Andrew Sullivan discusses the 2000th death in Iraq, and it is about where I stand:
If someone had told me three years ago that by October 2005, Saddam Hussein’s murderous tyranny would be over for ever, that Iraq would have a new constitution that emerged from a democratic process and that it will soon have a democratically elected parliament and government, I would have been thrilled. If I were further told that the inevitably embittered Sunni Arab minority had decided to throw itself into democratic politics to amend the constitution and protect its interests in a future Iraq, I would be amazed by how swiftly democratic habits can take root in a post-totalitarian country. If I had been told that, despite extraordinary provocation from Jihadist and Sunni Arab terrorists, the country had not dissolved into civil war, and that unemployment was dropping, I’d be heartened. If I had also been told that the United States had not suffered another major terror attack since the fall of 2001, I would have refused to believe it.
The fact that the administration has made countless, terrible errors in the aftermath of the invasion and miscalculated badly on how the Baathists and Jihadists would fight back, should not distract us from these underlying realities. In 2002, I feared U.S. casualties approaching 10,000 in a brutal, urban war for Baghdad. The enemy gave us a simmering insurgency instead, shrewdly calculating that that was their best defense. They were right in the short term. But that makes it all the more imperative to prove them wrong in the long term. For the sake of the 2,000 who have already died; and the countless, innocent civilian Iraqis who have borne an even greater burden, let’s do all we can to make this work.
Discuss.
Lines
1) As long as Sharia Law is explicitly called out in the Constitution, there is no such thing as Democracy in Iraq.
2) Elected officials and a Constitution may not be enough to stop a civil war.
3) Elected officials and a Constitution arn’t security forces. They don’t provide power, they don’t provide clean water. So far they seem to have little impact on the daily lives of the average Iraqi. Its too early to call it a success, and attempting to may make reality harder to accept later.
Oh, wait, was this the “Cheerlead the Bush Administration for not totally fucking up” thread? I’m sorry, I thought this was another “lets take a look at reality” thread.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Is Sharia law still in the Iraq constitution? I remember hearing something about it being changed…
Sojourner
As long as women have at least the same rights as they did before the US invasion.
Sojourner
And, of course, none of these things compensates for the fact that the war was started under false pretenses. The American people had a right to decide if Iraqi democracy was a goal our soldiers should die for.
Doug
$200 Billion, 2,000 dead, 15,000 wounded to get rid of a dictator who wasn’t a credible threat to the U.S. I’m skeptical that democracy has taken any kind of real hold in Iraq, but ultimately, I don’t care that much. Selfishly, I think U.S. interests are pretty much the only criteria that should matter when deciding whether to go into a war. The Bush administration apparently understood that sentiment. That’s why they marketed their war on the basis of non-existent security threats instead of warm, fuzzy proclamations about how all of God’s children deserve democracy.
While this war *may* yet serve some idealistic humanitarian goals, it does nothing to make the U.S. safer or its citizens more prosperous. Consequently, it was and remains a shitty bargain for us.
Tim F
Thank god I have a busy day. This discussion will get ugly, fast.
FWIW, I think that it’s silly to fetishize arbitrary numbers of dead, either in the case of Sully’s “think of the casualty numbers if Saddam had unleashed atomic bees” argument or as an occasion for candlelight vigils on the left. If the war was wrong then the first death was a tragedy. If the war was right, or at least if the goal remains salvageable then the deaths are more or less irrelevant*. If somebody suddenly changes their mind because we’ve crossed this numeric threshold then IMO their opinions weren’t very well-formed in the first place.
(*) To follow up on this thought, that is the great danger of utopian experiments like neoconservatism. The greater the end goal, the more one can justify death in its name.
Gratefulcub
And using the same set of facts:
If someone had told me three years ago that:
We would have lost 2000 soldiers
Ahmad Chalabi would be proven to be a liar tied to Iran, yet we would still be pushing for him to be the first ‘elected’ leader after the constitution was ratified
Anbar province is in the hands of the insurgents (Ramadi doesn’t even have a police force due to the insurgency. There are no suicide bombers in Ramadi because the populace supports the insurgents)
The Iraqi Army would consist of ONE battalion that can fight alone
The inusurgency is at it’s strongest now
The constitution was ratified by an almost unanamous ‘yes’ from Shia and Kurds and a ‘no’ from Sunnis, causing even more anxiety that the current civil strife will soon be full blown civil war
That we had widespread torture of prisoners
That we still wouldn’t have found Osama bin Laden
That there were no WMD, or WMD PROGRAMS (according to David Kay; only dual use equipment that could have been used to restart programs…oooooh, scary)
The Mushroom Cloud we were supposed to be terrified of was……well, we will know for sure soon enough, but I will go out on a limb and say bullshit.
Journalists can’t leave the green zone
We can’t protect journalists in the green zone
It goes on and on. And, our ‘war president’ and his supporters are saying “We can’t let these 2,000 die in vain, we have to stay the course and let 4,000 die in vain.”
Thomas
Actually, my guess is that if anybody went back in time to 2002 and told Andy what’s going on now, he would have held them as an example of what’s wrong of the isolationalist Chomsky left.
jaime
It was 8 YEARS since the previous WTC bombing. The fact we hadn’t had a major terror incident (not counting the Freeway Snipers, Anthrax Mailer, and the endless threats) isn’t such a surprise.
Lines
As far as I can tell, Sharia Law is still in the Constitution, but there seems to be some leeway on how it will carry through into the autonomy that the constitution allows for the Northern Kurds…
And at least the Iraqi women will still have the right to be stoned to death in the public square. They will also have the right to not report any rapes or abuse.
Slartibartfast
Whoops, major error there. There’s a big difference between “can fight alone” and “level 1”
Faux News
The USA should invade Zimbabwe. There is an evil dictator there who is starving his own people. Mugabe certainly is as evil as Saddam. Let’s Roll!
Steve
I don’t get this line at all. When the Sunnis are overwhelmingly against the constitution, and yet forced to live under it anyway because they’re the minority, it’s positively Orwellian to cheer their participation in “democratic politics.”
At the very best, we have created another Yugoslavia, where ethnic and religious groups who have no reason to be part of the same country have been forced to live together by outsiders. Yugoslavia probably looked much more like a successful experiement than the current state of Iraq, too.
The bottom line on the war is that no one could explain in 2002 why this was our #1 priority in the war on terror, and no one can explain it today. We could improve a lot of things in a lot of countries around the world if we decided to sacrifice unlimited amounts of money and lives. That doesn’t mean it’s a good decision just because something gets better.
Defense Guy
Full text of the Consitution.
Brad R.
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established.
Speaking of things that contradict each other…
Gratefulcub
And NO (in the tone of our honorable senator from alaska), they didn’t sell the war by saying:
-everyone deserves democracy
-democracy in Iraq will spread like a flower through the ME
-democracy in Iraq will make us safer
-Iraq is a threat to it’s neighbors (Israel)
-Invading Iraq will solve the Palestinian problem
They mentioned all the above and more, but it was fluff. They sold the war one way. They took a scared to death populace, soon after 9/11, and they told us, ‘Saddams gonna getcha.’ He has WMD, he can kill new york with a ‘vile of anthrax the size of a pill bottle’ and Colin holds it up and shows us. One little vile, and he can wipe out NYC. Bullshit. Even if he had Anthrax, Bullshit. How does he deliver it? A vile of Iraqi grade anthrax, in their heyday, could do no such thing, even if he had delivery capability. And of course, that didn’t seal the deal, so they brought out the big gun, the one they learned to use in 1954, the enemy is gonna go nuclear on our ass unless we do something. It was Bullshit, and they knew it.
How would Saddam attack us if he had a nuclear warhead, he didn’t have a missle. And if he did find a way to do it, we would wipe Iraq on the map in about 2 hours. He didn’t want to die, he wanted power. He wasn’t going to give a nuclear warhead to terrorists who wanted to destroy the secular governments of the ME and restore the caliphate. He was their main target.
Oh yeah, none of that matters because THEY DIDN’T EVEN HAVE THE REMNANTS OF A NUCLEAR PROGRAM. And no, not everyone got it wrong. The IAEA was right. The weapons inspectors were right. The CIA’s actual analysis was ‘we don’t know’. They got it right, they didn’t know. The office of special plans got it wrong, the WHIG sold it, and they destroyed anyone who disagreed.
Brad R.
Gratefulcub makes good points. If the administration had tried to sell us this war as part of a fruity democracy promotion scheme, no one would have bought it.
