Is it possible that some may have supported the war in Iraq for political gain?
If anybody used support for the war for political gain, would that make them less patriotic?
Since Glenn Reynolds couched his post in hypotheticals, that is to say if people oppose the war primarily for political gain then these people are unpatriotic, there’s no reason why my hypothetical questions are not equally valid.
John S.
I think it is rather clear that you are stating that those individuals who were in favor of the war in Iraq for partisan gain are, in fact, not acting as patriots.
The Disenfranchised Voter
We have similar thought patterns Tim F. Once I saw the Reynolds thing I immediately thought of politicians who supported the war for political gain. I’d say that anyone who makes a policy decision for mostly political reasons is being unpatriotic.
John Cole
John S.- I would suggest they are- dragging a country into war for domestic political reasons strikes me as deeply unpatriotic.
Davebo
I don’t think Glen couched his words in hypotheticals so much as in plausible deniability.
A common tactic of his. But oddly enough, it’s apparantly fair for Glen to lash out at Americans as unpatriotic based soley on his divining their intent, but unfair for anyone else to criticize Glen’s posts by doing the same.
Steve S
Would this be unpatriotic? That was Sec. Rumsfeld’s observation, as related to British authorities in a meeting held in July of 2002.
I think Tim raises a good point. I’ll concede to Glenn’s argument, since in order for his logic to be applied, it must be applied equally.
And that means that everybody who backed for this Iraq war is unpatriotic, because the purpose of the Iraq war was purely political… to make election gains in 2002 and “guarantee” Bush’s reelection in 2004.
Although I’ll make a guess on this. I’ll bet Glenn disagrees and has a totorously illogical argument to back up his disagreement.
ATS
Parsing Glenn Reynolds? Moonbeams and balloons.
Lines
The problem with attempting to parse Glenn’s words this way is that you can never prove they only supported the war for political gains.
Take the PATRIOT Act. The lone dissenting vote had her life threatened on public radio at least twice that I heard. The mood of the people was that any dissent against revenge would be dealt with most severely.
So, if by political gain you mean “so they didn’t get run out of Washington just ahead of a mob wielding torches and pitchforks”, then yes, some may have done that. But if you mean they supported the war so they could use the war later to bash the Republicans? Thats just dumb.
How would Democrats who originally supported the war have known the terrible direction it would end up in. Yes, at times its ok to give the Bush Blundering Bunch enough rope to hang themselves, but a WAR? No, I’m sorry, too many unknowns. Besides, they need to answer for their yes votes, and that should be handled in future primaries and debates.
So what it appears you are trying to do is say that the Democrats voted to give Bush broad war powers just because they knew he would fuck up so bad that it would allow them to get control of the government again?
Wow, those are some amazing Democrats. And here I just thought they were a bunch of pantywaists wanting to get paid tons of dollars for their votes.
Davebo
Perhaps Glen and John’s amazing psychic ability could be put to better use?
Like determining why Don Rumsfeld still has a government job or why Ahmad Chalabi is still welcomed in the White House?
John S.
Cole-
I actually agree with you wholeheartedly – on both counts. Glenn’s comments aside, I am in complete agreement that those that voted for the war for political reasons are incredibly unpatrioric. I also think that those that voted for the war that now want to criticize the President – without first recognizing their error and taking responsibility for their actions – for political purposes are also trending against patriotism, but with not nearly the same detrimental effects of the former scenario.
Paddy O'Shea
I have no doubt that George W. Bush would now be a very popular and revered president had he won the war in Iraq. That he hoped to politically capitalize on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein while bringing Iraq and its oil into the American international economic system seems pretty clear to me as well. After all, 9-11 had made Bush a very popular president indeed, so why not take the next logical step and reap the political windfall a glorious and victorious war against the butcher of Baghdad would bring to both him and his party?
When they sat down and put together the plans for this adventure, the payoff must have seems huge.
Unfortunately for both Bush and the people he sent there to win this glory for him, he has not turned out to be a very succesful “War President.” Quite the opposite it would appear.
Which is why Bush is having such political difficulty now. While the issues of lying and intelligence manipulation are important ones, the true core of the current debate is Americans hate losers, and we’re now looking for someone to blame. And Bush is losing that one big as well.
Krista
Well said, John S. I agree completely.
And on this note:
How dare politicians be political? Damn them! All snark aside, I’m willing to bet that only a small percentage of politicians consistently act in their constituents’ best interests instead of their own. I’m sure they all started off with the best of intentions, but the bubble of entitlement that is government soon perverts thought and destroys integrity.
But I could be wrong.
p.lukasiak
I think its pretty obvious that Democrats did not support the war “for political gain” — its equally clear that support for the war was, in many cases, an effort to “avoid political loss”.
(One need only look at what happened to Max Cleland to understand what the GOP was willing to do to any Democrat who didn’t march in abolute lockstep with Bushco in 2002 who wasn’t in an absolutely secure seat.)
The fact that the White House released a “White Paper” that presented the “conditional” NIE (itself seriously flawed) conclusions as actual facts is all you need to know about the manipulation of intelligence. Any Democrat who may have had doubts about the war was forced to argue with the White Paper conclusions — they couldn’t disclose what they knew from the still classified (and heavily redacted) NIE.
Zach
Again, EJ Dionne. Washington Post. Today.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/14/AR2005111401018.html
Al Maviva
>>>had he won the war in Iraq.
Geez, it’s a bit early to call this one a loss, isn’t it? Or did I miss the big AQ / Baathist defeat of our ground forces? Unless by defeat you mean “loss of will to win,” in which case nearly half of the U.S. was defeated from the start, and another 10 percent has recently packed it in, according to the polls.
