I was thinking the same thing. These arrogant remarks concerning other countries and their supposed involvement is not really helping the administration get any support. It's almost as if they're looking down on everybody else, and I'm sure the rest of the world isn't oblivious to this attitude (it's pretty obvious they aren't actually).
Don't get me wrong, Major.....I don't think we're in a position to back down unless we're given an "out" (someone offs Saddam, he steps down, etc.) Knowing that doesn't allay my fears though. I'm not trying to persuade anyone, and I'm the first to admit that my opinion is based more on those fears than anything else. All that being said, I just have a really bad feeling about this. I'm not someone who generally "gets feelings," but I try to pay attention to them when I get them. I hope I'm just being silly.
Ari Fliecher (sp) was asked about the ties and whether or not we had new info...he said something to the extent of that Powell, and the white house is basing it (it being knowledge of terrorist ties) on info that they have gathered for some time now. Yeah, I heard that. It was a total non-answer. IMO, he doesn't want to say "no, there's no link that we've found" because that's what they are relying on to get popular support for the war, so he just avoids the question every time its brought up. It's already been demonstrated that Bush has outright lied (or erred) about ties between the two in the past. Now they just avoid the issue.
Don't get me wrong, Major.....I don't think we're in a position to back down unless we're given an "out" (someone offs Saddam, he steps down, etc.) Knowing that doesn't allay my fears though. I'm not trying to persuade anyone, and I'm the first to admit that my opinion is based more on those fears than anything else. All that being said, I just have a really bad feeling about this. I agree with that -- I don't think this war will be nearly as clean as our leaders act like it will be. I'm wondering if they are simply that arrogant (this will be easy ... take two weeks, etc) or if its just the public face they are putting on it.
I don't see how you can just dismiss something like that. I really don't think they are relying on popular support for the war...they seem to have made it clear that we are going in with or without the blessing of others. He didnt really avoid the question. He was asked whether or not Powell had any new info that linked al queda to saddam...he said the get new info every day and they use all of the info the have gathered along the way
Rockit...the North Korean army is a joke. About 1/3 of the North Korean population is in the army and they are way underpaid, starving, and poorly equiped. If some war with North Korea ever happened they would fall faster than Iraq. The North Koreans would probably welcome America and the rest of the world since they are starving so bad. The Chinese army is becoming better equiped but it is still mostly designed for internal problems and not fighting wars, especially against America. Plus, China isn't really on North Korea's side like we are at Great Britain's side. China is more on our side because of economic reasons. China needs America for trade and growth, but North Korea doesn't really help the Chinese economy very much. The Bush administration is also trying to have closer ties with China since we have the war on terrorism going on. There is no "us" v. "them" mentality going on here unless you are comparing rogue/failing states against all other states.
I'm not sure I buy that. Bush may have "erred" in saying something he wasn't supposed to. But I don’t think anything has been proven to us….one way or the other…as to whether or not there is a link. Again, when you start talking about intelligence issues, the information we get is spoon fed to us. To think that we don't spy on other nations is silly. Spy's provide us with information. The US may...or may not....have solid information that Iraq has ties to Al queda and has WMD. Whether they do or don't is irrelevant, IMHO. Yes, it would be politically beneficial for Bush to divulge any intelligence we have in this regards (if it indeed, exists), but it would be devastating to the intelligence community. Once you start pointing out specifics, Iraq can narrow done exactly WHO could have provided such information. You completely undermine your intelligence efforts and compromise the safety of your moles by divulging these secrets. It’s a political gambit to be sure (not giving up proof), but the longer we hold out, the longer we can keep the channels open. That becomes even more important as war gets closer. After all, if you’re going to send a million dollar cruise missile after some target, you want to be fairly sure the target is still worth being a “target.”
I don't see how you can just dismiss something like that. I really don't think they are relying on popular support for the war... When first making Iraq into the new evil empire, Bush referenced Al Queda links and reports that never existed (according to what someone posted here earlier this week ... I don't know how accurate that report was). Today, a majority of Americans think Iraq and Al Queda are connected, although there's not one shred of public evidence of that. In fact, up until 9/11, Hussein and OBL absolutely despised each other. From what I understand, Hussein even had a price on OBL's head. really don't think they are relying on popular support for the war...they seem to have made it clear that we are going in with or without the blessing of others. I agree we're not relying on the popular support of other nations, but we damn well better be relying on the popular support of Americans. He didnt really avoid the question. He was asked whether or not Powell had any new info that linked al queda to saddam...he said the get new info every day and they use all of the info the have gathered along the way In other words, he never answered whether we have any new information or any information relating to Iraq & Al Queda at all for that matter. It was a perfect non-answer - he simply stated the obvious.
