic semper tyrannis. But I understand now why you call Mussolini a Marxist.

You know it's all a misinterpretation of Hegelian Dualism, don't you?
==================

"BTW - extraordinary lame e... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"BTW - extraordinary lame excuses in "response" to my points."
Excuse me? ya bettter check yourself. Where exactly is it where I was responding to YOU?

Heralder, I'm pretty sure K... (Below threshold)
kim:

Heralder, I'm pretty sure Khaddafy was developing a bomb for Saddam. Saddam sent him three billion dollars and the yellowcake came right over the southern border of Libya with Niger. Note how quickly Libya gave it up after we deposed Saddam. I suspect this is Joe Wilson's dirty little secret.

er, BIG secret.
==================

Why would Bush clear the ta... (Below threshold)
kim:

Why would Bush clear the table before the end of the game?
==================================

The Dems go marching two by... (Below threshold)
kim:

The Dems go marching two by two, hurrah, hurrah.
Off to Damascus, discuss in disgust, uh huh, uh huh.
Why would an admin eight years in charge,
Not know the details, by and large,
Of the treasonous actions of Dems at large? So duh.
==============================

Jim, you f**king dolt, I... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jim, you f**king dolt, I was watching TV and I saw and heard Hans Blix declare Saddam in material breach. F**k you, you lying idiot.

Then Zeldorff, you go and find that quote. And give me the date. Because in March of 2003 and afterwards, he said the exact opposite of that.

If I claimed I saw Bush on TV admitting he slaughters goats for Satan, would you believe me? No. I'd need evidence to show you. So do you.

I apologize to those I offend here, but I am tired to death of the bull shit put forth by a babbling idiot.

Me too. But it looks like he's going to stay in office until 2008. So we'll jsut have to wait him out and, in the words of the Who, "We don't get fooled again."

I do not know why you are tolerated on this site.

I am impressed that I am. I guess it's because the Wizbang folk appreciate debate. Regardless of our disagreements, I acknowledge the integrity of the commitment to free discussion, that allows me to post here. I know I'm posting views which are the direct opposite of most of those here, and it takes a lot of integrity for me to be allowed to continually do that.

I do not know what your source of material is, but is not the truth.

I pretty much list all my sources, Zel. They're right there. The internet is just as open to you. Go and find what you think will back up your arguments. No one is stopping you.

WMD was but one of the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq. Only the anti war left made it the main reason after and insignifact amout was found.

WMD was the main reason pushed. Bush, Cheney and Rice are not the anti-War Left, no matter how you slice it; they went on the talk shows and they pushed Saddam and his nonexistent WMD's in almost every pre-war speech they made. That and the heavily and slyly-implied and nonexistent Saddam/terror connections - that many here still apparently believe, even though on the surface these connections are acknowledged to not exist.

they have found over 1000 WMD shell, so that makes you a liar in another sence Jim.

Great! Post a link and prove me wrong.

Why did Saddam have 1,000,000 doses of atropine and why did his troops have new bio/chem suits?

When was this? Where was this? Was this anything we were searching for? Got a source I can check?

Well then.

you yourself state that ... (Below threshold)
jim:

you yourself state that he allowed inspections only in 2002/03. It is not Saddam's call. There were 16 UN resolutions warning Saddam to behave.

Then why were we even bothering to have inspections in 2002 and 2003, in the first place?

Why do you think he suddenly allowed inspections in 2002 when the war ended in 91? Because he was aware that for the first time we meant it when we were threatening the use of force.

So?

Our utter lack of finding any WMD's, or any program in 2002 and 2003, confirms there were no WMD's in the present day.


So how do you "continue" inspections if Saddam doesn't allow (like his palace grounds, probably half the size of NYC which he did not allow inspections.

How do you do it? You tell him he'd better open his palace - which he then DID.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2660201.stm

So, please acknowledge this fact as well.

Jim, you apparently missed ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Jim, you apparently missed the point in Duelfer and Rossett that Saddam intended to get WMD and had a plan to do so. How would deposing him later than we did have been any easier?
=========================

Jim is another I hope to... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jim is another I hope to find in the street minus and arm and leg.

Awesome, logical debate. Scrapiron, I hope this ***doesn't**** happen to you. Instead, I hope some day that you wake up. Really wake up. And see how you are allowing yourself to be manipulated into a worldview with false comforts. This is a price you're paying willingly, for the payoff of feeling right and validated. The cost, like any drug, is that you're drifting away from reality, and you become addicted to your suppliers.

And when you wake up, I pray for your sake that you don't hurt too much, when you realize the kind of man you have allowed yourself to be in the world.

I'm tired of the Anti-American left and think it's time for the night riders to start hanging them.

Scrapiron, let's look at your sentence below, with the shoe on the other foot:

I'm tired of the Fascist Right and think it's time for the night riders to start hanging them.

Would that strike you as a fair sentence?