>>>>I’d say that anyone who makes a policy decision for mostly political reasons is being unpatriotic
You mean, a politician who does what his constituents would want him to do, is a dirty, double crossing, treasonous unpatriotic dog?
Hmmm… Kinda makes you wonder where we can find all the patriotic, non-treasonous politicians – the ones who consistently make decisions that cut against the electorate’s interest. Oh that’s right. They’re at home, sitting in front of their TV sets screaming.
Unresponsive Government: The New Patriotism
Lines
If its not a loss, Al, please tell me what a victory will look like? How will we know when we’ve won?
How does a quagmire end? With a bang? or with a whimper?
The Disenfranchised Voter
What Paddy obviously meant was that if the war was already won and over with. Don’t be a jackass, oh wait, here is another jackassian comment by you…
No, what I mean is that if a politician makes a policy decision mainly because of his own personal political life-line/aspirations then that is unpatriotic. He/she would be putting themselves over their duty to the Constitution.
John S.
You seemed to be confused by motive vs. action. The act of voting in line with your constituents wishes is not unpatriotic, but when the rationale for doing so is based on political maneuvering (which was clearly not what motivated most constituents), then a case can be made for acting unpatriotically (and selfishly).
pmm
I may be misreading this statement, but it seems that you’re extending Mr. Reynolds’ argument beyond his claim with this question. Exploiting previous actions in office for political gain isn’t the same thing as doing it for political gain. If a Senator believes that advancing a policy is in the National Interest and is also in the political interest of that Senator, bully for them. However, if a Senator advances a policy that they feel is contrary to the national interest in support of their political interest, I’d say that politician is being less than patriotic.
Gratefulcub
Is it possible that no one supported the war for political reasons. It was post 9/11, dissenters were called unpatriotic, mid-terms were quickly approaching, the media was in cheerleading mode…..in short, it would have been political suicide for many Dems and moderate Repubs to voice concerns about the upcoming war.
Absolutely. They gave away their right to oversight. THAT IS THEIR JOB. They gave the executive branch the power to go to war without needing congress to declare war. That is inexcusable.
Of course the president cherry picked intelligence and omitted the pieces that didn’t further his cause. But, each and every senator that ‘trusted’ him, and parroted his talking points without doing some digging themselves, needs to lose his/her job. Dems and Repubs.
They are duty bound to make decisions for the country, not for their 2002 political fortunes. When they put their careers ahead of doing the digging and debating necessary to make a decision this important, that is more than unpatriotic, it is treasonous. Not in the legal sense, but what is treason if not: putting your own self interests before your country’s interests; agreeing to fight a war you don’t think is right to keep your job?
This is not to indict all members of Congress that supported the war. I am sure many made an honest mistake. Many have histories as doctors or exterminators or crazy anti-lesbian Oklahoma nutjobs……..so maybe they don’t have the intelligence or experience to do anything other than trust the prez. But there are some that sold out their country for political gain.
Paddy O'Shea
Al Maviva: What I said is Bush has not won his war in Iraq. It might be a stalemate, it might be a quagmire, or perhaps in the long run we really have lost it. Once our troops leave, and one day they will, can you really see anything but a Shi’ite fundamentalist theocracy increasingly in the orbit of Tehran taking our place?
Not exactly a victory there.
But whatever the case, Bush has not won this war. And the American people are not happy with him because of that.
Geek, Esq.
Well, now the President has taken to denouncing his political opponents in front of the troops he commands.
He just took one step closer to Castro.
Tim F.
That’s a no-brainer. Wandering further into the grey, what if they didn’t care?
neil
If anybody used support for the war for political gain, would that make them less patriotic?
I think it absolutely, obviously would, and that is why Glenn and his ideological buddies are trying to get the counter-accusation out there in front, quick, so it becomes a ‘he said-she said’ issue. For people who hate the MSM, these blogger types sure know how to game it.
Pb
I think the point about constituents is a good one: consider that we have gone from the majority opinion in this country favoring the war (69-26) to majority against (30-65) it. Surely there tends to be even less support for the war in the blue states (it’d be nice to have a SUSA 50 state Iraq poll, but ah well, I’ll just guess that it roughly correlates with direction of the country…).
Geek, Esq.
By the way, Democrats would be well-advised to simply ignore the Little Generalissimo’s rantings from the podium. They are the desperate acts of a scared little man who’s trying to divide this country into two camps.
Geek, Esq.
To put things another way, why shouldn’t the politicians in DC reflect what the country at large feels?
Bush had a choice: He could have educated the public, held a frank and open debate, and discussed the upsides and downsides of both action and inaction. The real driving force behind the removal of Saddam wasn’t that he was an imminent threat, but rather the enormously high human cost of containing him.
Instead, he went for cheap scare tactics and exaggerated the threat that Saddam posed. Did we ever here anything from his administration about doubts from inside the US government that Iraq had WMD? No.
Gratefulcub
No. That was not the sole purpose of the war, it wasn’t even a purpose of the war. The timing, maybe. Ok, it was timed for maximum political gain.
But, there were many reasons this war was fought, but none of them were:
-to win elections in 02 and 04
-WMD
-Iraqi ties to terrorists
That is the saddest part of this entire debacle. We really did need to have a discussion, nationally. A debate about, ‘what is to be done’. We needed to publicly accept that Islamic fundamentalists were a good partner in fighting the cold war, but the consequences of that partnership is now being felt. So, what now? The middle east and Central Asia were fought over from 45 to 91. Was that right or wrong? No. Are all the problems in the ME American made? Of course not. But at the same time, some of our actions have consequences, and we need to decide how we are going to deal with the region during the next generation.
Instead we got the bullshit debate about SH. SH and terrorists. SH and WMD. SH being a grave and growing threat to America. A bullshit debate about having to fight iraqis in iraq so we don’t have to fight them here.