Gratefulcub
Yep, major error. What I meant to say is that there is an Iraqi military consisting of battalions of Kurds or Shia, being sent to fight Sunnis, to search houses in Sunni and Turkmen areas. There is an Iraqi military that by all accounts is infiltrated by insurgents. But if you want to pretend that there are 117 battle ready battalions, good for you. My only question is, if there are 117 battalions ready to stand up and defend Iraq, what the fuck are we still doing there?
Lines
Can I ask one simple question to this boiling cesspool of Rovian vomit? What shall we make work?
Gratefulcub
Slide, give them time. They are going to start the post war planning any day now. As soon as they sort through all the flowers and candy. Then they will let us know what IT is.
neil
Andrew Sullivan is a naif. How did this guy get a job as a political commentator?
If someone had told me three years ago that by October 2005, Saddam Hussein’s murderous tyranny would be over for ever, that Iraq would have a new constitution that emerged from a democratic process and that it will soon have a democratically elected parliament and government, I would have been thrilled.
If Andrew is really thrilled that Saddam Hussein’s murderous tyranny is replaced by America’s murderous anarchy, then he is a heartless savage. I guaran-damn-tee you that for the average Iraqi, the risk of being killed has gone up immensely. Under Saddam, you were probably safe as long as you didn’t speak out against the leader. Under America, you are probably safe as long as you don’t leave your home.
If I were further told that the inevitably embittered Sunni Arab minority had decided to throw itself into democratic politics to amend the constitution and protect its interests in a future Iraq, I would be amazed by how swiftly democratic habits can take root in a post-totalitarian country.
Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations. We throw hundreds of billions of dollars and a huge amount of military force into getting these people to express democratic habits, and wow!, some of them take an interest! Others of them, of course, only seem to have an interest in making Americans die.
We will leave a discussion of whether going into the country by force, and making them write a constitution, counts as totalitarianism or democracy, for later. It is not so obvious to me as it is to Andrew.
If I had been told that, despite extraordinary provocation from Jihadist and Sunni Arab terrorists, the country had not dissolved into civil war, and that unemployment was dropping, I’d be heartened.
Translation: If I had been told that the indefinite presence of the American military, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars a day and dozens of lives a month, was required to prevent the country from dissolving into civil war, I’d be heartened.
If I had also been told that the United States had not suffered another major terror attack since the fall of 2001, I would have refused to believe it.
Someone tell Andrew that the United States has gone 4 years without suffering a major terror attack plenty of times in modern history. And I should certainly -hope- that after turning practically the entire apparatus of government towards counter-terrorism, that that rate would go down rather than up. There was never any reason to believe that 9/11 was going to usher in a new age of constant terrorism where everybody had to fear for their lives at every moment, especially in rural areas. Unless, of course, you think George Bush and his friends tell the truth. Hasn’t Andrew gotten over that by now?
slide
I find it amazing that anyone can think Iraq has been a success. I guess when somepeople take a position they can never back down from it despite what the results end up being.
Iraq will go down in history as one of the largest blunders in foreign affairs this country has ever foolishly undertaken. It has drained us financially and in blood. It has fueled and invigorated the terrorists. It has damaged our credibility and reputation as a nation. We are painted into a corner, unable to win, but unable to pull out. Oh, isn’t that the definition of QUAGMIRE.
Bush wanted to go to war to finish daddy’s business. The neocons wanted to go to war to re-make the middle east and project US power. Cheney wanted to go to war to help his buddies in Halliburton. Rummy wanted to go to war because he wanted to prove his discredited theories on his revamped army. Unfortunatly nobody went to war because it was our only alternative and the right thing to do for the American people.
Oh, and one last thing. The LIED through their teeth to get us into this war. Shame shame.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Speaking of things that contradict each other…
I think it should also be noted that A comes before B. Just a thought…
jg
There’s a term in economics, I can’t remember it right now but it also applies in poker, it concerns continuing to throw money at something because you incorrectly believe its better than wwalking away and ‘wasting’ what you’ve already spent.
I thought Bush was the CEO president. Didn’t he take economics at Harvard or Yale?
oscar wilde
Suicide in the Trenches
I knew a simple soldier boy
Who grinned at life in empty joy,
Slept soundly through the lonesome dark,
And whistled early with the lark.
In winter trenches, cowed and glum,
With crumps and lice and lack of rum,
He put a bullet through his brain.
No one spoke of him again.
You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you’ll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.
Sassoon 1918
Lines
Daddy appointed someone to take the class for him. It was just too early in the morning and the professor kept using big words.
RSA
This kind of appeal leaves me cold, despite my sympathy for the families and friends of killed and injured soldiers. It’s too much like the gambler who says, “Okay, I’m down $500.00, so I can’t stop now. Somehow I’ve got to make it back to even.”
An equally plausible way to cast the sentence above is to say, “For the sake of the 2,000 who have already died, let’s make sure that no one else has to suffer their fate.”
The Disenfranchised Voter
You make valid points, and for the most part I do agree. However, what if Iraq does turn into a decent democracy? I really do think it is a longshot, but if it does, and it happens to set an example for the middle east, I don’t see how it will go down as one of the largest blunders in foreign affairs.
If, and this is a big if, the Bush Administration does develop an example democracy thus spreading the idea throughtout the middle east, I think it will be regarded as a bold and couragous undertaking regardless of all the hardships that occured. The fact that the war was sold by lies would be a foot note if that does indeed happen.
RSA
You may be thinking of “sunk costs.”
Jorge
I read Sullivan almost every day and I usually enjoy his stuff. But he has a huge case of “White Man’s Burden” and can’t seem to get over it as it pertains to Iraq. He realized last year that Bush and co are incompetent and had no plan for the war. He has also come to realize that we were fed a bill of goods on the WMD’s. But he can’t bring himself to realize the immorality of his neocon beliefs. It isn’t hard to imagine Sullivan back in Victorian England arguing how necessary it was for the Empire to bring civilization to the savages of the world.
Darrell
Kevin Drum:
Given that a broken middle east under tyranny is what spawned majority of terrorists trying to kill us, the shake-up of that dangerous status quo, not just democracy itself, is what is so important
Horshu
“let’s do all we can to make this work.”
That’s a rather vague benchmark for making something work. We *can* sacrifice 10,000 lives to make this “work” (whatever that itself means), but *should* we? Is there a cutoff whereby even those supporting “finishing the job” would say, “No, that’s not worth it”?
Shygetz
That’s not what was put before us when the administration made the case for war. And that is not something I would approve of now. Look at the amount of terrorism since we invaded. Did it decrease? No. Do we have any evidence that our actions will cause it to decrease? No. All we have is faith in a domino-effect strategy. And we all know how that works–once Vietnam fell, Japan was Communist within a decade. Oh wait, they weren’t. Throwing a rock at a hornet’s nest just to shake things up isn’t visionary–it’s stupid.
p.lukasiak
Happy Fitzmas Eve everyone!!!!
Don
I’m pretty sure that given almost any expensive action in American history I can find some silver lining in it, some positive results. But buying a lemon of a car and then focusing on the nice radio that came in it is at best a bit of rationalization to keep you from throwing yourself off a bridge. Sure, some good may come out of the Iraq war but that doesn’t mean it was worth the money and lives, much less the more abstract unanswerables like “how much did we impede economic recovery by entering into it at that time?”
I suddenly had an image of Andrew Sullivan standing in front of a cottage saying “Okay, so the cow’s gone – but I got these cool beans!”
slide
Well, obviously I dont’ belive it is realistic to think that Iraq will turn into a Democracy and the risk of it not far outweighed the possibility that it would. I think General Skowcroft said it best in his recent interview in New Yorker magazine:
Every decision that an executive makes has to be evaluated as to Risk and Reward. I don’t think this bunch ever looked at the worst case scenarios, or even the LIKELY scenarios, it was always, for them, the best case scenarions. How else do you explain them disregarding Gen Skowcroft, Gen Shenseki, the CIA that warned of nationlism and an insurgency, and the State Dept that predicted sectarian fighting? They disregarded them all in their arrogant pursuit of their own agenda. 2,000 Americans have paid for that arrogance.
neil
Given that a broken middle east under tyranny is what spawned majority of terrorists trying to kill us
Bollocks. The vast majority of the countries of the world have spent most of their history under tyranny more severe than can be found in the Middle East today. And, in fact, Iraq has a great deal more terrorism now that it is a ‘democracy’ than it did when it was under tyranny. (Iraq is not much of a democracy, of course, but it is clearly more of one than it was.)
slide
So we went to war to bring Democracy to the middle east and that is how we are going to measure the success of Iraq? Ok, guess reasons one, two and three didn’t work out so good.
