No (means no) profanity! No personal insults or name calling!
well, as a member of the "anti-American left", let me comment.
Firstly, to the 19 hijackers being fairly well off, you have to remember that AQ has 10,000-40,000 members. Many of those arrested seem to be from Morrocco, Algeria and other poorer countries. I would argue that they would have needed relatively well off people from friendly countries to get visas to come to the US. Getting a visa to enter the US is not easy and one of the main criteria that they look at is whether the person is likely to stay and work illegally in the US. And we are talking about 19 of 10,000 or more members of Al Qaeda.
As to Iraq being the most ready for democracy, I would argue that Palestine and Pakistan both are closer. Pakistan, of course, had a democracy until Musharaf overthrew it. Palestine has a more corrupt than normal democracy which actually has less power.
bin Laden spelled out why he doesn't like us. His grievances were 1)US troops in Saudi Arabia and 2)the Israel-Palestine issue.
Before AQ, most Islamic terror was directed towards Israel and some towards America. The hatred towards America has to do with the perception of America siding with Israel. It has to do with something like 100 Security Council Resolutions that were defeated by US veto (in all cases, the US was the only country to vote against).
Al Qaeda has directed its operations against America and against American allies in the war on Iraq including Spain and the U.K. This is where the majority of terror attacks are occuring. There are some that don't fit the pattern, but most do. In the same way, the US hasn't wiped out "root causes" for domestic terror as Eric Rudolph, Tim McVeigh, and the unabomber have shown.
Palestine?$?%?#$??? Pardon me, but what are you smoking? All you'd get there is an elected theocracy (and not a pretty one at that!)
I argued passionately in the early 90's that we should go all the way to Bagdad and start draining the swamp of Arab despotism then and there.
As the good Reverend has pointed out, the list of reasons that make that a sound strategy has only grown, and 9/11 finally gave us the excuse and backbone to implement it.
Re: Clarke et al.
Rev. Sensing makes a pretty good case for the Iraq war. I agree with the rationale, and should we manage to make Iraq a secular democracy, it'll be all for the better for all of us.
The problem that I have with all this and why I'm glad that Clarke came out with his revelations is that the case that the Rev. makes here is not the case that the Bush administration used to sell the war to the world, Congress, and the American people. Now, while I think that the Rev. is correct here WRT the war, I wonder if the cost is worth it if we establish a precedent that an administration can go to war under deceptive pretenses for unstated or false reasons, and expect that they can justify the war ex post facto.
Continued...
The lesson that I've learned from Clarke is that the war on Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror. Between Clarke, O'Neill, Kay, and others, it's apparent that the administration was itching to go in from day one, in direct contradiction to the "no nation-building" promise that I remember in 2000. People on the right are correct that 9-11 did change things, but 9-11 didn't provide Bush et al. with the change in heart to go into Iraq, it gave them a convenient justification to do what had been planned all along. And even after 9-11, Bush et al. made a deceptive case regarding WMD, imminent threat, and al Qaeda ties that have been shown to be false. If the administration did believe in the approach described by Rev. Sensing, why did they not make that one initially and allow the people and Congress to decide on those merits instead of the bogus ones cooked up along the way?
Continued...
And why do they continue to stonewall the commission by not allowing Dr. Rice to come before an open session? I think that the separation of powers argument has been sufficiently debunked. What's hiding in the closet that has them so worried? I find the lack of transparency very disturbing.
The major problem with the anti-Israeli UN resolutions is that condemned Israeli actions, but said nothing about Palestinian terrorism. In short, they put the UN in the position of saying that Arabs killing Jews was OK, but Jews killing Arabs was not. So, I can see why AQ would mad about something like that, but that doesn't mean the anger is justified.
Clarke's assertion that Bush was planning to invade Iraq from Day One is pretty much standard boilerplate for the left. Ultimately, I don't see it hurting Bush very much, since the only people who seem to be truly upset by the thought of it are various "Bush Lied People Died" types who never had any intention of voting for him in the first place.