Would you think that statement came from a decent man? A good man? A just man? A man who you cuold trust? A man worth having as a friend?

That statement that you've made, is just about the most anti-American statement I've ever heard. It is just about the diametric opposite of everyone in our military has fought and died for. Your fathers and mine, both.

Jim, you apparently miss... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jim, you apparently missed the point in Duelfer and Rossett that Saddam intended to get WMD and had a plan to do so. How would deposing him later than we did have been any easier?

Well, Kim, it would have been much easier in many ways.

1) Afghanistan would have been much more stable, requiring much less of a troop presence there. This is the biggest gain - invading Iraq when we did immediately gave us a two-front war.

2) Osama Bin Laden almost certainly would have been caught and killed, and Al Qaeda greatly reduced if not entirely eliminated.

3) Afghanistan's opium trade could have been supplanted with other craps and/or suppressed, denying Al Qaeda and the Taliban great sources of funding.

4) These 3 factors would have greatly eased Pakistan's troubles as well, thus making Pakistan a more stable ally and able to aid more in both the War on Terror and a separate invasion and occupation of Iraq.

And that even presupposes the "need" to depose him.

Why would we even have to invade Iraq at all? Why not just keep blockading him and inspecting his country until he dies of old age?

But what about the scuds... (Below threshold)
jim:

But what about the scuds with illegal extended ranges?

What was he trying to do start his own air mail business?

What about 'em? The longest-range missiles he had after 2001, the Al-Samoud, had a max range of 162-193 km instead of the UN-mandated 150 km. Hardly about to land on the White House. And he voluntarily destroyed these *****anyway*****, with destruction not only verified but ***supervised*** by inspectors, just before we invaded.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/samoud.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200303/s800649.htm

"That statement that you've... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"That statement that you've made, is just about the most anti-American statement I've ever heard. It is just about the diametric opposite of everyone in our military has fought and died for. Your fathers and mine, both."

Look who is talking. You stupid lying hypocrite.

Why do you lie and attack the president of the United States and his Administration in a time of war?

You should hag right next to your traitorous democrat masters. You are a democrat remember , not an American.

Rob, nice try but Scrapiron... (Below threshold)
jim:

Rob, nice try but Scrapiron still wins as the most un-American. Good for you, I guess.

Jim, I realize you're passi... (Below threshold)

Jim, I realize you're passionate in your views, and you seem like a smart guy. As such please consider this:

Yes it is possible that your points 1-4 might have occured had we not gone into Iraq. I'll absolutely grant you that. But it's not the certainty that you say. We cannot go back and replay history using different variables. And you are asserting something that is simply unknowable.

Regards.

Jim:What about... (Below threshold)
marc:

Jim:

What about 'em? The longest-range missiles he had after 2001, the Al-Samoud, had a max range of 162-193 km instead of the UN-mandated 150 km. Hardly about to land on the White House.

Who asserted they would "land on the White House?"

No one. And the only reason you note it is to divert attention from one of many examples of Saddam avoiding, misdirecting or otherwise lying about any and all weapons he had.

Never mind they violated U.N. sanctions right Jim? Nevermind he violated most of the sanctions that were imposed up to and including a ceasfire agreement.

Nevermind both the Kay and Duelfer reports both were of the opinion Saddam would continue to obtain illegal weapons.

Thanks, Tom. Jim is whack.... (Below threshold)
kim:

Thanks, Tom. Jim is whack.

Thanks, marc, too. Jim can't or won't read Duelfer and Rossett.
=================

If he'd read Duelfer and Ro... (Below threshold)
kim:

If he'd read Duelfer and Rossett he would understand why his points 1-4 are wishful thinking. Saddam was a real and growing threat, to us.
==============================

Blood for OIL!Bloo... (Below threshold)
Miako:

Blood for OIL!

Blood for OIL!

Shall we have a sane policy discussion, now, people?
Or will you continue to terrorize the argument by denying the real reason for being in Iraq?

There has never been an Idealist in charge of the USA. Bush is a Realist, and he smells oil -- free and cheap.

Who asserted they would ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Who asserted they would "land on the White House?"

If they're not going to hurt the US, they're not a danger to the US. This wasn't directly asserted, but was another constant implication of "Saddam's got missiles! Saddam's got missiles!"

So I'm just making sure it's clear.

No one. And the only reason you note it is to divert attention from one of many examples of Saddam avoiding, misdirecting or otherwise lying about any and all weapons he had.

NO, the only reason I note it is for above.

Never mind they violated U.N. sanctions right Jim? Nevermind he violated most of the sanctions that were imposed up to and including a ceasfire agreement.

Actually, yes, never mind that. It's actually not relevant; because the missiles were found and destroyed by the Weapons Inspectors.

The question is not if we could trust Saddam. We obviously couldn't. The question is, were there WMD's worth invading for? The answer there is, clearly there weren't; the White House had all the information that they needed to see there weren't; and we invaded anyway.