Gratefulcub
If tyranny in the middle east causes terrorism, why did we attack the only dictatorship in the middle east that wasn’t spawning terrorism?
jg
Yes. Sunk costs fallacy. I use it every weekend when I convince myself to fold what I feel is the second best hand.
slide
Now now gratefulcub lets not bring logic into this debate.
slide
I wasn’t here when we were deciding to go to war in Iraq so I dont’ know what John’s position was. Was he saying we should go to war to bring democracy to Iraq? Was that the reason we were supposed to risk the lives or our young men and women? To bring democracy to a country that had never had democracy in its entire history? just asking?
Gratefulcub
Logic, I might even bring some nuance.
Slartibartfast
That’s what you meant to say? That’s nothing at all like what you did say. In any case, you’d have to show me.
Again, show me. Not disputing this; I just hadn’t read that.
If you’d read the link, it doesn’t say that. It says that about one-third of those battalions are “in the lead”; the other two-thirds have to fight alongside our forces. Hopefully that answers your remaining question. Also, given that our friends on the left are maintaining that all along we really needed close to a half million troops to maintain order over there, we’re not even close to the point where we can consider pulling out. What I quoted says there are about 200k army and police in Iraq, and that the number of autonomous troops is still somewhat south of 40k.
Darrell
That’s a start. Bush could have made the case better. I think he buried the shake-up-middle-east-status-quo in his arguments in favor of democracy. Others were certainly pointing out the dangers of leaving the middle east as-is run by tyrants, especially after 9/11.
It’s decreased here in the US. Invading Iraq and Afghanistan had the benefit of smoking out terrorists across the middle east and making them come out and fight and die
Actually, Japan is analogous to Iraq. Both were militaristic shame/face based cultures. After WWII, how’d that Japanese experiment work out?
Northman
That took three weeks, its the other two and half years most people have issue with.
These developments, such that they are, cannot be claimed as successes since they are only true so long as 150,000+ US troops and other coalition forces remain in the country to keep things from degenerating further. The country has been under martial law for the entire US occupation so even whatever rights the new Constitution promises are illusionary for the time being.
The democratic process and the prevention of a civil war may work as reasons to “stay the course”, because at this point, they are works in progress dependant on US troops.
Well, it’s nice to know the “it’ll be a cakewalk and we’ll be greeted with flowers and cheering crowds” meme seems to have dissipated. On the other hand it would be nice if he realized that the US is in the “brutal, urban war for Baghdad”, and given another decade or so of “simmering insurgency” they may hit the 10,000 mark as well.
You know, I’d probably be more supportive of the war if the US leadership showed any signs of figuring out a workable strategy to bring it to an end. Otherwise I fear they’re just delaying the inevitable and making things worse in the meantime.
Gratefulcub
You can’t say:
Tyranny causes terrorism.
Poverty causes terrorism
Unemployment causes terrorism
Or any other one thing, causes terrorism. It is more complicated than that.
Tyranny causes domestic terrorism. If Saddam caused terrorism through the oppression of Iraqi people, that terrorism would be directed at the Iraqi government, not the US.
Tyranny is a cause of AQ terrorism against the US. Their goals are to rid the ME of tyranny (not tyranny as we know it, they just want to remove secular tyranny, and replace it with Islamic bliss, which we would call tyranny-because it is). The attack on the US was due to what they perceived as our support for secular governments (Egypt, Jordan, etc.), and our support of the house of Saud. We haven’t supported Iraqi tyranny in decades, so SH being in control of Iraq would not cause any terrorist to attack the US.
slide
Darrell suggests that terrorism has decreased because we’re smokin em out in Iraq. Well, once again facts are inconvenient things to the right like these:
.
Darrell
Saddam was harboring Abu Nidal in a government paid office, Nidal who at that time was one of the leading terrorist figures in the world. The 1993 WTC bombers entered the US using Iraqi passports, Salman Pak terrorist training camp complete with hollowed out airplane fuselage, meetings with Al Queda, etc, etc.
Does any sane person believe that someone as crazed as Saddam who tried to assasinate a US President for chissakes, would not hesitate to provide aid and assistence to terrorist groups trying to kill us? And since Saddam kicked out weapons inspectors in 1998 with tons of KNOWN unaccounted for Vx and Chem weapons, that would have been really responsible to take that chance and just let Saddam alone after 9/11 showed us what could happen, right? Reality based community my ass
Darrell
It is. But tyranny + lack of hope + shame based culture is what spawned the terrorists who have been killing Americans and others. A shake up of the middle east had to take place
Gratefulcub
“What I meant to say” was me being a smart ass.
Wasn’t a question, it was me being a smart ass. I know that there aren’t enough iraqi troops trained for us to leave. The whole point is, three years later, there is no real Iraqi Army ready to take over, and there isn’t going to be any time soon.
Sorry for my tone and all the smart ass rhetoric, I am pissy today. My apologies. at least I deleted the snark that was here, and instead I will try to hunt down some sources for insurgents infiltrating the military.
4 years of all out war, plus two atomic weapons to force an UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER from the Japanese government. Since the leaders surrendered, the people followed suit. There was no insurgency against the occupation, or not much of one. And I am not willing to drop nukes on Iraq to prove our point. You?
slide
right darrell… right. lol
neil
Does any sane person believe that someone as crazed as Saddam
Any argument starting this way is guaranteed to be stupid.
neil
It’s the comic-book understanding of foreign policy, and it’s tragic that the only people who are fully behind our government right now are the ones who see things that way. It’s simply not plausible, for them, to believe that Saddam was a ruthless kleptocrat — he has to be a mad supervillain who wants to enslave the world with his Death Ray. This, I think, is also why they approve of our first Dress-Up Action Combat President.
Defense Guy
A closer examination of the facts regarding Saddam and terrorism might bring you to a different conclusion on this.
Slartibartfast
Well done, and accepted. I really couldn’t tell whether you were being snarky or earnest. As for the rest, all news is good, even when it’s not good news.
Darrell
And it’s simply not possible to believe, that a ruthless sociopath like Saddam would aid and abet terrorists who want to kill us. It’s not like he ever manufactured or used WMDs before or anything.. oh, wait
neil
A closer examination of the facts regarding Saddam and terrorism might bring you to a different conclusion on this.
Also, it helps if you squint at the facts a little, and look at them from an angle. For me, it was easier if I crossed my eyes.
slide
Question for all of you that think Democracy is such a great idea in the Middle East. What if a middle east country votes for a Bin Laden type guy? Will that be ok with you, because it was done democratically? All expectations are that if Iraq does every get to be a real democracy they would like elect someone very supportive of Iran. Will that be better for us than having Saddam in power? These are not easy questions are they. But we all know that we REALLY don’t mean democracy do we? [wink, wink] What we want is a puppet government sitting on top of all that oil with that patina of democracy. Can anybody say the word Chalabi?
Gratefulcub
Darrell,
i wasn’t scared of SH. Never was. Bad bad guy. Not scared of him. There are so many more viable threats to US interests. And, knowing what we know now, can you reasonably say that we should have been scared of SH, so scared that we had to launch a war to remove him instead of continue and increase weapons inspections and sanctions?
Darrell
Joe, just because a kook like you hopes it comes true, doesn’t mean “all expectations” indicate Iraq will become an Iranian-like theocracy
Darrell
You know what, before 9/11, if you’re honest, you’ll admit you weren’t scared of OBL either
Defense Guy
I’m not sure why, his support for and willingness to aid terrorists is well documented. You can, if you wish, choose to completely ignore all that, which may be why you choose to do your squint and eye crossing bit.
Theseus
link
Shygetz
I believe it, and I am certified sane. Islamic terrorists hated Saddam as much as (if not more than) America. He was running a secular state in the Arab world. He didn’t give more than a perfunctory nod to Islam (until we invaded and he needed an insurgency), and he crushed fundamentalists in his country when he could. And didn’t we try to assassinate Saddam in the days leading up to the invasion? I remember report after report saying “I think we got him this time.”
Oh yeah, the weapons inspectors wanted us to invade because of all of the unaccounted for WMDs, right? Sadly, no. The weapons inspectors were telling us that they were making progress, they had found no evidence of WMDs, and we should let the inspections run the course. The UN agreed, as did most of our allies.