Chris if you believe that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terrorism, then you absolutely do not agree with Mr. Sensing's rationale. The war in Iraq is central to the war on terrorism. The WMD argument was a "political" one. Take a realistic view on the WMD argument. This argument was central primarily because it was the primary argument used towards the UN. You continue to stress the "imminent threat" myth without taking into account that the president stated much more often that we "must not wait for the threat to become imminent".
One must remember that UBL primary complaint against the US, as outlined in his own writings, is the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. The reason they were there was Saddam's refusal to comply with the cease fire agreement, and the other UN resolutions since the 1991 Gulf War.
Simply leaving Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would have left those two nations exposed to someone who has already proven his pechance for military adventurism. Not a viable option.
So, the only way to give Usama bin Ladan what he wanted, was to remove Saddam. That meant invasion.
Now we are out of Saudi Arabia. If there was no link between UBL and Saddam, why was UBL complaining about our troops who were there because of Saddam's refusal?
Apologies for the shameless plug...
re: your essay on History and Economic Deveolopment...
I wrote an essay with a similar thrust but taking a different angle:
http://www.amcgltd.com/archives/
...255.html#004255
(Comparison)
It's my opinion that while economics had a great deal to do with it, the roots of both the success and ultimate failure of Islamic cultures lie with Islam itself.
I generally agree with Sensing, but I would say that the Left does in fact want to drain the swamp -- its just that they think the Israelis are the alligators. Fix that problem, they say, and everything else is fixed. Or at least a lot better.
Jim G.: Let me clarify. The war on terror is a war on terrorists and terrorism. Aside from Saddam's payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, Iraq had very little to do with terrorism. Compared to the radical Muslim schools in Saudi Arabia, the Pakistani intelligence services, Hamas, Hizbollah, and other institutions in the Middle East, Iraq was insignificant as a source of terrorists or terrorism training. (Remember that the current crop of "martyrs" are fundamentalist Muslims, while Saddam was quite secular.) If Bush were truly interested in combatting terrorism, we would have seen a stronger stand against the Saudis, more effort put into Afghanistan to finish that situation properly instead of forgetting about it once we started talking about Iraq, and so forth. If your goal is to fight terror, there were many things Bush could have done that achieved more bang for the buck.
Continued...
Now, as I said before, I am glad that Saddam is out of power and the Iraqis can rebuild their society. I have large issues with the way Bush misled the public to achieve that goal, but I think that the Iraqis are better off. However, I think that we should be honest with ourselves to recognize that rebuilding Iraq in the short term will increase terrorism (witness Spain) and provide the Muslim terrorists with an effective recruiting tool. In the long term, it may become a shining example of a Muslim democracy, but personally I doubt that it will be anything that stands out from other friendly Muslim societies. It won't be producing terrorists, but then again, it really wasn't to begin with.
Continued...
So, to close Jim, I think you are correct in that I don't completely agree with Rev. Sensing's rationale, but I agree with the bulk of it. I agree with Rev. Sensing that going into Iraq will dramatically assist in transforming Muslim societies, but I disagree that it will do anything with respect to stifling terrorism in the short to medium term (10 - 20 years). Given the Bush administration's neglect of Afghanistan, I have no confidence that they are able or willing to mold Iraq over that time period. And while I don't agree with all of Rev. Sensing's rationale, I still think that it is a very compelling case that should have been presented to the American people (if it were an actual consideration prior to going into Iraq) instead of the half-truths of WMDs and other misleading statements.
Continued...
My apologies if this is overly conflicting, but it's a conflicted issue within me to start out with. I'm happy that Saddam is out of power and that Iraq is rebuilding, but I'm very angry at the way the case was presented and how the public and Congress was misled in the run up to it all. I'm also very angry at the idea that because of 9-11, we had to invade Iraq, when the two incidents are largely independent of each other. I'm also angry at the state we've left Afghanistan in order to rechannel our resources to tackle a regime that could have been left alone until we finished what we started in Afghanistan. There are other things that really bother me about this, but I'll save you all the ranting. I'm glad that "we got 'em", but I'm very angry at how it happened and what was neglected in the process.
