But, wait!! The media told me everyone was AGAINST invading Iraq...

I see the smiley, Sonny, so don't get me wrong. This isn't directed at you, but your quote's instructive.

Let's just look at the two positions within the president's own party:

Bush Jr. says Saddam is bad and evil and dangerous, so we should remove him now. He says (or his intimates do) that only the danger of Saddam matters, because it's so great and he's so evil that we must remove him now, never mind the consequences.

Bush Sr.'s people agree Saddam is bad and evil and dangerous and they would like to see him gone. The difference is that they say the consequences are serious enough to consider, especially without international support.

That's the debate. You don't win this debate by saying, "but he's dangerous" or "what if he blows up Florida?" Both sides agree with those concerns. One side says there are other concerns which can be addressed by building a coalition, the other side says "Didn't you hear me???? He's DANGEROUS!!!" Yes. Okay. We get it.

I repeat: when Bush can get his own people behind this, he needs to focus on Congress. When he can get Congress behind it, he needs to focus on our allies. There's no time for that, you say? Riddle me this: Why hasn't Bush spoken about Iraq, in any detail whatsoever, in over a month, if the danger is so immediate? Why is it left to Cheney, Rice and now Blair? If the danger is so urgent that we don't have time to get crucial support from our allies, I'd think the president would be working on building a public case. What's he doing instead? Oh, right. Working on that more urgent, more dangerous issue: the mid-term elections.

 

Maybe if we turn up this propaganda war loud enough we can provoke an international incident and then bomb the crap out them without needing evidence.

Evidence? We don't need no stinking evidence.

 

Max, you needn't apologize for replying out of turn, but you should look again at the post I was replying to. It said that if we were wrong about the threat, Kagy would compensate with a Coke. He was basically advocating shooting first, questioning later, hence my response.

I don't believe I've taken a public position on the action, or what it would take to gain my support. I've simply said it raises serious doubts for me when those people who've been most hawkish on Iraq advise caution.

 

Glad to see it. Of course, he has no choice. And Fleischer couldn't spin any harder if he was on eight hits of acid at a Dead show. Cheney said inspections weren't just insufficient, but that they could be harmful by giving false hope. Powell said inspections were an important first step. Then Fleischer said why's everyone saying they disagree? They both hate Saddam...

My only contribution to this debate has been to point out Bush's incredible mishandling of this important issue. Not only has he failed to silence his own dad's best friends' dissent -- he can't even keep his own administration on the same page. Fleischer can blame the media all he wants for blowing this out of proportion. The media doesn't need to invent here -- it IS out of proportion and it's the fault of Bush's mismanagement. I'm glad he's meeting with Congress (though he gets no points from me for this -- he has no choice), because I share your concerns. I don't want to see another 9/11 either. Nor do I want to see any unnecessary bloodshed. I agree with Brent Scowcroft that without a coalition, we will likely see both of these things.

 

The people in the British government are ready to make the same mistakes they made in World War II all over again. They would rather sit idly by and pretend there is nothing that is necessary to be done just like they did for a while when Germany was having their way in Europe. They laughed at Winston Churchhill when he told them about what Germany was up to. Thank God Winston Churchhill furnished the proof from his inside source or Britain may not be here today.

Iraq is lying about their weapons programs if we have proof. Honestly, do we even need proof after those so-called inspections of Iraq back in the 90s which were nothing of the sort. They were constantly impeded, not given the freedom to look anywhere they want, and lied to about the weapons programs which has continued to this day. Only when Iraqi defectors came out and gave information did the inspectors make any headway whatsoever. Iraq has always claimed they have had no weapons of mass destruction. Their policy has always been to have them and lie that they don't have them until they are found. Do they think we are stupid? They know damn good and well they have at the very least biological and chemical weapons. Yet, they insist on saying the inspections were done in the 90s and they have no WoMD. Why would anyone listen to or believe anything coming out of Iraq? Apparently, people are willingly doing so regardless of what Saddam may have done in the past.

If they think were going to let another WW happen down the road because we sat idly by on the advice of countries who would rather just have circumstances unfold without action, then I'm afraid their sorely mistaken. The biggest problem with European countries is they would rather do nothing than do something. They just don't want to be involved is my opinion. Sure, let the inspectors back in they all say. A lot of good that's going to do with all the restrictions Iraqis place on the inspectors.

Iraq: You can look here...but wait 6 hours while we clear out the evidence and move it. Okay, now you can look. Oh but don't go into the holy sites/mosques...because we have stacks of WOMD in the basement.

Iraq has been playing the games and flat out lying for more than a decade. I think the US sitting around and waiting on a resolution which will never be adhered to or come is at an end. Tony Blair is smart enough to know what's going on. I hope the rest of his government wises up when they see the intelligence data. We don't need a coalition involving all of Europe's countries because they are good for nothing anyway. We need key allies. We need Britain.

Nobody wants war but, right now, the alternative is unthinkable. And, we are not about to make the same mistakes of inaction like in WW II which cost many more lives than necessary because we waited and ignored the evidence and facts of what was going on.

 

Oh yeah, that b*stard Neville Chamberlain. He's such a terrorist. THose foolish Brits, they don't know that Iraq is out to get them. I hear the Iraqi invasion fleet is secretly massing in Calais. As soon as they can afford to buy a ticket on the Eurostar, they're gonna go over there and smoke'em. Little do they know that their Euros will be useless once they reach the sceptered isle! Joke's on you Raqi's, the pound sterling triumphs again!