And yet the US intelligence services unanimously agreed that there was no specific intelligence information linking Iraq to US terrorist attacks. link
You people act like the world changed after 9/11. It didn’t; Americans just finally woke up to what had been going on elsewhere for decades. And Iraq wasn’t nealy the largest part of the problem. Until we invaded, that is. Now it’s worse than ever.
And what makes you say that terrorism has decreased here in the US? The fact that we haven’t had a major successful terrorist attack from a foreign terrorist since then? We hadn’t had many before then, either. And the idea that we have terrorists pinned down in Iraq is stupid. We are just generating local terrorists in Iraq; the international terrorists are still free to do whatever they want while we piss away our money and military there.
Afghanistan was a good idea and a necessary response to 9/11; Iraq is and was foolish adventurism for no good reason. I bought the WMD argument that the administration fed me, and cheered them along until it became blindingly obvious that there were no WMDs. And instead of a mea culpa, all I got was a moving of the goalposts by the Bush administration. So I call bullshit.
Gratefulcub
Stariblast
Wash post, 0ct 17 of this year quoting the pentagon
slide
But what if it does?
well, one thing is certain, Iran was very very happy that we toppeled Saddam. Here from that kooky USA Today:
So its a POSSIBILITY isn’t it? That Iraq ends up being very very close with Iran. What do you suggest we do if that happens Darrell? More regime change?
Shygetz
Why should I be? Bush said he really isn’t worried about OBL, and that’s after 9/11. So why should I ever have been worried about OBL?
Gratefulcub
Darrell,
On 9/10/01, didn’t know who he was, on 9/12 I was scared. but not of SH
Shygetz
Nah, we’ll just “shake up the region” again by bombing, say, Qatar. Do you know that their Emir still refuses to ratify their constitution? And Al Jazeera is there, which has done more to hurt America than all the liberals combined (but not by much). So we’ll just crap on them for a while.
Didn’t you know…UnintedStatesAmerica has always been at war with MiddleEast.
Tim F
Look up the party platforms for the 2000 election, Darrell. Count the number of times the Democratic platform mentions the danger of non-state terrorism and Osama bin Laden’s network in particular. Now do that again with the Republican platform.
If anybody was “scared” of bin Laden before 9/11, it was the Republicans. They were “scared” to mention him because terrorism was a Democratic issue. Iraq was, and is, the Republican cause du jour.
Retief
All right, let’s engage it. The mess that is Iraq can only be considered to be worthwhile, because of the progress it produces toward a more open, more liberal Middle East, if that progress could not have been accomlished in some other less costly way. Funnily enough, to make this arguement, you have to connect some sort of numbers to the costs in terms of dead, maimed, dollars, and credibility. Even if you granted all the “evidence” of the the Iraq invasions influence, that seems like a stretch.
Now let’s look at the evidence. Let’s pass on Iraq and Afghanistan being better off than before. There are certainly ways in which that is true. Libya has given up its nuke program, after a decade long raproachment with Europe, including handing over the Lockerbie bombers. Lebanon’s Cedar Revolution is a sign of progress, precipitated by a Syrian assasination. Egypt has held a more open election than any before it, the outcome of which was never in any more doubt that any of the previous times the president of 22 years has been reelected. And the Syrian regime is under considerable pressure, much of it steming from the UN investigation into the assasination in Lebanon. Meanwhile, what pressure to become more open and liberal do any of the despots who happen to be the US’s and Bush’s friends feel? Saudi Arabia? Jordan? Anybody?
neil
The only time since 9/11 that I have felt any personal fear relating to America’s foreign policy or her enemies was on the very same day we invaded Afghanistan. I was reading the news or something in the evening, when suddenly there were loud noises of explosions outside. The first one just jolted me, but when the second, third, and fourth quickly followed, my blood ran a little bit cold. The noise was coming from the coast, which I lived just a few blocks away from.
In confusion, I went outside to see what the fuck was going on.
It was a fireworks display on the beach, commemorating the birthday of the boardwalk.
I was never worried about Osama or Saddam, though. I mean, come on. A draft was the only way Saddam could have gotten to me, and if Osama really just wanted to indiscriminately kill Americans, he could have bought shares of GM and Ford — more Americans die in car wrecks each month than died on 9/11. (And I do feel fear in cars.)
Now if you want to talk about the US’s economic policy, that can get me scared…
Tony Alva
I love how all you cut & runners so freely speak for the Iraqi people. I love how you’ve decided on their behalf that they are so far worse off than they were when Saddam and his hooligan sons were in power. Do you really believe your own bullshit? For those of you who would dare speak on behalf of our lost soldiers, you oughta be thinking twice about that as well. I can assure you if they could they’d tell you to your face to stick to civilian politics and leave them out of your rantings and ravings. Shame on you.
We were given a lot baseless propaganda to convince most Americans to get behind the invasion. Can’t argue with that, nor am I happy about it. Nonetheless, we are making progress given the situation we’re in. Not as fast as anyone would like, but the job is getting done. The Sunni’s? What’s your expectation with regard to their constitutional support? Did anyone really expect that even the moderate Sunnis were going to vote yes? This is the only Sunni supported constitution that would get a yes vote: “Restore all the dictatorial powers and favor that the MINORITY Sunni populous enjoyed prior to Saddam’s ouster…”. Yep, it’s a whole new day for them isn’t it?. As Henry Hill said at the end of “Goodfallas”, “Now I gotta stand in line with all the other suckers…”. Boo fucking hoo for them.
Nope, it didn’t go down like anyone had hoped. Yep, serious blunders were made and those that made them should be held accountable. Yep, it’s going to take a long time to fully stabilize. Hard work and determination on behalf of Iraqis and the U.S. Military are what is creating success despite all the obstacles. Both seem up to the task and as long as they are we should be too. So debate the administration’s sins all you want. Hell, I agree with most of your criticism, but for godsake STOP speaking on behalf of dead soldiers and the Iraqi people. Both would tell you put a fucking sock in it.
RSA
Yeah, well Bush has got Secret Service bodyguards and an underground bunker, not to mention a stately pleasure palace in Crawford, Texas. Why should he worry?
Darrell
Well, given Europe’s, and the UN in particular, toothless enforcement of sanctions on Iraq, their complete inability to do anything about Serb violence without US taking the lead, Sudan massacres, etc, etc, what do you think the Las Vegas odds would be that US military action, rather than UN and European ‘diplomacy’, was the primary reason Khaddafi turned over his WMDs and Syria, after 20 years occupying Lebanon, just ‘happened’ to leave? What do you think those odds would be?
You think they are not being pressured? No one believes that the Saudis are our ‘friends’. No one including George Bush. We yanked our troops from Saudi and shut down all the Saudi charities we came across. We pressured them into holding half-ass elections (women couldn’t participate). Much more needs to be done. Problem with Saudi isn’t that Bush thinks they are our friends, the problem is, that in a country with so much islamic fanaticism, who would move into the power vacuum if we toppled the House of Saud?
Andrew J. Lazarus
I know it’s gauche to speak of sexual preference, but Sullivan is trying to put lipstick on a pig.
Darrell
So many on the left see Saddam, and middle east terrorism in general, as a minor threat.. even after 9/11. Like the threat of a car accident or getting struck by lightening. They don’t see a multitude of semi-organized terrorists trying to kill us, they see, as John Kerry put it, a “nuisance”
slide
ok.. i’m done. Arguing about the Iraq war gives me a headache. A HUGE blunder. Disasterous decision. Bush’s legacy.
Jorge
“Tony Alva Says: Hell, I agree with most of your criticism, but for godsake STOP speaking on behalf of dead soldiers and the Iraqi people. Both would tell you put a fucking sock in it.”
Tony – You do understand that you are speaking for both the soldiers and the Iraqi people, here?
Jorge
“Darrell Says:You think they are not being pressured? No one believes that the Saudis are our ‘friends’. No one including George Bush.”
Wow – you are over reaching here. Wayyyy over reaching with the whole Bush doesn’t believe the Saudis are our friends.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Uhh, it wasn’t only people on the left. Besides, Saddam was a minor threat. To argue otherwise is absurd.
Lines
Hey Tony Alva: Take your own advice. You’re the only one I really see speaking for the dead and the Iraqi’s.