Manish wrote:
"I would argue that Palestine and Pakistan both are closer."
Pakistan is not an Arab country.
BBB
Dear Rev. Sensing:
While I completely with your points about Iraq/alligators/swamps, the question I have similary to Chris above is can we do it in time? The question we have to ask is what will be the response of any American president to a terrorist attack on an American city with nuclear weapons? I believe that any American president will retaliate. Then you must ask how long will it take for terrorists to acquire a nuclear weapon? The recent Khan revelations from Pakistan suggest an extremely short time frame.
Chris, the idea that Saddam had "nothing" to do with the WOT is simply not true. Was there Iraqi involvement in the '93 bombing? Google that up. While you are at it check out Salman Pak. Never heard of it? Prepare to be appalled. Also, you may remember that a civil verdict was delivered against Iraqi assets in a New York suit brought by 911 families. The pass on Saddam's culpability is a convenient elision of the Left. Don't fall for it.
megapotamus: Thanks for the Google-able phrases. I looked into Iraq and WTC '93 and saw mention of Cheney mentioning that Iraq supported Yasin. On the other hand, I see news reports about Iraq offering to give him up and the US refusing. The strongest statement regarding the link between the two is along the lines of "files suggest" and "Cheney suggests". If you can provide me with a link from a mainstream and non-partisan source that makes a case that Iraq was behind WTC 1993, then I'll be happy.
Continued...
With respect to Salman Pak, I see reports that it's a WMD facility, a terrorist training camp, an air base and so forth. It was a suspected WMD site, but that hasn't panned out. I haven't seen much mention of it post-invasion as a terrorist training site. I would think that if it were such a place, Bush et al. would be trumpeting it as justification for the war. Again, credible links will help ease my skepticism.
I'm not trying to be intentionally obtuse. One result of the information war between the right and the left during this conflict has been that I often don't know which side to believe. However, my mind is open and if you can provide me with some credible information to support your views, you will probably change my mind. However, in the absense of such information (Where is the discussion of Salman Pak post invasion?), I'll remain skeptical. I hope you understand.
What would be the arguments now if WMD had been found in Iraq? GWB sincerely believed WMD would be found. Wolfowitz pointed out that there were many reasons to attack Iraq but that for bureaucratic reasons, WMD was selected as the main one.
As SDB pointed out before the war, it was not politically feasible to stress the draining of the swamp reason.
I think the issues is now boiling down to is the war in Iraq a critical part of the WOT, or not?
I vote for that it is critcal but respect those who disagree with reason, not just anti-american and anti-bush hate; both of which are easy to spot.
I don't believe we are neglecting Afghanistan at all. The things that need to be done there are _much_ more difficult.
Iraq is/was already a relatively modern country with a somewhat reasonable economy and quite a bit of modern infrastructure.
"Afghanistan isn't a real country, and never has been. It's simply a place on the map where other nations aren't, filled up with various nationalities, tribes, and sub-tribes."
http://www.vodkapundit.com/archi...ives/
005511.php
Because of that, the work needing to be done there is _much_ more difficult.
I agree with Chris way up there - I feel the "real" reason for the Iraq undertaking is valid, but that is by and large *not* the reason that was presented/pitched to the US public and the world, though some of the players involved have brought it up more forcefully post-invasion.
That's a huge problem with this admin for me - even when I agree with their decisions, their manner and arrogance disgusts me. As does their "brace hard, no explanations, no admittance of error, it'll blow over" attitude. Is that the "stern father" model showing itself?
Chris,
Chris,
The archives over at *Winds of Change* should provide answers to both your questions. Re. Salman Pak, "Abu Frank" has provided reasons to doubt the "terrorist training camp" idea in the comments of a recent post (sorry, search isn’t working, no link). As far as Saddam-Al Qaeda and Saddam-Terrorism connections, regular WoC contributor Dan Darling has published detailed and fully-linked analyses that evaluate most of the reasonable evidence that has circulated, for example, *here*. His conclusions are that many of the charges are provably true, some are unclear, and some are unfounded.
See for yourself.
