Iraq: WMDs, Imminent Threat, 9-11, Nukes, etc. Simply Put: We Were Lied To.

I have one main question here that seem to have been curiously missed by our Democratic friends:

1) What would these contenders do differently in Iraq?

I mean, I have yet to hear a single policy change that any of them would enact were they elected (aside from throwing in the towel and bailing out). They have no plan at all, just criticism. Quit ducking that one and address it. I want to hear your (and their) alternative plan.

And as far as losing the war if a Democrat is elected - what do you think is going to run through Osama's mind if/when he sees that happen? I think that he'll think something along the lines of "Yahooo!!! I can return to Afghanistan soon, and we can pick up where we left off, because the Americans will inevitably be leaving sometime soon!" Ditto for Saddam. Hell, all either one of them has to do is wait for a Democrat to get elected. That is, in fact, exactly what I think they're doing.

Virtually all of the Gitmo prisoners have said the same thing: they did not expect the response to 9/11 that they got (invasion and asskicking). Even Saddam apparently didn't believe we had the balls to do what we did. They all expected a batch of cruise missiles at most, because they were used to dealing with a Democrat whimpident. Bush hit them hard, much harder than they expected, and it is working.

rimrocker - what "failed" policies are you talking about? I suppose that you would have preferred the cruise missile approach? You believe that that would have succeeded?

And don't say "well, his economic policies have failed", because that is a bogus argument. When those planes knocked those buildings down our economy lost a trillion dollars, and we have recovered much of that by now. The economic policies are working quite well, considering the 9/11 impact. (Not that the Prez really influences that too much - it is Congress and the Fed who really pull those strings)

Again, you guys have no friggen ideas. You just throw out terms like "failed policies", without showing any example of their failing, and without giving any example of what a successful policy would look like. You have no plan at all, and your "ideas" are therefore worse than worthless.

The fact of the matter is that all things considered, it is hard to realistically imagine more progress on the war on terror to date. Bush's "failed policies" have thus far been a resounding success. Not perfect, and there is still more to do, but he has made the hard choices, thrown the dice (and risked his career for our sake), and largely won. I know it. Osama and Saddam know it. You and your Dem buddies apparently don't. But I suspect you wouldn't recognize success if it hit you in the head...

 

Treeman,

I would be intrested in your opinion on an interview by General Zinni I posted.

I'm not sure how much credibility you attribute to General Zinni but as President Bush's choice as mideast envoy as well as former commander of Centcom I'd assume he'd hold at least a certain amount of credibility..


http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?threadid=65139

thank you.

 

Of course, if Gore had won, he probably would have taken Clinton's warnings about terrorists flying planes into buildings seriously and we might have been able to avoid some or all of 9/11.

Iraq should be rebuilt under the direction of an international agency. Bush made this bed and we are going to have to lie in it whether we like it or not. Bush, however, is fighting tooth and nail not to give up any measure of control whatsoever to the UN. Add this to his other international snubs and the rest of the world is going to laugh at his "requests for aid." Bush invaded a country without a clear plan for what to do after the battle and it is showing. He made a mess and is now telling the rest of the world that they need to come in and help us clean up the mess we made, but that they have to do it EXACTLY how WE want it.

At least Clark, as a former commander of NATO forces, might be able to set aside his ego and pride long enough to see the benefit in getting some help with Iraq. We need to find an exit strategy that accomplishes our goals with minimum time and expense. This exit strategy needs to include the rest of the world.

 

wasn't sure where to post this, but it's funny as hell

I was watching Bill Maher last night after the stunning peformance by the astros and he mentioned all the Democratic Candidates were asked what their favorite song was

Howard Dean gave out the following song

Wyclef Jean - Jaspora

Seriously, go download this and listen to it. It's Jamaican, not one bit of English. Bill Maher was ragging on him for this. It's just too funny

 

This alternative history of yours is completely self serving and valueless, as it can be made to support any conclusion you want:

Example: I have no doubt that if Al Gore was president, he would have discovered a cure for cancer and invented a perpetual motion machine.

 

Macbeth -

Nice post. Way to avoid the subject again.

You say I skipped out on addressing your concerns? OK, I will address them directly, so you have no more excuses to avoid addressing mine.

You just said that you do not hate Bush, you hate his actions, yet here you say that you hate Bush because of his actions. You did not say you hated his actions, you said you hated him - because of his actions.

It is quite clear that you hate the man. I am not trying to imply that you hated the man because you dislike the way he looks, or you hate the way he can't pronounce 'nuclear'. You hate him for his actions, thanks for agreeing with me and confirming my point.