You don't buy what Fleisher is telling us but you will base your argument on an unsubstantiated opinion of someone you dont remember? I think you need to give the White House a little more credit. Pole's post made a lot of sense as far as the rock and a hard place that the gov't is in with the intelligence on one side and the public on the other. Agreed
To those who say they just want to do this and get it over with: you're dreaming. While the initial conflict might be brief, our occupation of Iraq will likely last for decades. That's from pro and anti war types. We've been in Korea for more than fifty years now. If you think it will be easier to stabilize Iraq (and maintain stability) than it's been in Korea (considering the instability of the Middle East in general even before the war), you're crazy. To those who say it looks increasingly likely that there's an al Qaida connection, the White House has done a great job on you guys. They've presented no evidence of this -- not even anecdotal or circumstantial evidence. They've just sort of said, well doesn't it make sense that they'd be working together? And the American public has naively nodded its collective head. That's not to say there isn't a connection, but at this point there's been more evidence that Iraqis kicked babies out of Kuwaiti incubators, which we now know never happened. To this recent post about the relative weakness of the North Korean army, so what. They don't need a particularly well fed army to push a button and nuke us. All they need is a viable nuclear program and an insane leader and they have both. Iraq, at this point, has only one. I don't remember where I read this (I think maybe the Sunday Chronicle), but the message being sent here is if you already have a nuclear program and are currently threatening to use it, we'll use diplomacy. If you don't (and are not currently threatening us), we'll use war. As the editorial I read posited, that's pretty damn likely to motivate those on the fence to pursue nukes with a new vigor.
Here's the made-up report I was referring to. It is referenced in an op-ed piece: http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50324 <I>Here at Unsolicited Opinions, Inc. we were first struck by this phenomenon soon after President Junior delivered an October speech attacking Saddam. In what the Washington Post later called “a flight of fancy,” he claimed that Iraq had a fleet of pilot less airplanes capable of “missions targeting the United States.” In reality, Iran and Turkey were the limits of their range. Earlier, Bush had cited a 1998 report by the InternationalAtomic Energy Agency that supposedly declared Saddam to be six months away from building nuclear weapons. No such report existed. A Gallup Poll soon appeared in which 79 percent said they believed Saddam had nukes.</I> I was wrong -- it was not on the Al Queda-Iraq link but on the Iraq-Nuke link.
You don't buy what Fleisher is telling us but you will base your argument on an unsubstantiated opinion of someone you dont remember? Ari Fleisher is not telling us anything - that's the whole problem. He said "we get information and use it". NO ****!! That's not what anyone asked you! I think you need to give the White House a little more credit. Why? They've proven entirely incompetent on this issue of actually justifying a war. They refuse to present any evidence, and the world continues to solidify in its resolve against the war. That's absolutely not the way this should have played out. It doesn't matter what he says or does now, too much of the world is already against us.
I wasnt insinuating that you made up anything...I was just trying to point out thatit seems silly for you and Batman to say that I am a fool for believing the White House when they tell me that there are links, while all you guys are going on (as far as saying there are no al queda-saddam links) is your own opinions
I wasnt insinuating that you made up anything...I was just trying to point out thatit seems silly for you and Batman to say that I am a fool for believing the White House when they tell me that there are links, while all you guys are going on (as far as saying there are no al queda-saddam links) is your own opinions Sorry, we're having a slight communication mishap I actually meant "made up" in the sense that Bush made up the report that never existed. I thought it was to tie Al-Queda & Iraq together, but it was actually tying Iraq and Nukes together. My issue with the White House is that they aren't really saying there are links anymore. They are just dodging that question.
Why? They've proven entirely incompetent on this issue of actually justifying a war. They refuse to present any evidence, and the world continues to solidify in its resolve against the war. That's absolutely not the way this should have played out. It doesn't matter what he says or does now, too much of the world is already against us. Major I think you should just bow to your own logic. They are not just "incompetent on this issue of actually justifying the war". They have refused to "present any evidence" because they don't have it and the CIA can only be pushed so far in the direction of manufacturing it. They just can't present any evidence about the great military danger due to weapons that Iraq poses that was their original stated reason to attackIraq. The real reasons, oil, delusions of a democratic Iraq that supports the US and Israel, a "positive issue environment" to get more tax breaks for the well off, a fantasy that little Dubya is a Churchilian figure, can't be mentioned.
NJ: I wasn't saying you were a fool. I said the White House had done a good job on those people who believe the Al Qaida link. The White House promised to present incontrovertial evidence of a link to 9/11 to the American people. They later backed off that promise, with people close to the White House admitting they'd been misled as to a direct link. The result? Polls show more than 50% of Americans believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11. That is based on the original promise of evidence, which was later retracted. The "update" that we receive new intelligence all the time is the height of equivocation. I'd love to know how ANYONE draws the conclusion that a link to Al Qaida seems more and more likely when the evidence of such has clearly because less and less, um, evident. I'm sorry, but the strategy re: arguments for war is way too similar to 1991 to me. It seems to be a case of throwing varied innuendo out there, coupled with promises of evidence which never comes, in hopes that the American people will eventually say, well, gee, SOME of this must be true. Well, maybe. Maybe some of it is. But giving us a laundry list of things which might be true is not good enough to justify war. Give me ONE reason why this is urgent now and make the case. And give the UN, if not everyone, access to those promised classified documents so that we're not asking the entire world community to just take our word for it. It wasn't long ago this White House guaranteed proof of nukes, WMD and warplanes capable of attacking US soil AND a 9/11 link. They have now backed off all three. Please forgive me for not "giving the White House more credit."
I find it quite humorous that those of you who have decided that this war is solely about George Bush and oil thrive on the White House not showing us any concrete evidence linking Al Queda to Saddam. Never mind all the intelligence issues. What evidence do you people have that this war is all about oil? It seems all you have are opinions.