When do we get to be treated as grown ups? When do we get a real debate? My fear is that the only debate going on in Washington is the same BS we heard. Hopefully, behind the scenes, smart people are debating reality.
John S.
This is highly debatable, especially when you have people framing the debate around paltry semantics. Take this example, for instance, where Mac Buckets attempts to re-write the dictionary to prove that Bush didn’t really make the case that Iraq posed an ‘imminent’ threat (it’s all in our imaginations).
WARNING: If you are at work, prepare to stifle your laughter.
Tim F.
Davebo,
I’m not John, and I wasn’t talking exclusively about Democrats. They weren’t even first in my mind, although now that I think about it the question does have points at both ends.
pmm
That’s so grey I don’t even understand the question. Please clarify: didn’t care about what?
Tractarian
You have hit on a very important topic, Tim, one that pundits and bloggers alike have assiduously avoided in this whole pre-war intelligence rehash. That topic is: Why? Given that the Bush team may have misled and cherry-picked intelligence to bolster their case for war, why did they do so? What were their motives? Libs don’t bother with this question because they just assume that the Bush team was acting irrationally and with bad faith; cons don’t bother with it because they disagree with the premise (that there was misleading and cherry-picking).
I would hope that the Bush team did what they did in good faith; that is, they misled and cherry-picked because they sincerely believed Saddam was a major threat and they were attempting to persuade others to reach the same conclusion.
But aside from ousting a brutal dictator, there was another obvious predictable outcome from the war which must have factored in the administration’s thinking – that the country would unite to support its leader. That’s only natural in a time of war. That’s why it is in the American tradition to go to war only as a last resort – because it would be unseemly for a President to appear to be exploiting his position as C-in-C to bolster his political support.
But here we have an administration that, by all accounts, had made up its mind to go to war before the story had played itself out, before the public debate was had and all the evidence known. The only question was how best to convince the public what they already had decided on – that the war was a good idea. (There was no WHIG for planning and execution of the war – there was just a WHIG for selling it.) We have an administration who actually kicked out weapons inspectors to confront a threat that they themselves admitted was not yet imminent.
Don’t get me wrong – I was, and still am, a supporter of the war. I think, with proper planning and execution, it could have made a real positive difference in the ME, and even with Bush’s lack of planning and lack of competent execution, it still could end up that way.
But that doesn’t explain the administration’s one-sided, single-minded passion for war. It doesn’t explain the myriad misleading statements (which, BTW, were far from unanimous) about Saddam’s nuclear program and his links to Al Qaeda. It doesn’t explain the rush to invade undermanned, underplanned, and underequipped.
The only thing that can explain these actions is an ulterior motive on the part of administration, and that is the political gain that would be realized in the 2002 and 2004 elections and beyond. Until people realize this ugly truth, Bush’s Iraq War Gambit will have paid off.
Gratefulcub
I really don’t care. I guess that splinters the group of responsible parties even more:
1)die hard jingoists
2) hawks that believed the president
3) Those that didn’t completely buy the argument, but thought a united front was important (how patriotic is this group?)
4) Those that opposed the war personally, but supported it in public for political purposes
a) Easy call, politics is what is important
b) Tough call, I should do my duty, but what good will it do the country if I am replaced by a conservative whackjob? My country needs me here to dissent later, when it is somewhat acceptable.
4a is the worst of the group
4b sounds like an expert in rationalization that allows himself to make the choice he wants to make
Tim F.
Whether or not their vote was in the best interests of the country.
Lines
If you knew that your vote didn’t matter, that we were going to go to war no matter what, and you assumed that adults would be in charge, why vote against it? Principle is all nice and good, but when you are on the street principle doesn’t help put food on the table. I honestly don’t think Dems had a choice except to vote with the Republican majority or face a hangman’s noose at home.
Lines
And before anyone reads my comment and believes that I’m an apologist for the Democrats that voted for the war, think again. I will help any anti-war democrat campaign against those that sold themselves out because it was safe and easy.
Gratefulcub
The ‘Why’ we went to war is a combination of reasons. Many in the admin had their own thoughts, but they all agreed that attacking Iraq would lead to their goals. Anyone want to talk about the why, without bringing up WMD or ties to terrorists? Or without talking about Bush lies, or any of the other rhetoric. I just want to know what others believe the real cause of the war was. I will start, (without actually expecting anyone to follow), with a couple of rationales that are completely at odds with each other, but still came together in a plan that led to war.
(The cold war argument from the old cold warriors; remember, most of the architects cut their teeth in the 70s and 80s; Condi is an expert in all things Soviet ) As the world’s sole superpower, we have the ability to use our power proactively to further america’s interests. What we should have learned from Vietnam is that we have to play to win, we can’t fight tyranny with one hand tied behind our back. We need to hit hard, with shock and awe, and let it be known that we are in charge of the New World Order. This will keep America safe and prosperous.
Wolfowitz (the admins only liberal neocon) Human rights are important. What we did in 91 was wrong. We should not have left the Iraqi people under the thumb of a sadistic leader. We need to push for democracy in the ME, we need to stop supporting the despots and tyrants. A free middle east is not only right morally, but it will further America’s interests as well. (Even as a lib, American interests are the only reason to use the armed forces) The people of the ME are dying to be free, all they need is for us to remove people like SH.
pmm
That’s an interesting hypothetical, although I don’t know how it could be proved or disproved with any degree of certainty. I suppose if a Senator casts their vote w/out regard to the national interest, they’re not doing their job. While our entire political system is set up in an attempt to yoke personal interest to the public interest, it also recognizes that self/political interest shouldn’t be the sole guiding light of our elected leaders. Minimizing self-interested conflicts isn’t the same as eliminating them.
Blue Neponset
There is no simple equation to determine a person’s patriotism.