Perhaps people keep skipping that matter because they know it to be false? You are saying that all of their intel on Iraq came from us, and that is just flat a lie. France, Germany, etc all have their own intelligence agencies, and their own agencies merely confirmed what we were telling them. They believed the information not because it came from us, but because it came from their own friggen intel agencies.

I posted several articles attesting to this before the war. But you are of course well known for revising history...

I could not care less what party you affiliate yourself with. I really don't care. But for all intents and purposes, you harp the Democratic party line on this issue like you were writing their platform, and as such it is not unreasonable to lump you in with them when discussing this issue. You take their side of things point by point, on every single miniscule issue within this overall issue, of that there is no argument.

OK, the "card-carrying" part was an exaggeration (at least I hope), but you just admitted to being a Bush hater. I was right, thanks.

You don't. Either that, or you are a traitorous b*stard who wants us to lose. So, to be kind, I just said that you didn't understand what was going on.

It is not difficult to understand that in order to win the war on terror we must change their society, and that Iraq is the first step in that long process. I have explained that to you many times, and you have never gotten it. You never will, I suspect.

Unless, you really do get it, and just want us to lose?

Uh, you do. Are you honestly saying here that you don't?

\I have consistently provided evidence and examples to back up my arguments, and everyone knows it. Must I constantly repeat myself? Do I have to keep presenting the same evidence over and over again, when you simply ignore it and pretend that it is not there?

My point in that original post was that you are not interested in examining factual evidence, our many dances in the past have confirmed that to me. You are not interested in truth, only perception, and you will ignore any evidence and distort any truth to mold the perception to your liking.

Why bother anymore? There's no way to win an argument with someone who will accept no evidence, creates their own logic to fit their argument, and is not interested in actual truth. That was my point: Why bother?

And seeing as your last two posts to me devolved instantly into attacks on my credibility, it would seem that I was right to do so.

Uh, they don't. We have gone over why the whole "Bush Lied" theory does not hold water under the circumstances and given what's known, yet you continue to throw that theory around like it is proven fact, even though all that is proven is that the logic of it does not work.

This another one for the "Why bother" column. Why bother arguing when your opponent twists and contorts logic to suit their purposes? If I wanted to argue with someone who played that way, I'd find a fourth-grader to argue with, and not sopme anonymous individual who presents himself as a scholar who is above everyone else and impervious to his opponents' ignorance...

Yes, that was a personal attack, but it is so obviously true (everyone can see that you have a large ego, and that it is fueled by these debates - you are apparently the only one who does not see that) that I didn't think posting it would be out of place. It is pertinent to the subject I was commenting on, after all.

 

SF:

"Alternative history"? The only historical part of that post was what the Gitmo prisoners are reported as saying. Are you calling me a liar?

To all Democrats (who have thus far refused to address this one):

I repeat the question:

1) What would these contenders do differently in Iraq?

You guys keep acting as if they have a plan. Well, do they? I want to hear it.

Someone please address this, because until it is addressed none of the contenders have any credibility whatsoever.

 

FIne, I couched it wrong, its an alternative future. Either way, your speculation that "Bin Laden will walk down fifth avenue if Clark is elected" is baseless and valueless, as it is just a worthless prediction meant to denigrate your foes. I'm waiting till we have confirmation from Czech cabinet level officials on that one.

Repeal Bush's asinine giveaway tax cuts so we can actually pay for the damned thing for one (I believe Clark has mentioned this on MANY occassions); Try to work with our allies without needlessly insulting them, among others (Clark has said this too, I think he even said both these things last thursday night.)

 

US intelligence on Iraqi weapons 'flawed'

Leaked letter criticises circumstantial evidence

Gary Younge, New York
Monday September 29, 2003
The Guardian

America's intelligence community used outdated, "circumstantial" and "fragmentary" information with "too many uncertainties" to conclude that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaida, according to the intelligence committee of the US House of Representatives.

After four months of poring over 19 volumes of classified material used by the White House to justify its case for war, senior members of the committee concluded that there were "significant deficiencies" in the community's ability to collect fresh intelligence on Iraq. They said it had to rely on past assessments, dating to when UN inspectors left Iraq in 1998, and on "some new 'piecemeal' intelligence", both of which "were not challenged as a routine matter".

In a letter to the CIA director, George Tenet, that was leaked to the Washington Post, two committee members claimed: "The absence of proof that chemical and biological weapons and their related development programs had been destroyed was considered proof that they continued to exist. The assessment that Iraq continued to pursue chemical and biological weapons remained constant and static over the past 10 years."