Faux News
Meanwhile the suffering people of Zimbabwe STILL await our liberation…As do Burma, North Korea, and Liechtenstein all of whom groan under the oppression of brutal dictators.
srv
Saddam was never, ever, a threat to us. That should be clear from his stopping in Kuwait. Nobody could have stopped him going into the Saudi oil fields.
OBL ceased to be a threat on 9/11. As much as we wet our pants about it, on that day I knew he didn’t have nuclear weapons and we’d finally deal with him.
Darrell, AQ recruited 15 Saudi’s to kill themselves, primarily on the insult to their ‘pride’ over us having 15,000 troops ‘protecting’ their turf.
10 years from now, if 100,000 troops are still stationed in various Arab, Asian and possibly Persian countries, OBL #2 will not have any problem recruiting bodies and money.
But he won’t make the same mistake Saddam (91) and OBL (2001) made. He will have WMDs.
And Americans will begin dying in masses for their foreign policy experiments.
Andorra Freedom Fighter
“and Liechtenstein all of whom groan under the oppression of brutal dictators”.
DO NOT TEST Liechtenstein! Vaduz in da house YO!
Jorge
“Faux News Says:
Meanwhile the suffering people of Zimbabwe STILL await our liberation…As do Burma, North Korea, and Liechtenstein all of whom groan under the oppression of brutal dictators.”
May I add the people of Cuba. As a first generation Cuban American, I cringe every time a neocon brings up the plight of the Iraqi people as a justification for war. Most pick and choose bunch of liberators ever.
Defense Guy
So you think that we are handing the ‘next one’ justification for using WMD on us? You don’t really believe that it is justification do you?
I’m also curious if you have ever read the reasons al Quada has given for this war.
Faux News
May I add the people of Cuba. As a first generation Cuban American, I cringe every time a neocon brings up the plight of the Iraqi people as a justification for war. Most pick and choose bunch of liberators ever.
Absolutely. My bad. All kidding aside (Liechtenstein)the people of Cuba are also suffering.
Darrell
We have had that many troops stationed in Japan, Korea and Germany for years without “creating” terrorists there. I expect us to have military bases in the middle east for a long time (as we have had in Germany, Japan, and Korea), and I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
Darrell
Given Saddam’s network of “dual use” labs and centrifuge parts and plans buried under rose bushes (intent to deceive), his past willingness use of WMDs, and Saddam’s well established connections and support of terrorists.. well then, I can see how perfectly absurd it is to conclude that Saddam was a threat. He never would have passed along intelligence and/or nasty substances to terrorists organizations trying to do us or our allies harm. Harmless old Saddam. In fact, he’s almost likeable, right kooks?
Gratefulcub
Sorry, but that is a faulty comparison. The people of these three countries don’t see us as ‘infidels’ intent on destroying their religion and way of life. They don’t see us as the enablers of the the dictatorships terrorizing their countries. (that is not a generalization of arabs, just of a subset that includes the terrorists).
As for SH nuclear plans under rose bushes and his evil intentions……..
SH was a bad guy, who probably had evil intentions. But, intentions to destroy america with nuclear weapons mean nothing without the ability to build nuclear weapons. He didn’t have the ability to hurt us. UBL intends to build a caliphate led empire from Spain to the Phillipines, but it isn’t happening.
RSA
So, when do we invade North Korea?
Jorge
It amazes me how many pieces of discredited or made up pieces of evidence Darrel has used. It’s like Hans Blix, the 9/11 Commission or the David Kay investigation never happened. I’m surprised that he hasn’t brought up the British having learned that Saddam was actively seeking to acquire Uranium in Africa. Or maybe he’ll claim that Saddam can deliver WMD’s in 45 minutes to London.
Good gosh Darrell, GWB dropped the WMD bunk early in the 2004 election cycle. Do you know that any bit of research from any poster here will automatically debunk almost all the stuff you’ve brought up? From terrorist camps that weren’t terrorist camps to meetings that didn’t happen to forged documents to FAKE passports to meetings that never happened. Not even Assrocket or Bill O’Reilly still try to pass this stuff off as evidence.
SeesThroughIt
Well, I guess that’s a tiny bit less insipid “they hate our freedom.” Baby steps, people, baby steps.
Sojourner
I was concerned about OBL before 9/11. Which is why I remain surprised and angry that the Bushies ignored all the warnings and did nothing.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Don’t take my word for it Darrell…take theirs:
Colin Powell – February 2001
“[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.”
Condoleezza Rice – July 2001
“We are able to keep arms from [Saddam]. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”
Clearly these two knew that Saddam didn’t have WMD and that he wasn’t a threat. I find it hard to believe that neither Powell, nor Rice expressed these opinions to the other members.
srv
DG,
What we think doesn’t, and will never make any difference. If enough people believe they’re occupied and marginalized, they will be able to recruit large sums of money and bodies.
They way we are going, I can guarantee plenty of folks will be feeling occupied and marginalized. We don’t have any idea what those consequences will be, but my money is it will be alot worse than 9/11.
The WMD genie is never going back into the bottle. You can bomb Mecca all day long, technology is here to stay. If people aren’t willing to die, right now, for their foreign policy, then they should really be thinking about those policies.
I was trying to read Osama before it was fashionable (obtaining complete translations pre-9/11 was not possible). He gave us plenty of warning. Yes, I understand the leadership has an ideology. Regardless, we are a target not because we’re good, but because we’re in their leaderships way. But to say the vast majority of guys blowing themselves up want to establish a Celiphate based out of Washington (as many on the ideological right do), is vastly exagerrating the threat.
Darrell
Duelfer Report, Regime Strategic Intent, Key Findings section, p. 1
and this
Harmless, loveable Saddam. No threat whatsoever if we had just left him alone
Gratefulcub
That is what I said. ASPIRES. I aspire to be a dancer:)
The Disenfranchised Voter
First of all Darrell, I never said he wasn’t a threat at all. I said he wasn’t a big threat, and he wasn’t. That report does not indicate that he was ever a threat to the US.
Secondly of all, of course he aspired to do so–that is irrelevant. I’m sure just about every third-worl leader would aspire to do so–it doesn’t mean they can or will.
What matters is did he, and was he ACTUALLY a threat?
That answer is a definative NO.
jg
I’m honest, I was scared of him. He’d hit us at least twice in 5 years and publicly declared war on us. All Saddam had done since 91 is dictate romance novels and flex what little control he still had in his country.
SeesThroughIt
Ah, Darrell. Quoting the very same report that laid to waste all the bullshit reasons BUsh gave for dragging us into Iraq. He aspired to have some big, nasty weapons, but as others above have pointed out, many people aspire to many things. Doesn’t make any of them actually happen. After all, that report you’re selectively quoting also pointed out that:
1) Saddam did not have any WMDs (contrary to very specific claims coming out of the Bush administration), and
2) even if he could get some (and that’s a very, very big “if,” though I’m sure you’ll conveniently overlook that), his target was Iran. If you’ll notice, Iran is not the United States. So all this jibber-jabber about Saddam being a threat to the United States, a grave danger, the man who will surely be behind Cheney’s fantasies of mushroom clouds over major American cities? Yeah, that would be bullshit. How does it taste?
Darrell
If there were any lingering doubts whether or not John Kerry is a complete jackass
Then in his speech at Georgetown Univ, horseface ridicules the ‘simplistic’ notion that we will stay in Iraq “as long as it takes” claiming our troops are “antagonists”. Yes, the troops are ‘antagonizing’ terrorists who blow up children and men standing in line for jobs you idiot. Incredible
Defense Guy
Truth be told, it doesn’t even matter if this is based on anything real or not. We were asked to be in SA, by the government, to protect the country. We have made effort on behalf of Muslims in Kuwait, Afghanistan, Bosnia and now Iraq to free them from slaughter and from oppression, but in the end it is the lies of Osama and his ilk which seem to carry the most weight.
Simply put, our actions have little to do with what our enemy is going to do. It is not a response to our actions which motivates them, but rather an internal drive to shape the world under the one Islamic flag. In that worldview we have but a few choices; convert to islam, submit to it as second class citizens, or die. The other choice, which we give ourselves, is to fight.
Darrell
It’s entirely relevant, as the Duelfer reports spells out what Saddam was planning to do had we not stepped in. What’s more, a democratic Iraq is a threat to the other despots in the region. Look at Libya, elections in Egypt, half-ass elections in Saudi, pressure on Syria, Syrian troops leaving Lebanon. NONE of those things would have taken place without US toppling Saddam militarily
As 9/11 taught us, leaving the middle east as-is was not an option. Saddam was a threat, we took him out, and we’ve already seen early benefits of that action in Egypt, Libya, Lebanon and other parts of the region. Deny it if you want, but it’s true
Gratefulcub
John Kerry? John Fucking Kerry?