Also, as others have pointed out, Reynolds’ patriotism formula requries a good deal of mind reading. If Reynolds does, in fact, have the ability to read the minds of Democrats he might want to get a job at the RNC.
jcricket
Hypothetically speaking, isn’t Bush guilty of the worst kind of political pandering? See E.J. Dionne
See also this comment on TPM
Does Mission Accomplished ring a bell with anyone?
I anxiously await Glenn going after the WH for using the military mainly as a backdrop. Sounds unpatriotic and disrespectful to me.[/snark]
Seriously, politicians use external events as an opening to present their stance on issues, and often to gain status with voters. Both are part of their job. If they over-emphasize the latter by dishonestly presenting their comments as the former, that’s crass politics, but I wouldn’t call it unpatriotic.
That’s a word, like treason, that gets thrown around all too lightly in these hyper-partisan days.
Cyrus
Thank you, Krista, I agree. Clearly I’m tilting at windmills here, and just as clearly Glenn and the rest of the right wing aren’t the only culprits, but dammit, “unpatriotic” has a simple and precise meaning, and it does not include the word “opportunistic.”
If someone used to support the war but now opposes it and he changed his mind mainly for political reasons – that seems to be what Glenn is complaining about, sorry if I’m missing something – that means he did not change his mind mainly for a lack of love for his country. Two “mainly”s are mutually exclusive. At worst it suggests inadequate love for his country, but the same could be said of almost any action. “The Sierra Club refuses to promote energy independence by drilling in ANWR – that’s unpatriotic!” I hope that sounds stupid, because that’s exactly what Glenn and others are doing.
So why do I care? Well, it’s partly because I’m a pedantic person, of course. But the differences between the two words in both meaning and implication are important. Opportunism is a universal trait and pretty much a part of everyone to at least some degree, especially in politicians, otherwise they wouldn’t get anywhere. But being unpatriotic is considered the exception rather than the rule, a serious moral failing, a fundemental defect (at least by some people). And being called unpatriotic is much more morally and emotionally charged than being called opportunistic, so it’s much harder to get past the emotional weight of it and look at little things like whether the charge is justified. Are Rockefeller and others like him opportunistically changing with every switch in political mood? If so, is it harmful or just jockeying for position and the end result will be the same? Is it just business as usual*?
Who cares, he’s a scumsucking unpatriotic weenie! (And, “who cares, those neocons just accused him of being a scumsucking unpatriotic weenie!”)
* That’s not the point at all, but just for the record, based on what John quoted it doesn’t look like that to me.
jack
Looking at Pb’s polling data, I found it interesting that the poll that spoke to registered voters gave a very different picture than the polls that simply picked ‘adults’. It would appear that voters–and they are the only important demographic* don’t agree with this ‘majority against’ thing at all. In fact, he only negative is regarding the Iraqi’s ability to build a stable democracy.
It saddens me that we are still so backward looking as to be having this debate–looking for non-existent ‘lies, prattling on about patriotism(patriotism is a belief, a feeling, it is not an absolute, thus Pro-war Republicans and Anti-war Democrats are unpatriotic–to their opponents. Can we get over this now?).
This debate undermines our ability to succeed at anything because it has us running in circles, chasing a tail that is not tere. Democrats have had the previous administrations stance, statements and actions put forth(they ARE on record) to show that Bush was merely continuing the policies of the previous administration–he did not originate these positions. But none of that seems to matter. It was Bush that was at fault.
The premise of this whole thing is refuted over and over again…and yet here we are.
I have put forth the challenge several times, show me the untrue causative statement or statements, uttered by Bush that were not also uttered by his opposition here and abroad, that were not uttered or acted on, in some fashion, by the previous administration. Show me the ‘lie’, and I’m with you.
*voters are the only demographic that matters because they are the only ones who are actually electing the politicians. If ten million non-voters think Bush is an ass, and one voter thinks he’s great, the one voter is all that matters. Don’t like it? Vote. In every election.
Lines
jack:
Bush was granted sole power to take us to war. No one voted to actually go to war. Thats the big difference. He said he would not go to war without consulting with the House, then ignored that and went anyway, because a vote in the House would have shut him down.
So the whole thing is on his shoulders. There is no declaration of war from Congress, only the granting of war powers to a Commander in Chief.
Thats why its Bush’s tar baby.
Gratefulcub
We were attacked as unpatriotic traitors from the Rush/Coulter right, and as unpatriotic americans not supporting the troops from the moderate right. That is what started this prattling.
The war was never debated before it began. The reason it wasn’t debated is the ‘prattling’ mentioned above. No one is trying to rewrite history, we just need a first draft.
Sure, many people said SH had WMD, but only Bush decided that was worthy of a war. That clearly separates him from the rest.
Oh wait, Clinton set the regime change policy!!! Yeah, but that was during a rough time politically, and that policy was pushed by the right. He did what he always did, he chose politics, and accepted that policy as his own. Charge him with being a politician in the worst sense of the word, but not for invading iraq.
I think you are smarter than that. You and I both know that Bush never said, “SH was involved in 9/11”.
But, Cheney did say “It is pretty well confirmed that Iraq met with Atta in Prague.” That statement is meant to do one thing: infer that SH had something to do with 9/11. Problem is, there was one source for that. Newspapers are supposed to have more than one source, is the standard for going to war less than what is practiced at the NYTimes? And, by the time he was saying that on MTP, he already knew that the source was unreliable, and that the information was ‘pretty well confirmed’ to be false.
That is just one, of many, examples. If you look at mounds of intelligence, use the parts you want, classify the pieces you don’t want seen, you remove all caveats from intelligence (not just from speeches, but from the intelligence Congress sees) and you do this repeatedly……….call it what you will. Lied, mislead, hyped, got it wrong, made an honest mistake. Whatever. The important thing is that we find out which of those labels fits best, not sweep in under the rug because we don’t want to go around in circles.