 

Max, I don't really have anything new to add but I feel compelled to respond. I never said it was a partisan issue. I bring the first Bush admin up, because they are known to be extraordinarily loyal and are loathe to criticize any Republican, let alone the son of the man they served under. They do so only because they see it as necessary. And when they do that, we should pay heed.

It's not about hawks v. doves or Dems v. Repubs. But the guys criticizing Bush's position are known as Saddam's arch enemies of all time. Let's put it this way. Robin the boy wonder says the Joker has a bomb and he plans to blow up Gotham City. Batman says it's more complicated than that. He says that if we take out the Joker right now, Arkham Asylum will explode and we'll have to deal with Two-Face, the Riddler, Catwoman and even Lex Luthor and Brainiac. He says we can solve this by explaining everything to the Justice League. Robin says "No, no, no! There's a bomb!" Now, I'm not saying who's right, but I'd call Batman a credible source on the Joker. When he advises caution, I'd listen. As I do with Scowcroft, Eagleburger and the rest.

I agree that diversity within an administration is a good thing, but public disagreement regarding a decision to go to war is NOT. I am sure there were people in Clinton's cabinet who opposed his actions in Bosnia, but I'm even more sure they didn't air those disagreements publicly. And Clinton didn't have even one cabinet member who played the good, loyal soldier as well as Powell does. When he advises caution, we would be wise to listen.

When we are preparing a military action there is nothing worse than doing so as a country divided. We are divided now, because Bush has not made the case. At the same time, he has let it be known that this WILL happen. He's done it himself and he's done it more forcefully lately through Cheney. And he's done it without selling it to our allies, the American public, Congress or EVEN his own party. That is horrible mismanagement and it is conducted at our peril.

 

Nothing of substance to add - I just found this to be hilarious. Especially because the British are so snotty about their pounds, lol.

Max,

Unless they side with the US, England is not really a target for anyone - excpet for the IRA and drunk Scotsmen who watch Braveheart (dspite all of it's inaccuracies) too much.

 

Madmax said:

You've got quite an imagination there.

Since we're into imagining: Imagine. Our troops invade IRaq a fight is put up in the main cities. WE lose hundreds of troops perhaps a few thousand in the actual fighting. WE respond without massive bombing of civilian areas. Sadam then unleashes chemical warfare which he has enough of to contaminate a few square miles of Bagdhad. (He had no delivery system, but fortunately for him we chose to get within range.) It is still left over from the days when we gave it to him.


Oops there goes another 20,000 Americans; we know another couple 100 thousand Iraqis plus or minus is meaningless to most Americans, but it enrages the rest of the world.

Alternately we find no such weapons of any significance and are unable to hide this by controlling the spin despite press censorship. Although American losses to the working class men and women of the US volunteer army are acceptable, we kill tens of thousands of Iraqis. Again no biggie to your average voter, but the rest of the world doesn't approve of this.

Either way, like the occupation of Afghanistan we spend a long expensive time in Iraq.

In the US there are yellow ribbon decorating parties and the Superbowl extravaganza look like an old Soviet Mayday parade, a few funerals. In Tel Aviv there is dancing in the streets, but no funerals except for a few Palestinian cvilians killed in the typical mistake.


The US is Viewed as a arrogant giant prone to sudden financial shocks due to frequent wars all over the world and phony Enron accounting schemes that hide a growing budget deficit. There is a giant outflow of dollars, especially Arab but also from other contries as the Euro is viewed as being a more stable currency.

Most Americans are hurt by a declining economy, though the Carlyle group and Cheney and Rumsfield's old cronies do pretty well.

Historians later view it as the last hurrah of the looney Right in America and an excess of American at the zenith of its power. It is seen as a stange political version of the dotcom bubble. Others merely mouth the old "absolute poer corrupts absolutely".

 

71% of Brits against the US invasion.

71%

 

I think the difference is that Bush Jr's team says the consequences of inaction are more serious than Bush Sr's team believes.

I am not convinced that Jr's team is unaware of the potential international ramifications. I envision that they understand that the protection of 300 million Americans, and our allies, rests squarely on their shoulders. I could understand how they are willing to take 'international heat' against the threat of mass destruction on American soil.

Let's not forget that it is well accepted that this SOB went gunning for one of our ex-Presidents. I don't put anything past him.

 

It didn't add anything more or less than bringing up appeasement and the Munich convention. I mean I might as well bring up the US' refusal to join the League of Nations in (1918?) for god's sake.

I agree that Iraq is a threat, but, to a greater extent, so are: Saudi Arabian terrorists who want to kill me, Egyptian terrorists who want to kill me, Pakistani terrorists who want to kill me, Afghan terrorists who want to kill me, Filipino terrorists who want to kill me, Yemeni terrorists who want to kill me, IRA terrorists who want to kill me, Basque terrorists who want kill me, surplus Russian nuclear materials, Kim Jong Il and North Korea, Iranian religious extremists, and so on and so forth.

Iraq is no greater or lesser a threat today than it was on September 10, 2001, or September 96 or September 1991. My opinion is that there are other pressing needs (i.e., the terrorists who want to kill me) and that the costs outweigh the benefits. In fact, in the long run, I believe it will result in more people wanting to kill me. Which I really don't like.