And of course they are antagonists. Occupying forces are anatagonists. Even if their mission is perfectly legitimate, and they are 100% right to be there. People, some people, are going to be antagonized by foreign troops on their soil. Right or wrong doesn’t matter, they are antagonists. I don’t know what context he said it in, and I don’t care. I don’t care any more about JK and what he has to say than I care about Al Sharpton and what he has to say. But how he fits into this conversation I have no idea.
SeesThroughIt
Still clinging to that after being roundly disproven, huh? Willfull ignorance is so becoming on you, Darrell.
Darrell
He kept in place his scientists, his plans, he developed dual-use labs, he buried nuclear centrifuges in rose gardens, many chem weapons can be manufactured from easily obtained materials, and he had well established support and contacts with terrorists.. but I’m sure you’ll conveniently overlook that
Lines
Yeah! He should have killed all those scientists!
One buried centrifuge does not a nuclear program make.
I’m sure you have proof of all the “well established support and contacts” and you’ll be providing them to the State Department, because, well, they seem to be lacking that evidence.
jg
No one’s overlooking it, you’re just giving it far too mauch weight. All that doesn’t add up to the kind of threat we need to mobilize and go to war over.
Gratefulcub
I think you have described UBL and the jihadists perfectly. We can’t convert these people through good acts. We can’t think that giving aid to Pakistan is going to convert islamic fundamentalists to our side. But, they can’t convert the world to islam.
But the population at large is a different story. I don’t believe a large percentage of the muslim world wants us all dead or converted. Most of them just want to live their lives, just like most of us. They can be swayed through actions. They can be shown that we aren’t the enemy, as long as we aren’t the enemy. At the same time, if we invade their countries, and occupy their people, and support the Israeli occupation of Palestinians, it gives more weight to the lies of UBL that we are on a crusade against islam.
Gratefulcub
Anyone with a water treatment plant can be accused of having ‘dual use’ equipment, and any modern nation would have the materials to manufacture chemical weapons.
SeesThroughIt
Exact-a-mundo. Now, if only the right-wing hawks were to understand this….
jg
Just because you say our invasion of Iraq caused those events doesn’t make it true. Its just the conclusion you’ve drawn from observable facts. It’s opinion. Provide linkage or stop saying people are denying reality.
Darrell
Not to the people they are saving and protecting. You’re such a simpleton, you really are
Only 12% of Iraqis support an immediate pullout of our troops, down from 57% two years ago
62% of Iraqis think the country is heading in the right direction vs. 23% who think it’s going in the wrong direction
It’s not all good news coming out of Iraq, but there is PLENTY of progress and good news and the trends are improving (no Iraqi police stations taken this year vs lots last year, many more trained Iraqi soldiers and police, more electricity, etc). Gratefulcub, like most leftists, focus entirely on the negative while ignoring the positives.. for them and for us
Lines
I farted and the sun rose. The US should therefore supply me with beans and cauliflower (with cheese, of course) or we may be in the dark for a long time.
Oh, and I hate you for your way of life.
srv
Sorry, I think foreign policy choices have consequences, and 1 Billion Muslims aren’t all puppets.
I really don’t see the hordes of Egyptian, Bosnian, Kuwaiti and Iraqi Muslims marching behind Osama that you do. You’re making him into a boogeyman with a billion of followers. The Sunni in Iraq aren’t taking orders from some cave in Afghanistan. Mr. Z (or whoever he really is) may be, but he’s a bit player compared to 5,000,000 Sunni in Iraq.
I guess all I can say is one of us is operating under a large illusion.
Gratefulcub
Sorry if I am talking slow, I am a simpleton. But Darrell, let’s read again. Let’s pay special attention to the words SOME PEOPLE.
You say that 12% want us to withdraw immediately. There is another poll that finds that 45% of Iraqis support attacks on foreign soldiers. But, let’s use your 12% number. 12% or Iraqis are antagonized by our presence there, that makes us antagonists.
By your logic, we can only be antagonists if 100% of Iraqis want us to withdraw immediately. If one guy, probably the one on bush’s talk with the troops event, loves bush and thanks him for everything, then we aren’t antagonizing Iraqis.
I never said all iraqis. I just made the statement that all occupying forces are antagonists, to a portion of the populace. please dispute that.
Gratefulcub
Unbelievable. It happened again. We have spent an hour arguing with no one but Darrell. Why? I’m going home, Good Night, and Good Luck. I am going to curl up with Assassin’s Gate, it better be as good as advertised.
Defense Guy
Apparently you missed the policy choices I referred to in my statement. One would think that helping the Muslims in places like Indonesia, Bosnia, or Egypt would have positive results. Sadly, it does not seem to.
Then you are not paying attention. He is well loved, respected and followed in that world.
Those are the choices spelled out to us under the call for war against us. It’s not illusion, but reality. When the party leaning left gets its head around that fact, it might once again be taken seriously on issue of foreign policy.
Darrell
That’s very good. So we needn’t be concerned about such dual-use facilities in Belgium vs similar dual-use facilities in Iraq under Saddam. Can you guess why?
jg
I guess when the party that leans right understands that there is no reason to limit ourselves to the choices given to us by people who live in caves they might be taken seriously on foreign policy.
Defense Guy
Actually, this person on the right spelled out one additional choice, fight. I suppose we could just return to ignoring it like we were doing in the 90’s. So that would be 2 additional choices.
Mac Buckets
History is so easy to re-write, isn’t it? Just count on people having short attention spans!
Funny how none of the leaders in Washington, Democrat or Republican, for the six years leading up to the ousting of Saddam, nor the weekly periodicals (which were running cover stories on the pervasive danger of “rogue nations” like Iraq) felt the same calm and ease about Iraq that you omniscient 20/20-hindsight blog commenters do.
From now on, we should make all foreign policy decisions by travelling to the future and reading blog comments — that way, we’d never be so foolish as to say that someone like Saddam was dangerous to us, like Clinton, Blair, Kerry, Gore, Daschle, Byrd, Waxman, Bush, Cheney, Hillary, McCain, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. did.
Darrell
regarding our troops, your exact words were:
You didn’t say antagonists to a small percentage of the population, you made a sweeping assertion. I have already stipulated that to some Sunni and Al Queda terrorists and car bombers murdering civilians, our troops are “antagonists”.
jg
OBL was ignored in the 90’s?He hit us twice in th e90’s and we responded (weakly) each time. Ignored? He was ignored by the current administration as it pursued missile shields in the first few months in office. He wasn’t ignored in the 90’s. You guys are just so fixated on drumming up feelings of dread, sorry exagerating feelings of dread concerning the weakest of the scary middle east dictators or threats.
jg
In order to do their job effectively they have to act in a way that will be perceived as antagonistic even to innocent ordinary civilians. You need to show overwhelming force and control in order to secure an area. Someone is bound to feel antagonized by it.
You guys are arguing over nothing.
Darrell
And we saw the results of those weak responses on 9/11. What is your point?
The Disenfranchised Voter
I wonder how many times I will have to post this until it finally sinks in…
Colin Powell – February 2001
“[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.”
Condoleezza Rice – July 2001
“We are able to keep arms from [Saddam]. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”
Clearly these two knew that Saddam didn’t have WMD and that he wasn’t a threat. I find it hard to believe that neither Powell, nor Rice expressed these opinions to the other members.
jg
My point? Read my post and the one I was responding to. Fuckhead.
Take a sentence from a conversation you weren’t in. Refute a point it wasn’t making and turn it back on me? What a tool.
RA
We have never fought a war and accomplished so much with so few casualties. All these critics of the Iraqi Constitution should look how the ACLU and liberal judges have turned our contitution on it’s head.
We have a far greater problem with law in the US because of the subversion of the constitution by leftist traitors. Fix the problems with courts legislating Mr. Liberal before you criticize the Iraqis.