Blue Neponset
I could issue a similar challenge to you: Show me the “slam dunk” evidence that led Bush to conclude we needed to invade Iraq. I think that would silence the war critics. I find it curious that Bush is attacking the Democrats instead of their argument.
Also, if you want to argue that Bush had the same intellegence as Clinton then you need to answer these questions: Why did Bush and Clinton come to different conclusions regarding the invasion of Iraq if they both had the same intelligence? Why did Bush rely so heavily on three year old intelligence when he was considering taking our country to war?
jack
So, you can’t do it. Okay.
Now, Blue Neponset, let’s have a look….
First, it does seem interesting that no one remembers Operation Desert Fox– in which Clinton(without a declaration of war) attacked Iraq to remove his ability to produce WMDs. I’m pretty sure troops were involved. So, you see, Clinton took the (in my opinion) correct action, it’s just that, like Bush, he faltered.
And now, the slam dunk.
Unfortunately, the slam dunk is 9/11–not that Saddam was involved, but that Saddam was a ‘state supporter of terrorism’. He helped fund terrorism in Israel–there are newspaper headlines showing him happily handing money to the families of Palestinian terrorists. You see, there IS no ‘Iraq War’, it’s a battle being fought in a much larger conflict. George Bush, faced with the ruins of the WTC and a burning Pentagon, made a decision. Terrorism, as a useful ‘political’ tool must be eliminated. How do you do that? By making the cost of engaging in terrorism so high that doing so doesn’t help your cause, it eradicates it.
Saddam, as a very visible supporter of terrorism, as well as a conquered foe who comstantly flouted the terms of his surrender was a logical second theater. The first being the base from which the actual attacks were launched(Afghanistan).
I didn’t need anything about WMDs–Saddam’s smiling mug on Palestinian front pages was enough to say that he fit the bill. I think all that WMD crap was designed to try to coax a reluctant France and Germany into the coalition, I don’t believe it had any effect–except an unpardonable delay–on the intentions and actions of the US at all. Given the support Bush got from Congress at the time, I believe even Democrats could see what we were doing.
Bush’s war support surges when he’s decisive–and when he’s prosecuting the WoT will full force. When he falters, when he looks like he’s caving to media and leftist pressure, his numbers fall.
Is this a slam dunk? Sure, for me. For you or others? Who knows? I watched a plane slam into a building, at a time and on a floor that I had occupied for years, I heard Bush say that those who did this were going to pay. I listened as Bush described what he intended with the WoT–not merely to safeguard us, but to attempt to wipe out terrorism itself, through organised and unflinching force of arms. I thought about IRA bombs, the countless other muslim terrorist acts, the terrorism of ELF and ALF, of Marxist feinds preying on people in South and Central America–even of freaks like the Unabomber. And all I could think was, It’s about time.
Pb
jack,
If I understand you correctly, you aren’t just comparing adults vs. registered voters, you’re comparing two completely different polls, with different questions… (Newsweek vs. Fox/Opinion Dynamics, right?) If you want to compare ‘adults’ vs. ‘registered voters’ sanely, you’d want to do it using the same polling data, or at the least some sort of representative aggregate data. Of course there is substantial overlap between the two groups–and many of the people who don’t vote are moderate or just plain uninterested in politics–and their opinions tend to track with the average opinions of Americans in general.
John S.
Jack-
You should write to Marv Albert that the next time he is announcing a basketball game and someone throws up a halfcourt mercy three-pointer that he should immediately leap from his chair and proclaim, “Slam dunk!”.
The Disenfranchised Voter
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.
mazzy
The problem with that, Jack, is that the country would never allowed Bush to invade Iraq on the belief that he was funding the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Never. And as a New Yorker myself, I find it disgusting that 9/11 is providing the cover for misguided and ultimately counterproductive wars and undemocratic actions. I’m sick of it being used to justify every bullcrap thing this administration does.
Tractarian
Wrong.
Interesting that you bring that up. Obviously, many on the right have argued that Clinton’s belief that Saddam was a WMD threat justifies Bush’s similar position.
But what if Desert Fox actually did what it intended to do – that is, remove Saddam’s WMD-related-program-activities? I haven’t heard that possibility mentioned.
I agree with you that “9/11 changed everything” but I think you’re missing the point. The Bush team repeatedly implied that Saddam was involved with 9/11, not just that he “supported terrorism” in some vague way.
I lived a mile away from the towers at the time; I inhaled the concrete dust and ash for weeks. Believe me, my first reaction was not some idealistic notion of ridding the world of terrorism. It was kill the bastards who did this.
Sigh… here we go again. It’s the media’s fault the Bush team didn’t send enough troops, didn’t plan for the aftermath, didn’t have an exit strategy, didn’t secure the borders, didn’t secure known ammo dumps, and didn’t properly equip the troops. This is my main problem with Bush and his blind supporters like you, Jack. There simply is no accountability; it’s always pass-the-buck.
What people like you don’t understand is that if Bush stepped up to the podium tomorrow and said “I made a mistake – there were no WMDs, there was no grave and gathering threat – but now that we’re there we’ve got to stay the course” a lot of this Democratic complaining would be completely defused. Think of Reagan’s Iran-Contra apology, or Clinton’s Monica mea culpa. People are willing to forgive a President if they think he’s learned from his errors. There is still no indication that Bush thinks he’s ever made a mistake.
DougJ
So the people who supported the war for political gain are traitors, but the lunatics who led us into the war with no plan because they thought we’d be greeted as liberators are true patriots?
Steve S
I’m sorry, but that’s just bullshit historical revisionism.