The letter is all the more damaging because it comes from a committee controlled by Republicans and is signed by the committee chairman, Congressman Porter Goss, a Republican from Florida who is a former CIA agent and a long-time supporter of Mr Tenet and the intelligence agencies.

Their findings echoed claims made by the United Nations chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, two weeks ago that most of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were destroyed 10 years ago.

"I'm certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed all, almost, of what they had in the summer of 1991," said Mr Blix. "The more time that has passed, the more I think it's unlikely that anything will be found."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1051838,00.html

It's not just Democrats, its Bi Partisen effort that are realizing the faulty intel/case for war.

 

Well, at least we finally have an answer. Not a very good one, but it's a start...

We can pay for it without repealing the tax cuts. The tax cuts are an entirely different issue, and have absolutely nothing to do with Iraq - the only way that they could would be if we really could not afford the Iraq reconstruction, and we most certainly can - and this is just an example of the Dems trying to throw a domestic political issue to the Iraq sector.

Nothing to do with each other.

Well, I have never, ever heard Bush "needlessly insult" anyone. Not even the French, who are so deserving of such insults. But...

Again, this is a platitude, not a plan. What exactly would these contenders actually do differently? How are they magically going to get the French and Germans - people who want our effort in Iraq to fail - on board with us? How exactly would they accomplish this? I have heard nothing from them indicating that they would actually do anything differently, probably because they realize that there is no way in hell that we're going to get the French or any of our other foes on board.

But of course the "Well, the first thing I'd do is stop alienating our friends at the UN..." sure does sound good to a Democrat's ears, I bet. Even though it is totally devoid of substance.

 

Actually, i think the Bush administration has shown remarkable restraint in dealing with France and some of our other more recalcitrant "allies." Certainly, the current french government and it's perfidious, arrogant foreign minister deserves greater disapprobation than the administration has thus far offered.

i'm sure thomas friedman's article on the french has already been posted, but w/o the search function i can't find it. for the record, it's cached here:

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/986972/posts

it is time we got used to it- France is no longer our ally.

 

tree,

some people find it "insulting" to say this to our "allies" :

"send us some soldiers and money. ... No, you will have no say in this matter, and we will be in total control. So, like we said, if you're against terror, give us some human bodies and some cash. Thank you."

Would we ever join such an enterprise run by another nation? I hope not.

So, concrete suggestion: share power in Iraq with an international group as we rebuild. Would that be so bad? Would that really be "admitting defeat" or some such? (not rhetorical questions).

edit: your, you're, whatever.

 

I think the US is willing to give up some control, but not all. (I'll look up a link). However, France's proposal was for the US to give up complete control to the Iraqis in like 6 months, which would be a disaster for Iraq.

 

B-Bob:

The Prez has essentially said that he will not turn over control of the Iraq operation to a body which has a proven track record of failure at nation building and peacekeeping, although he does welcome any contributions the international community would like to make. What is he supposed to say? He is being honest and straightforward about what our policy is. What is he supposed to do? Do you want him to just be more diplomatic about our policy? Or do you want policy change?

You guys want him to turn Iraq over to the UN. Admit it. The Democrats actually want that to happen, don't they?

If that is what they'd do differently - no thanks. With a capital NO. Thank God Bush is not stupid enough to contemplate doing so. And I've got to say that if refusing to turn Iraq over to the UN is what gets under everybody's skin - then tough. Deal with it, because that one's not going to change. We will not just throw Iraq down the toilet and commit it to UN-sponsored failure like that. We owe it more than that.

B-bob, there are alot of things that the UN could help with in Iraq without having to be in charge of the whole shebang. The UN isn't running Kosovo or Afghanistan - should we hand them over to it? In fact, any operation that is UN-run is doomed to failure if history is any judge. The recipe for success is UN-sanctioned, US-run operations - those usually work out pretty well (Gulf War I, Korea). The UN can play a ceremonious role, as well as an actual role in the humanitarian and financial realms, but when it takes control of things, things tend to fall apart.

Individual states, like Germany and Russia, can also play helpful roles there. Money and troops would be welcome, although more troops are not really necessary. France is not welcome, BTW. But to think that anyone but the US would have a reasonable chance of success in this operation is ludicrous. Hell, we are the only nation in existence with similar precedents of success: Japan and Germany.

Who has the UN ever saved? Who has France ever saved?