Darrell
What’s to ‘sink in’? No one is claiming Saddam was a conventional military threat to us, as your quotations demonstrate. The threat was Saddam using his finances, intelligence, and weapons to aid and abet terrorists trying to kill us. Saddam violated his 1991 terms of surrender countless times and never accounted for tons of KNOWN Vx and chem weapons, which was one of the main legal justifications for invading. Allowing inspectors into the country does not = accounting for missing WMDs
Defense Guy
It’s almost pointless to try to refute the logic that a weak response is not the same as ignoring it. In fact a weak response might actually help encourage this behavior. To then point try to pin some ‘you guys’ statement on the end just makes it sad.
jg
How many wars have we fought against such a mismatched opponent that didn’t even stand and fight then add in the advances in battle field medical care. We’d have less casualties if we refought WWII with modern medics.
Nothing happens in a vacuum.
jg
Don’t try to play strawman on me. You know who ‘you guys’ are, its not someone I’m making up. Nice dodge tho.
There were reasons for a weak response. Wag the dog and all that. You remember that stuff right? I don’t excuse it. I think we should have killed him when the first chance occurred.
Are we still debating him being ignored in the 90’s? Sounds like you gave that up but I’m not sure.
Sojourner
This is the funniest thing I’ve read all day. Thanks for making my day.
Darrell
Uh dumbass, your “conversation” which I and others were following was not private so that no one else could see it, but on a blog. I see now that you really had no point to make at all
srv
And Bush opponents are the doom-and-gloomies?
If you think Saddam == AQ, you can rationalize that. If not, 150,000 troops in Iraq have less than zero chances of finding Osama.
You assume. And maybe for some here, you could be right. But I was protesting against sanctions way before you were marching behind Hillary and George.
Darrell
You were protesting sanctions on Saddam? Why?
The Disenfranchised Voter
Oh get the fuck out of here. “Imminent threat”, “Mushroom could”, “Grave and gathering threat”.
I’m done debating with you Darrell if you are going to resort to ridiculous bullshit statements like this.
jg
Di I say it was private? I said you weren’t in it which explains why you don’t know what I was talking about.
Results? Again drawing a conclusion and stating its a fact without linkage.
srv
Because they killed innocents and didn’t hurt Saddam.
Darrell
Do you see now that it was Saddam who killed the innocents, not the sanctions themselves? That Saddam was stealing money that should have been used for food and medicine and housing, and used it to build palaces stuffed to the ceiling with cash and guns? The sanctions never prohibited food and medicine to the people of Iraq. Do you know that?
just curious
Tim F
Def Guy,
Have you? I’m curious to know whether what you’re reading is that much different from what I’m reading.
Slide
To correct the record. Darrell posted some bogus poll numbers earlier here is the most recent poll taken the British Ministry of Defense:
Yeah, making “good progress”.
ATS
John says, carry on “for the sake of the 2000” who have sacrificed. By this spurious logic we would still be at war with the Barbary Pirates.
ppGaz
This article represents where someone “stands?”
It’s not a stand, it’s a bunch of dishonest adverstising copy on the back of box of detergent.
A stand is something else entirely.
A stand is standing up for something, such as not leading the country into a war on false pretenses. Nothing said in the thread’s original post represents a “stand” that would have led this country into war. Nothing …. and that’s why that crap WASN’T used to lead the country into war. Because it wouldn’t have been a case for war then, and it isn’t now. No amount of sanctimonious, Ends-Justify-Means horseshit can change that fact. Period.
THAT’S a “stand.” Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.
srv
We chose to leave him in power as a legitimate ruler, but we economically blockaded him.
We (the US and UN) thought that sanctions could affect a change we weren’t willing to do in 91, and we knew that Saddam would have to play all sorts of games to stay in power (steaks for Sunni, bombs for Kurds). Even when it was obvious this was all that was happening (say, 1994 or so), it was politically expedient for all parties to just maintain a failed status quo and look the other way.
scs
To all of you who are against the war, I ask again, would you want to:
1. Lift the sanctions – so that Saddam and his team would be awash in oil money so that they could buy any weapon they wanted
2. Keep up the sanctions, so that Russian and French elements could profit from oil-for-food ripoffs while Shia children starved to death, and Al Qaeda could use the starvation as a selling point for more terrorism?
Those two or war were the only choices we had. I think establishing seeds of democracy was the best and only choice.
ppGaz
No, that’s a lie. Those choices WERE NOT offered to the American people, and the imparatives represented by them WERE NOT presented as the basis for war.
Instead, 9-11 and mushroom clouds were presented as the choices. Those were false choices, presented by liars.
That’s the problem. Don’t piss on my leg, and tell me it’s raining. You can’t reinvent the year 2002.
scs
Hey I follow the news like most people. I believe I do remember talk about sanctions, and the consequences of lifting them. There was also a lot of talk about spreading democracy. I remember that the talk of WMD was not that they were imminent but a “growing and gathering threat”. Many in the world thought they had them or were working on them. No one knew for sure they didn’t. So in that case, it wasn’t a lie then. In my opinion I think they did oversell the WMD case. I would have liked to have seen more about the sanctions. But I think many Americans who supported the war, like me, read between the lines. We knew it wasn’t just about WMD. We knew it was about getting rid of Saddam and starting something new. And that’s why Bush got reelected, because many people felt the same way.
Sojourner
Those who continue to support the war may very well have been receptive to the hints the Bushies offered about non-WMD reasons for the war. Or they may be willing to swallow whatever arguments, however absurd, that continue to be made for the Bushies’ actions.
But do not re-write history and argue that these reasons were the major selling point for this war. That’s absolute crap. The bottom line is the Bushies fed off of the fear that was still very prevalent in this country after 9/11. And they certainly did what they could to nurture that fear in order to pass legislation that otherwise would have been more loudly challenged.
The Bushies either lied to this country or were grossly incompetent. That may be okay with you. It’s not with me.
ppGaz
That’s a lie. The war was plainly and deliberately sold on the basis of a 9-11 connection and a nuclear threat.
This country would not have gone to war to save Iraquis from Saddam Hussein, or ‘spread democracy.’ No plan was advanced to spread democracy. If we want to spread democracy, how about starting with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait?
Do not piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.
scs
I don’t think they lied. To lie, you have to have specific knowledge that something is false. The Bush admin didn’t KNOW for sure about WMD and neither did anyone else. You could make the case that they “oversold” or exaggerated the WMD case. That they jumped the gun. Fine. Probably true. I guess it was okay with me because I supported the goal and I took from their arguments the elements I supported.
Sojourner
Come on, ppGaz.
Our country had been attacked in a way nobody had ever seen before. Most people were still profoundly shaken by what had happened less than two years before. Absolutely they would have been receptive to pulling troops out of Afghanistan, restricting the search for Bin Laden, and taking billions of dollars that could have been used for homeland security in order to atack Iraq and bring democracy to its people.
Yeh, that’s it. Uh huh. Sure.
Defense Guy
We should have killed or captured him, agreed. That we didn’t, is unfortunate to say the least. The attacks then on the Somalia, WTC, The Cole & both African embassies were bad enough, but our failure to address them in an agressive manner led to 9/11 and everything that has come since. Not exactly a small goof.
I think you could categorize the whole thread as a discussion on collective blunders, missteps & bad timing as well as the absolute murderous nature of some people. I still see Iraq, Afghanistan and a shift in direction in the ME as potentially great things.
Defense Guy
I will quote the speakerator and say it’s ‘hard work’, which it is.
No need for me to rationilize anything. I have seen no credible proof that would tie Saddam to 9/11. I have, and the representitives of the American people have, seen credible proof that there was a connection between AQ and Saddam on some level. Now Saddam is in a cage, thankfully.
I would love to Osama and Zawahiri captured. We owe it to their victims to ensure it happens. If you know where they are, please speak up.
ppGaz
Excuse me? IT’S THEIR DAMNED JOB TO KNOW.
But no, we got potatoheads who, upon finding out that there were no WMDs, made a BIG JOKE of it and filmed a funny skit with Bush looking for the weapons under the sofa cushions in the White House.
To lie, you have to go out and talk and act as if you know something that you really don’t know at all, and then try to laugh it off later.
Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.
scs
I guess it depends on how you interpret it. Did the Bush admin act like they knew for SURE there were WMD and/or deliberately and flagrantly exaggerate the info they had? Or did they raise the strong possiblity there were WMD there and present the info they had in an strong way? I feel it was the latter although I agree the way they handled it was at least borderline. Still there was no way to know them to know for sure, job or no job. Saddam’s generals even thought he had WMD and even Saddam himself was rumoured to have thought he had WMD. The only way we would have known for sure was to go there and look, and not just in hide and seek inspections.