This war was a pure political play. You can pretend it had to do with something else, but the way it was sold, the way it was defended. The way that resolution was written up and put forth a month before the elections…
It was pure politics, a sad pathetic desire to try to kill an opposition party through jingoisitic nationalism.
That is why you see the comparisons with Hitler, because they are Hitler-lite. No genocide, but they’d burn the Reichstag down if they thought it would help them win an election.
Gratefulcub
Let me be a bit more specific. The execution of the war: I agree with everything you said. They were opportunistic with 9/11, and saw it as a way to create their permanent majority.
-to win elections in 02 and 04
The war was timed to have maximum impact on the elections
-WMD
WMD were not the reason for the war. No one thought he had nukes, not even cheney. Everyone assumed he had some bio and chem weapons. But, no one was threatened by them. no one thought we were going to be attacked by SH, not even by a terrorist group supplied by SH. (by no one, I mean no rational person in the admin or government or think tank, etc. that was pushing for war)
-Iraqi ties to terrorists
This was always absurd. Secular SH giving WMD to an islamic terrorist group that wanted to overthrow secular rulers in the ME? again, absurd.
So, to me, those weren’t the reasons. Those were the reasons given publicly. If you go back and look at writings and opinions of Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle, Feith, Hadley, and the Weekly Standard throughout the 90’s, you can see that they wanted to overthrow Saddam. They had different rationales at times, but they did want to fight the war.
So, the point I was trying to make is, there ARE reasons that the architects of the war wanted the war. The public rationales were not them. So, what were they?
Additionally, I would like to hear a real debate about what our future ME policy should be. The time for that debate was after 9/11, instead we got ‘be scared, be very scared of mushroom clouds.’
Gratefulcub
More Goebbels than Hitler.
jack
Pb, I looked at ALL the polls on that page, and the only one that restricted itself to registered voters had a very different take on similar questions.
Not to be rude, but that’s the Democrats in a nutshel–if they don’t have to stick to registered voters, they can field a majority every time…
jack
JohnS, does the word ‘unfortunately mean anything to you? I put that word there because so many don’t see it as the slam dunk that it was, an event that takes us from waffling complacency to steel willed action. We suffer now because our people lack the moral clarity to see that that was a wake up call that cannot be denied.
Disenfranchised Voter, are you saying that those were lies?
Tractarian, how was I wrong?
I heard the administration say that Iraq was NOT involved with 9/11 numerous times after the fact. I frankly don’t care what the left insists was ‘implied’. I went with the ‘Saddam was not involved with 9/11’. Anyone who is ‘taken in’ by some ‘implied’ comment after that direct statement was eithert too stupid to understand in the first place or politically inclined to prefer the sly murmurs of nuance to directness.
When HE looks like HE’s caving. He’s caving, not the media. And make no mistake, he caves, he crumbles. He’s one of those idiot Republicans who thinks he can make the left love him by handing them something they want. HE. He’s made a whole lot of bad decisions trying to appear bipartisan–and those are on his head, not the medias, not the lefts. It’s called personal responsibility.
As far as your last comment goes, about there not being a grave and gathering threat, either then or now, all I can say is that we have a fundamental disconnect there. There IS a grave and gathering threat–and it gets worse each day that we do nothing about it. I cannot understand how people can be functional and not see it.
Darrell
Talk about absurd.. and ignorant. Numerous documented high level meetings between Iraqi intelligence and Al Queda, including OBL himself. Saddam was sheltering one of the 1993 WTC bombers as well as Abu Nidal, one of the world’s most wanted terrorists. So let’s see, numerous high level meetings with OBL and other Al Queda leaders, sheltering of wanted terrorists, financial support of terrorists.. yeah, I can see your point. How absurd the idea that Saddam would work with terrorists. Buy a clue, ok?
Gratefulcub
Throw in 1 stay the course, 1 you’re either with us or against us, 2 Bring em ons, and atleast one swipe at Hillary and I am sold.
John S.
Of course. Unfortunately, you failed to see the point I was making, which is that your “slam dunk” (whether fortunate or unfortunate) looks more like a ball that was chucked with 3 seconds left on the clock accompanied by a prayer that it will drop.
You mean after they claimed Iraq WAS involved and used it as an excuse to march to war? And after the fact that a majority of Americans believed it? And then after the fact that we went to war partially based on that ‘fact’? How nice of them to issue that page 64 beneath the fold retraction.
Boy, some of you right-leaning posters sure do have your approved list of terminology down. I find it curious that another person used the exact same phraseology – although they tried to claim that ‘grave and gathering’ is an antonym of ‘imminent’ (because Bush never actually used THAT term).
Will you try to make the same case?
John S.
Wow, that’s compelling stuff, Darrell. I wasn’t sure that Saddam was linked to 9/11, but now you’ve convinced me.
Do you know where those WMD are, too? Last I heard they were somewhere north, south, east or west of Baghdad.
Darrell
No John, Saddam was secular you see. How absurd that he would cooperate with Al Queda… enemy of my enemy is..well, whatever. From a 1998 Clinton Justice Dept. indictment of OBL:
Absurd I tell you, absolutely absurd
Gratefulcub
Darrell,
you are always so pleasant in your tone.
Even if all you say is actually true (I don’t believe it is), there was still no operational relationship. You can easily tie Iranian officials to actual terrorist activity. Syrian involvement over the past generation is not on the level of Iran, but it exists. Libya, sure. But not Iraq. SH was not responsible for any terrorist act. That doesn’t make him a good guy or anything, but it does mean we had more options than, War now and doing nothing. We could have waited, by putting military pressure to ensure the inspectors had unfettered access to Iraq. Then we would have known that he had no nukes, no plan for nukes (no, a piece of a centrifuge in a rose garden is not a nuclear program), no WMD, and no capabilities to deliver WMD to the US.