Nevermind both the Kay and Duelfer reports both were of the opinion Saddam would continue to obtain illegal weapons.

No, actually. I quoted the conclusions of the Duelfer report elsewhere in this thread. To quote again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Group#Duelfer_Report

"Saddam ended his nuclear program in 1991. ISG found no evidence of concerted efforts to restart the program, and Iraq's ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after 1991."

In January 2005, the group announced the conclusion of its search. The ISG stated that while it had "not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003," they acknowledged "the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability."

At the same link, another later 2005 addenda included:

"ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place"

And, as usual, you are ignoring all the onsite weapons inspection that occurred in 2003, which found no weapons.

And also the fact that no weapons have no been found. You know, that little thing.

No, Kim - YOU won't read it... (Below threshold)
jim:

No, Kim - YOU won't read it!!

I posted excerpts from the Duelfer report for you!

Jesus tap-dancing Christ....

Why don't *****you****** quote whatever report you think will refute me? Huh?

Wow.

Well, thanks, Tom the Redhu... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well, thanks, Tom the Redhunter. I don't consider people here to be stupid, either, believe it or not. More frustrating, I think people don't want to see what really happened because it's too painful.

I mean, it really is a tragedy. Invade another country that hadn't harmed us and wasn't a threat to us, to increase the power of our enemies? All that pain, death and destruction, and we're worse off than when we started.

To make sure this doesn't ever happen again, we need to be clear on how we got here. We need accountability.

When something painfully stupid and unnecessary happens, and it has a tragic outcome like this, it's very tempting to just put the whole thing in a box under the bed and say "Here we are now. Let's deal with the present."

But it doesn't at all solve the problem, of how the hell we got into this mess in the first place. And so it virtually guarantees more messes in our future.

People ***want*** to look back and think the Iraq invasion was justified by 9/11, when it clearly was not. That's what this original article was trying to do, which set off this flame war here.

When a disaster happens, we need to fully understand how it happens, and not just say "Oh, too bad. Oh well."

And Kim, ditto for this Ros... (Below threshold)
jim:

And Kim, ditto for this Rosset report. I guess it includes Oil-For-Food. So?

Bottom line: Theoretical, hypothetical threats that may occur several years down the line, and can be noticed as soon as the start developing, are not as important as current, actual threats. By definition.

"To make sure this d... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:


"To make sure this doesn't ever happen again, we need to be clear on how we got here. We need accountability.

When something painfully stupid and unnecessary happens, and it has a tragic outcome like this, it's very tempting to just put the whole thing in a box under the bed and say "Here we are now. Let's deal with the present."

Or maybe under a construction trailer perhaps to cover up the failures and lies of the previous Administration. It's easier to shred accountability than to own up to isn't it. Democrats got caught red handed and yet still deny what is too painfully obvious for them to admit. Their shameless lust for power is all they can think of.

"Theoretical, hypothetical threats that may occur several years down the line, and can be noticed as soon as the start developing, are not as important as current, actual threats. By definition."

Right, Democrats did nothing , actually worse than nothing. They made it impossible to stop an attack. 9/11 was proof of that. Thank you Ms. Gorelick for that wall you divided our intelligence with.

Thank You Bill J Clinton and the democrat party for 9/11 and doing nothing to when Bin Laden was a laying duck. Clintons approval ratings were well worth the lives of all those who have and will continue to perish for their cowardice, incompetence and dihonesty.


"People ***want*** to look back and think the Iraq invasion was justified by 9/11, when it clearly was not."

What the hell do you know about what people want. You don't speak for anyone , you are like BJ Clinton , a proven liar.

No, the above is what you lying democrats have been crying out when you could no longer tollerate being in the MINORITY and IRRELEVANT.

The fact of the matter is that people are already looking back now and recognizing that the democrats have been lying their asses off from the very beginning. OH WELL!

Rob, it is the party of cri... (Below threshold)
kim:

Rob, it is the party of criminal fraud and deceit. Jim, your selective quoting and linking is unpersuasive; get it through your head. It is plain from a fair reading of Duelfer that Saddam lusted after WMD and from Rosset that he was working all the levers to get them. It was nearly universally believed that he had significant WMD before the war, as Joe Wilson claimed, and it is not at all certain that he didn't conceal what he did have. It is also difficult to lend credence to any theory that Saddam wasn't getting increasingly out of the control of the sanctions the UN had put on him, and to any theory that he would have been progressively easier to depose, as time went by.

So going into Iraq was the right thing to do. It would have been more humane to finish the job in the early '90's but Powell was persuasive, and, as ever, pusillanimous.
=================================

Did you know that that cowa... (Below threshold)
kim:

Did you know that that coward and traitor, Richard Armitage, is now working for Hillary Clinton? That should give you some pause for thought.
=====================




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