Slide
Only two options? Please there are many possible options, there always are. How about having a very agressive inspection program for one? Where inspectors, backed up by our military if necessary, can determine without a doubt the status of Iraq’s WMD programs/stockpiles?
War wasn’t picked as the “last option” it was the boy president’s ONLY option and then the intelligence was “fixed” around the policy. Wake up.
scs
If you read what I said earlier, to me and I’m guessing to others, it wasn’t about just about WMD. It was about the sanctions, whether you lift them and THEN Saddam gets his weapons, or just let the regular people starve there for years and years.
Kimmitt
I love watching Andrew Sullivan cheer on theocracy; it’s pretty much the definition of his career — supporting those who would harm him for his sexuality at the expense of those who would wish him to have the opportunity to lead a normal life.
jg
I still don’t see the linkage to 9/11. The responses certainly didn’t stop it but there’s no reason not to think he had a ‘9/11’ attack planned for years. I don’t see the basis for believing he saw our weak response and green lighted the big attack.
Its also important to note why we had a weak response. Startling difference between the response of a shackled president and one with unfettered power to go kick ass. One is ineffective and the other uses it as a launching board for invading a whole different country too.
Thats was a spot on Kerry impersonation there.
So you given up on the idea that we were all ignoring OBL in the 90’s?
Sojourner
They claimed to know where they were located.
Tim F
Please tell me it’s not Abu Nidal. That would be too funny for words.
Zarqawi? Skunked again. He was a guest of the independent Kurds.
Perhaps Atta in Prague? I hope not. That sucker got debunked before the Iraq war even started.
Or perhaps it’s the payments to Palestinians, about whom Osama didn’t give one tenth of a shit until it became politically convenient.
Please, Defense Guy, educate me.
ppGaz
You deserve these guys. They couldn’t govern their way out of a paper bag, and you are their best hope for support.
Tim F
Let’s go to the tape:
I don’t think that ‘hedging’ quite covers what Rumsfeld did there. All we had to do was find WMDs in at least one of the four cardinal directions from Baghdad, itself located conveniently near the center of Iraq, and he could weasel out of a lie. I checked Google and, unless you count compound directions, there are only four cardinal directions. Rummy can’t lose! Or he can, if they don’t turn up anywhere. Oops.
scs
Ok fine. Let’s spring Saddam, put him back in power and lift the sanctions. Will that make you all happy?
Defense Guy
You can educate yourself, read the 9/11 commission report. It is the official record of the people at this point.
scs
Wasn’t he hanging out with Ansar Al Islam (or however that’s spelled)?
Tim F
He was hanging out, with Ansar-al-Islam, in the Kurdish-controlled north. Neither in contact with nor particularly friendly with Saddam’s government.
Tim F
Which part of the 9/11 report details connections with al Qaeda? It seems to me that the scraps therein could be colored by how badly you want there to be a connection.
Defense Guy
One followed the other, perpetrated by the same group. Osama is on the record as saying our response in Somlia proved to him that we would not be willing to go the distance with him.
I’m just stating simple observable fact. I am not making judgments, as I believe in the end something that large is a partial collective failure of will.
To the extent that we were not pursuing him as actively as we should have been, no. Hindsight is, as always, the most helpful of judges.
As to the Kerry nuance reference, do you think the Democrats would be willing to pony of the costs for me to run?
srv
If you believe in ‘him’. Right under our No Fly Zone. Curious that.
The Disenfranchised Voter
I suggest YOU read the 9/11 commission report.
Furthermore, as any middle east expert will undoubtedly tell you, Bin Laden hated Saddam. He considered him an infidel. Iraq–under Saddam–was secular.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Pffff.
Sojourner
Holding this administration accountable for their incompetence and dishonesty would make me happy.
jg
Or he said that as a way to rally his troops. Or maybe he did mean that. Still doesn’t mean he didn’t always have plans for a big attack on US soil.
When did we start talking about Somalia? I thought we were talking about how our weak response to his atttacks in the years immediately preceeding 9/11 led him to decide to unleash a big atttack on US soil. Are you now saying he decided that in ’93?
ppGaz
Miami Herald
The shocking and tragic tale of WHIG is the real story behind Plamegate. It’s the reason why these idiots fell all over themselves to smear Wilson, who would have been basically invisible if they’d just ignored him.
This story will come out in all of its ugly glory in the fullness of time as the Plamegate case winds its way through current history.
These motherfuckers lied and cut corners to get their war. That’s what this is all about.
Defense Guy
I’m saying that he is on record with the paper tiger comment after Somalia, and that he has laid claim to lending a hand in the fight against us. I don’t know when the decision to go with the 9/11 plan was made.
Somalia occured within the timeframe we are talking about.
I have, it states there was communication between both parties. I am sorry if this upsets you or pokes holes your theory that the secular vs. fundamentalist argument holds water in the face of other evidence to the contrary. The Japanese and Arabs that helped Germany hardly fit into the model view of the ‘master race’, and yet there it was.
ppGaz
Wow. Communication between parties.
I think we’ll need a draft, we are going to be fighting a lot of wars in the years ahead, I reckon.
Communication, and between parties. My oh my. If that don’t beat all.
Communication. Mmm, mmm, mmm.
Shygetz
Well, America has had communication with several terrorist groups, in Iraq and Israel, and I’m sure there are others I don’t know about. That makes us a terrorist threat!
Why do you hate America, DefenseGuy?
Slide
The 911 Report supports your contention Defense Guy? lol.. Either you don’t know how to read or you are just a complete liar. Which is it?
.
Defense Guy
Yeah, I remember that, how the reports cherrypicked that one statement and disregarded the others. Nice to see you continuing the parrot trend.
ppGaz
Bawk!!
Defense Guy
I’m also curious if you are aware the the phrase ‘collaborative relationship’ appears exactly one time in the report, and that it is not referencing Iraq.
The word Iraq, however, appears 158 times. You should read some of those. Or you could just continue to call me a liar, since it’s easier.
jg
I don’t care what Stephen Hayes says, Saddam was not involved with terrorism. He gave a figurative high five to anyone that pissed off us or Israel, that’s all. He wasn’t involved with planning or funding attacks on the US which is what we were told the evidence showed.
My statement refutimg your claim that OBL was ignored was that he hit us twice in the 5 years previous to 9/11. Somalia is not in that timeframe.
You like to change the details of a conversation when things aren’t going your way. The first time I heard ‘paper tiger’ was in the original Naked Gun movie. I wouldn’t read too much into OBL saying it. More likely he was giving his peeps a pep talk.
jg
Not referencing Iraq? Or is there some guy named Iraq and we’re sall just confusing him with the country Iraq.
slide
Defense Guy:
Why don’t you educate us all defense guy and show us where the commission report suggested that the relationship between Iraq and AQ/BinLaden was more than what I posted. Should be something in those 158 references that suppports your position right?
Oh, and if you are going to mention “contacts” that is meaningless. Everyone has contacts with everyone. I’ll show you a photo of Saddam shaking hands with Rummy for instance. What does that prove? Anything? Countries talk with friend and foe all the time doesnt’ mean they are working together in any sense.
Defense Guy
What follows is the only reference to the words ‘collaborative relationship’ in the report. It can be found on pg 83. It is discussing Osama’s relationship with others formerly in the organization, after Sudan.
What follows is one example of the proof of ties. Pg 79. – the 9th reference to the word Iraq in the report.
slide
and? willing to explore and actually having are two different things aren’t they? Report concluded they did NOT have a cooperative relationship.
aren’t you making my point here?
so the mere fact that bin laden agreed not act AGAINST Saddam some how means they are now allies?
again you are making MY point. The “terrorists” he did have some connection with (Ansar al Islam) were in a part of Iraq that Saddam had no control over.
DG if this is the best you can do? I rest my case.
Defense Guy
I’m done with you, because you only cherrypick the parts that you like, and just ignore the uncomforable parts. You are dishonest.
slide
Lol… they were from YOUR post. Talk about cherry picking? Get over it. No 911 connection. No Bin Laden connection. No Al Qaeda connection. No WMD. Forged documents. Misleading claims. No threat to anyone. All the dishonesty is on your side I’m afraid and the Leak investigation will bring that into even sharper focus over the coming months.
Defense Guy
Yes, you cherrypicked from my post. Left the uncomfortable parts out and chose only the parts that supported your assertion, which I left in. This may be because my point is not to win an argument using bullshit tactics, but rather to point out that the 9/11 report says a hell of a lot about the connections, which it does. I never said there was a 9/11 connection.