In the grand scheme of the GWOT, SH was not a large player. There were other targets that are more of a concern. Dealing with Pakistan is possibly priority number one. Musharef is friendly with us, but he is hanging on by a thread. The military is infested with Taliban loyalists, and a coup is extremely possible. Considering the situation in Pak today, with the earthquakes total destruction, the anarchy in both urban and rural areas, not to mention Kashmir, the situation is ripe for change. The problem is that they have nukes, not a piece of a centrifuge. If we lose control there, and the anti american taliban crowd comes to power, that is a problem. SH was not.
Gratefulcub
But, Cheney did say “It is pretty well confirmed that Iraq met with Atta in Prague.” That statement is meant to do one thing: infer that SH had something to do with 9/11. Problem is, there was one source for that. Newspapers are supposed to have more than one source, is the standard for going to war less than what is practiced at the NYTimes? And, by the time he was saying that on MTP, he already knew that the source was unreliable, and that the information was ‘pretty well confirmed’ to be false.
Darrell
Dem Minority Leader Harry Reid (from his Senate website):
More “absurdity”
But Bush lied!! [/kook]
Darrell
Grateful, to take your position, one would have to believe that Al Queda is active in every ME terrorist supporting country EXCEPT Iraq. Do you see what a ridiculous position you are taking? That’s what happens when you start repeating unbelievably stupid things like “no way would Al Queda work with Saddam. He was secular you know”.
Gratefulcub
1) I’m not a kook
2) I have never uttered the words ‘bush lied’. It is much more complex than that
3) Harry Reid was wrong
4) HRC was and is wrong
5) Democrats don’t speak for me
Gratefulcub
It is more complex than simply, “SH was secular.” He would not give up control of his weapons to someone that has publicly stated that their priorities are: 1) overthrow the House of Saud 2)overthrow secular regimes, starting with Iraq. That is not to say that there is absolutely no way the two could ever cooperate, but it makes SH less of a threat than other regimes.
I am not sure what you mean by “Al Queda is active in every ME terrorist supporting country EXCEPT Iraq”
First, al Quaeda is probably active in every ME, Central Asian, Southeast Asian, and European country. By active, that means a single cell of self starters attaching themselves to the AQ network, to an actual network including leaders. That doesn’t mean those countries are working with AQ. We have 150,000 troops looking for Zarqawi, and they can’t find him. UBL? Zawahiri? Just because a terrorist is in Syria, it doesn’t mean that al-Assad is a terrorist supporter. If it did, W would be a terrorist supporter since 19 hijackers were in the US.
Al Quaeda isn’t that active in Iran, but Iran is a terrorist supporting government. The aid Hizbollah and Hamas, but AQ is a sunni group that is more anti-Shia than most other networks.
I am just rambling at this point.
All I am saying is that it is much more complicated than the case that was laid out. The admin turned SH into a terrorist, and he wasn’t. He was a brutal dictator. No one deserved to live under his rule. His connections with terrorism are small compared to others. We should have focused our fight on the most immediate threats, in my opinion, SH was not the most immediate threat. IMO, invading Iraq was not the best way to protect America.
But wtf, I’m a kook.
Darrell
Not withstanding that Czech intelligence stands by this meeting, that, by no means was the only high level meetings between Iraq and Al Queda, hence the Clinton Justice Dept. indictment way back in 1998
Gratefulcub
BUT OURS DOESN’T!!! Since when is the czech intelligence agencies more trustworthy than various branches of our own inelligence. the US intelligence consensus was that the meeting did not take place.
And, Cheney didn’t say, “It is pretty well confirmed by the czechs, even though there is some disagreement at home.” He said “It is pretty well confirmed”, and that was said for one purpose: to infer that Iraq had met with those that planned 9/11, and SH was somehow involved in 9/11. Without saying it. They wouldn’t say it, and when they were asked point blank, they hemmed and hawed and said, we don’t have any evidence that he was, but you can’t separate Iraq from al Quaeda.
Darrell
Irrespective of whether or not Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Czechoslovakia, that does not in any way make your statement any less untrue:
jack
JohnS, I DID get your point. What you don’t seem to get is that I think it’s unfortunate because so many are so willfully blind to the scope of what that horrible day meant.
And, if this Saddam=9/11 thing is so prevalent, why don’t you post me a Bush quote saying so–wouldn’t that be the lie needed to meet my challenge? What’s that? You don’t HAVE a quote from Bush linking Saddam to 9/11? All you’ve got is this ‘imlpying’ stuff…..ah
Tractarian–on your side–used the term grave and gathering threat–I just thought it was a useful turn of phrase….
Gratefulcub
Come on Darrell.
That quote you just blocked was dealing with another issue. It was a simple argument due to the fact that it was a very small piece of the actual post. Later, after you brought it up once, I expanded on that thought.
Deciphering the relationships between terrorists and governments in the ME is ‘hard work’. They are often intertwined in more ways than you would think. Hamas and Hizbollah both have active wings that have nothing to do with terrorism. They run schools, collect trash, help earthquake victims in Pak. I am obviously not running a campaign commercial for Hamas here. They do so out of self interests. If they offer the services that the government can’t or won’t, they earn respect and loyalty. Hence, the Pakistanis aren’t flocking to point out UBL.
if you send money to ME charities, it may end up in the hands of Hamas to build a school in Gaza without you even realizing it.
So, if you want to find a connection between ME governments and terrorists, you can. The relevance differs.
UBL->his limo driver->Gitmo’s General Miller->GW Bush->Katie Couric interviewed W on the Today Show->Kevin Bacon (KC interviewed him on the Today Show)
Darrell
Actually Tim, Glenn Reynolds specifically went after unpatriotic supporters of the war in Iraq too:
John S.