 

I'm ignorant, okay. Where has the UN screwed up nation building (recently)? Why not have some UN soldiers getting blown up instead of just our boys? Why not have some UN money going in there instead of just our money?

Tree, if Iraqis want us gone (and about 50% do, even in the interesting poll you posted last week or so, right?), is it really going to work to be stubborn? I doubt that % will decrease as time goes on. It will only increase. As usual, I hope I am completely wrong.

For the record, I am not one of those people wanting us to leave. I even argued with some lame San Francisco protestors yesterday who were yelling for us to leave Iraq. I didn't want us there in the first place, but we have to finish business.

 

Please point to a success story. Somalia? Sierra Leone? Angola? No, all failures. Bosnia? Utter failure until the US and NATO took over. Kosovo? Totally impotent. Rwanda? Hmmph. Anywhere in S. America? Nope. Central Asian republics Nope.

The UN is an utter failure at its mission. Only Korea and Gulf I were successful, and then only with US leadership.

As I said, troops and money are welcome, but not at the price of relinquishing control - and responsibility. We will not piss away Iraq and condemn it to failure just to get a few French troops in there.

Well, most Iraqis do not want us gone - yet. They want us to stay until reconstruction is finished and the new government is viable.

Interestingly, what they do not want is the UN in charge over there. The UN is terribly hated organization there (remember what the UN did to them for 12 years - Iraqis recognize that it was the UN, not the US, who did that - unlike some dummies here), far more than anything else. Turning them over to the UN would be a nightmare for them.

It is good to hear that you realize that leaving would be a bad idea. Agreeing on that is the first step in getting anywhere on a serious discussion of policy, since failing to agree on that would mean that one of us was an idiot...

 

As usual, you crack me up, seriously. Your UN examples are good ones and quite depressing. I just wish there was a way to get a few reasonable nations on board for real contributions, but they have to trust us. I think we admit our international trust cache has been bruised lately, for whatever reason. If we can't agree on that, that will mean one of us in an imbecile.

 

Really? That's odd, I would think that spending hundreds of billions a year to build up the government of a country when you can't afford it has a lot to do with each other, especially since I am the one who is paying for it.

"We can pay for it without repealing the tax cuts."

Do elaborate on this one. Do elaborate. BTW, don't throw out the party line that the Iraqi oil industry is going to pay for it, cause it isn't by any reasonable estimate, and I'm not just making that up.

 

B-Bob:

I do, too. But you must realize that it is not so much that UN member nations want us to cede power just because it is the right thing to do, but because they have their own interests in us doing so.

Syria? Do I need to explain why they do not want us in control in Iraq? Don't think so, you're smart enough to see that one.

France and Russia want their oil contracts back. Russia wants to sell the new government weapons.

China is afraid of American power. That and they want those arms contracts back.

Germany is inherently antiwar after WWI. Now, they're starting to act like they'll help; training Iraqi security personnel is a good contribution.

None of these countries, except probably Germany, actually want us to win the war on terror, either. All of them want to knock the US down a peg on the power ladder, and don't care a wit about our security.

Who else matters?

As far as our "trust cache" being bruised - the reason does matter, that reason being that with the Clintons out of office we do not just cowtow to their demands anymore. And we will not sacrifice Iraq just so that they can make a buck. If our "trust cache" is bruised simply because we will not accede to their demands - than so be it. Their demands have nothing to do with either our security or Iraq's future, and are not worth the sacrifice.

SF:

Elaborate? I don't know how. We can afford it. I don't really know how else to explain it.

Here's a try: the government is taking more money from me than it should. It has recently decided not to take quite so much money from me. It still takes alot from me though, enough to pay for everything it wants to do. If it can already pay for what it wants to do, then why take more from me?

I know, I know - we'll run a deficit. Oh, the horror! God Forbid we have to run a credit line for anything! No, it is far more expedient to rob someone... me.

You know, surpluses are not really a good thing. What they mean is that the government has made the mistake of robbing its citizens of too much of their hard-earned money. But try explaining that to a Democrat...

An illustration: A wealthy man wants to buy a new car, the Iraqi Sportster 2000. He hadn't originally budgeted for it, but he is wealthy, and can afford it. Now, should he just pay out of his pocket, since he can afford it? Or should he go rob a liquor store so that he can get more funds, and won't have to pay out of his own pocket?

You would have him rob someone. I think he should pay for it with what he already has. Of course, as a Democrat, you don't mind too much if the government robs its citizens, right? As long as someone "more deserving" gets the money? Robin Hood, you're my hero.