TG,
Ah, but if you buy into the "Bush lied" BS, you have to buy into the fact that out of the WHOLE WORLD, including the UN, that Bush was the only person in the world that KNEW WMD did not exist in Iraq. See, if he lied, then that means he KNEW WMD did not exist. You can find, if you actually want to bother, multiple quotes from world leaders stating that Iraq HAD WMD.
Personally, since governments PRIMARY responsibility is security, I prefer the "stern father" approach. It's better than the 'lame mother' approach of the previous 8 years.
I don't personally [buy it] and don't think anyone need buy into the 'Bush lied (about WMD)' storyline to find their public stance leading up to the war not entirely honest.
From today:
"I saw a threat," Mr. Bush said a moment later. "The Congress saw a threat, the United Nations Security Council saw a threat in the form of Saddam Hussein. He was not only a threat to people in the Middle East because of terrorist ties, he was a threat to America or anybody else who loved freedom."
The line still seems to be that Iraq itself was a direct threat to the US, not that the establishment of a progressive state in the ME is how we will attack the root causes of terrorism and help the WOT [by invading Iraq].
I've heard lots of good justifications and explanations from the blogworld for the Iraq war, but rarely (and quietly if so) from the Administration. The only people who seem to clearly state it are Wolfowitz et. al. - someone most citizens probably don't even know exists.
And Rice hiding from public testimony, no matter how useful or not it is, but appearing in near every single media outlet is reprehensible.
TG, The only reason for Rice to be called to publicly speak, testify or whatever is so the panel can show-boat for cameras. The constitutional rules of separation clearly apply here and it would be more reprehensible for her to step over those this one time. She has spoken to the panel in private and been forthcoming when speaking in public. The bottom line here is that Iraq had broken numerous UN resolutions, performed genocide, used the UN as a money laundering outfit, attempted assassinations on a US president 3 times... on and on... I hate to sound cold, but if he didn't deserved it, who does?
"Speaking in public" and answering questions are two very different things. I don't know of anything she has to keep secret, but her refusing to testify when all others have sure makes it look that way. And this admin has no problem skirting rules when they suit their purposes.
Seems like they're taking way more fire than they would if she just agreed to testify - call it "going above and beyond" on her part to help secure our country.
And if it is "show-boating", so be it - if citizens will feel efforts are at least being made to improve things, even if these meetings aren't the exact cause, I think that's worthwhile. I don't care for the "trust us, don't ask questions, go about your business" model.
1) I disagree with skirting the rules all the time.. even when this admin does it. So, I don't like this. I'm a conservative... Much different than a republican...
2) The level of difficulty (taking fire), should never enter into the equation when deciding whether something is right or wrong. I stick with not testifying.
3) I too think that the 'go about your business' mode is terrible. but, that being said, I still believe the motivation here is not being truthfully stated. I am all for accountability, we could toss back and forth items from the last 8 years of the century for which someone should've been accountable...... Again, why now all the sudden? I am in favor of black and white / right and wrong, not the sliding scale of applying them to suit your needs. Yes, I know this admin has done that. Never said they hadn't
In his campaign, Bush joked in October 2000, "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." After Sept. 11, he told a reporter: "I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
This attitude seems to be colliding with much of the country's (and world's) differing thoughts on 'owing an explanation'. And this is all coming up "all of a sudden" because it took so many months to have any hearings at all. Remember someone was very opposed to them happening at all?
I think taking on terrorism will decrease it in the short term.
Note how Hamas decided after only a day that it did not wish to take on the USA.
Note also all the reports of potential train bombs in Europe.
There is a reason we don't get full explanations from Bush. There is a war on.
Loose lips sink ships.
I judge by results. Hamas decided that it was not wise to take on the US of A after all. That is a result.
Amac: Thanks for the links. However, they redirect back to the comments page. Can you post them as plain text or e-mail them to me?
M. Simon, Re. Loose Lips: I'm sure that Valarie Plame has a lot to say about loose lips and this administration... It seems like the "loose lips" saying is due for an update.
Commenting by HaloScan