Jack-
Yes, this ‘implying’ stuff is completely immaterial:
– President Bush, 5/1/03
– Dick Cheney, 9/14/03
Yeah, there’s nothing there at all. Just some loose implications that don’t really mean Bush was tying Iraq to 9/11. Your logic is infallible.
Gratefulcub
They aren’t stupid enough to say “SH was involved in 9/11” when they knew it to be completely false. But, they did want to Amuricans to believe it was true, and in the end, they did.
But, Cheney did say “It is pretty well confirmed that Iraq met with Atta in Prague.” That statement is meant to do one thing: infer that SH had something to do with 9/11. Problem is, there was one source for that. Newspapers are supposed to have more than one source, is the standard for going to war less than what is practiced at the NYTimes? And, by the time he was saying that on MTP, he already knew that the source was unreliable, and that the information was ‘pretty well confirmed’ to be false.
Darrell
Yeah, all those pesky non-existent links between Saddam and Al-Queda keep popping up:
Incredible how so many on the left ignore the Clinton Justice Dept. indictment of OBL back in 1998 before this subject became politicized. Now the left is lying their asses off trying to re-write history.
Steve S
Darrell – Did you confirm your information before believing it?
I think we’re getting to the heart of the problem.
Gratefulcub
Darrell,
I read the entire article. It is sketchy at best, and the only point it makes is that there were terrorists in iraq, sneaking in and using false names. Allawi, a CIA operative with motive to fib, gives very few links between the organizations and the gov.
again, of course you can connect UBL and terrorists to almost anyone in the ME. But, SH was not a lynchpin of the global terrorism network.
Darrell
Did you read about the 1998 indictment of OBL by the Clinton Justice Dept? What say you about that?
Darrell
Here is the transcript from Meet the Press with Senators John Lehmen and Richard Ben-Veniste discussing the 9/11 report.
Not that any amount of facts would satisfy the dishonest partisan hacks on the far left
John S.
Darrell-
You should try to avoid posting links to things that make you look foolish and dishonest:
Not that any amount of facts would satisfy the dishonest
partisan hacks on the far rightDarrell.Tim F.
An excellent point. It seems that his point cuts both ways, unless you want to tell me that no Republican used the Iraq war for domestic political gain.
Tractarian
Do you have a source for that? I never heard the administration say Iraq was NOT involved with 9/11. I did hear Bush saying you can’t distinguish between Saddam and Al Qaeda when it comes to the war on terror.
OK, so now you’re saying Bush’s failures are due to his “handing” the left what they wanted? Are you saying the left wanted Bush to ignore post-war planning? The left wanted him to ignore General Shinseki who said we would need twice as many troops? The left wanted him to ignore the Powell Doctrine and invade on the cheap without an exit strategy? What a world it is you live in, Jack…
Whaaaaaa? I’ve read this quote ten times already and I can’t make heads or tails of it. Are you saying Saddam was a grave and gathering threat to the US even though he apparently had no WMDs? Are you saying Iraq is now a grave and gathering threat (that I’ll grant you, due to the flypaper theory)? Are you saying Saddam is now a grave and gathering threat from his prison cell?
Tractarian
You said
Which I took to mean “ground troops” since it was in response to Blue Neponset who said
And there were no ground troops involved in Desert Fox.
The Disenfranchised Voter
No, I pointing how strikingly different those quotes by both Powell and Rice were. They sure seemed to do a 180 in the run-up to war. I’d love for someone to give me an explantion as to why they changed so greatly.
Saddam doesn’t go from not having WMD’s and not being a threat to even his neighbors to having vast stockpiles and being an immediate threat to us in 6 months time.
The Disenfranchised Voter
*No I’m
Steve S
An indictment is not a conviction.
Or are you now claiming Scooter Libby should just skip the trial and be put to death?
Darrell
Nice dodge. Not very honest of you though Tim, given that you asserted Glenn’s comments were only about those who opposed the war in Iraq. It sort of spoils your entire “point”, doesn’t it?
Darrell
John S, yes, the 9/11 report found no smoking gun link between Saddam and 9/11. It did find, as quoted above, an “abundant” amount of evidence that Saddam and Al-Queda were collaborating on weapons development. But kooks on the left tell us that Saddam was ‘secular’ so therefore Al Queda would ‘never’ in a million years work with him
jack
JohnS, Bush’s quote refers to the battle in Iraq as an “advance” in the greater War on Terror. It links 9/11 to terrorists and their supporters–is that incorrect?
The Cheney quote says that success in Iraq means that we’ll have struck at–and he was specific–the geographic base of the terrorists. Look at a map–this is true, Iraq is very strategically placed. His furtherence about the terrorists “who’ve been attacking us for years” is a bit larger of a statement than your need to see implications would have. Again, it links 9/11 to terrorists….
This leftist nonsense about people being fooled into believing Bush is yet another manifestation of the underlying leftist assumption that anyone who doesn’t agree with them is an idiot.
You all just keep thinkin’ that, okay?
Tractarian, why did you take it to mean ‘ground troops’? All soldiers are ‘troops’–hell, I don’t see you all making such distinctions when you’re screaming ‘Bring the Troops Home’ or ‘I Support My Troops, When They Kill Their Officers.’ Clinton used military force in Iraq, just like Bush.
Further, do you smell the nuance? Sure, there’s intelligence linking Saddam and terrorists–even, in some cases, Saddam and Al Qaeda–but there’s NONE that could link Saddam to the 9/11 thing specifically–and that’s why all these ‘implicating statements’ were lies–hey! maybe there was some stuff, but Sandy Berger used it as pants-stuffing!
But here’s the thing that you all keep stumbling over, even now, years after the fact. Saddam didn’t need to be linked to 9/11 to be a foe in the WoT–all he needed was to be linked to terrorism–and he was. End of story.