In the meantime where is Bin Laden...
I also believe that America is so torn by division that one side will pull out all stops, and expend all resources, to defeat the other side irrespective of what else is going on in the world. 9/11 didn't change that. Hurricane Katrina didn't change that. Like I tell my boys, we aren't the United States of America any more. We're just America. And that's the one unfortunate truth that puts so much else in perspective when we look at the chaos of the moment.
Bin Laden is likely ensconced in very rugged mountains of NW Pakistan or NE Afghanistan. What do the critics suggest we do to retrieve him from that environment?
What if - by some strange twist - we nab Bin Laden while Bush is still in office? Will a lot of people mute their criticism of the Iraq war, or will it be seen as too little, too late?
Speculation?
Tim J.,
Anyone who can believe that 9/11 was an "inside job" will simply add to the narrative that the administration has had bin Laden in a cell somewhere the whole time, and is simply producing him at the moment of maximum political effect.
So no, I wouldn't expect that to mute criticism of the Bush administration one bit.
God have mercy.
peace,
I do not believe Bush lied. Did Nancy Pelosi lie when she said in 2002 that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and working on getting nuclear?
I think Saddam had wmd but since we telegraphed our intentions he with the help of the russians hid them in Syria
I think Saddam had wmd but since we telegraphed our intentions he with the help of the russians hid them in Syria
Then Bush should be impeached and removed from office for absolutely criminal incompetence in throwing away thousands of American lives and God only knows how many Iraqi lives to cause the very export of WMDs that he intended to prevent.
I think Saddam had wmd but since we telegraphed our intentions he with the help of the russians hid them in Syria
Exactly how does one move such massive alleged amounts of wmds right under our noses, right under the inspectors' noses, and under our constant satellite surveilance without detection?
I believe that Dick Cheney's approach here and with his Ahab-like pursuit of the Unitary Exective Theory will - with much pain - result in a weakened executive (perhaps even weaker than that of the Ford-Carter era) and a diminution in the US's status as the effectively sole superpower (which is inevitable anyway, but this fiasco has hastened that day along quite a bit).
This reminds me of my favorite quote from my favorite movie:
[Mr Dryden speaking to Major T.E. Lawrence] ...You've been telling half truths.One who tells lies hides the truth but when telling half truths,you've forgotten where you've put it.
..his point to Lawrence being (paraphrased, of course) 'don't give me that crap that you didn't know the British government wanted to take over Arabia after you finished conquering it with the help of these desert savages. In the back of your mind you knew damn good and well what was ultimately going to happen but you chose to ignore it. By lying to yourself you have committed a sin far worse than lying outright.'
If all else fails, that quote alone redeems the power of the cinema. I still get goosebumps when I watch it.
Even Christ warned us that he prefers us to be hot or cold and that the warm he would vomit from his mouth.
What if - by some strange twist - we nab Bin Laden while Bush is still in office? Will a lot of people mute their criticism of the Iraq war, or will it be seen as too little, too late?
If we captured bin Laden tomorrow it would do nothing to justify the Iraq War. Iraq as a nation, government, and people had nothing to do with 9/11, nor did they have any ties with Iraq.
And I agree with Paul about Lawrence of Arabia. One of the finest pieces of cinema ever made. Succeeds brilliantly on every level.
Kaplan talks about the warrior class in American life, and how perilous it is to have an Army that is asked to fight for a society that no longer believes in itself -- by which Kaplan means no longer believes there is anything worth fighting for. I don't believe that is America, and neither, it seems, does Kaplan. But it could be America.
Two friends of mine who are in the Navy have told me that this thing is, in fact, happening, and that the military is beginning to have nothing but contempt for the Average American Man.
the military is beginning to have nothing but contempt for the Average American Man.
Can't imagine that, especially when there's so much there to admire.
What if - by some strange twist - we nab Bin Laden while Bush is still in office
What if Iraq votes for Bin Laden as President?
How could the Decider declaim against the results of that Democratic action?
Bush thinks it perfectly wonderful his humble foreign policy has resulted in Sharia Law being restored in Afghanistan and that the New Constitution of Iraq is also anchored in Sharia Law.
What if - as Justin Raimondo suggests - the mayhem in the Middle East was the outcome desired by the decider and his gov't?
Mr. Raimondo: If, on the other hand, we look at what is actually happening in Iraq, and throughout the region, we can discern the real goals of the invasion, and they are two: a civil war in the Muslim world (check!) and the positioning of U.S. military forces for a confrontation with the next victim of the regime-change game: Iran (check!).
"I think Saddam had wmd but since we telegraphed our intentions he with the help of the russians hid them in Syria."
I knew some Russians who had served in Iraq, and from what I understand of their opinion of Saddam ("that lunatic") and their conception of their own national security interests they would *never* have helped him do any such thing. It's an idea out of a comic book.
They told me specifically, and I can believe it, that they would never have considered letting him have their top of the line conventional weapons
(again -"that lunatic?") Would they have therefor shipped his WMDs to Syria?
There is no real evidence that saddam smuggled his weapons out of the country.
What is very confusing about the whole WMD thing is that why didn't he just fess up and be honest and provide Hans (the UN inspector guy) the proper and necessary documentation to show that he had eliminated the Wmds.
Of course, it is likely that not all of them were destroyed, but in terms of there usefulness, while, it would seem that he would have used them during the invasion. at a bare min., during this current civil war, it is odd that none have really been used. I guess that means that since saddam didn't maintain the arsenal, that the wmds degraded.
very sad, very stupid. while I agree with Mark that self delusion is a form of lying, it is important (in the interests of some form of charity) to recall that even the RUssians were convinced that he still had wmds.
pax
What is very confusing about the whole WMD thing is that why didn't he just fess up and be honest and provide Hans (the UN inspector guy) the proper and necessary documentation to show that he had eliminated the Wmds.
Perhaps because Saddam didn't want his enemies, both within Iraq and in the region, to know that he was toothless.
"Two friends of mine who are in the Navy have told me that this thing is, in fact, happening, and that the military is beginning to have nothing but contempt for the Average American Man."
I am in the military and I do not think this captures the real attitude. The officers I have encountered (and it's a lot) are mostly frustrated by two things.
First is the inability for good news to get any traction in the american press. The US military, in association with the Iraqis, is building the key infrastructure for successfully running a society. Schools, electrical plants, roads, etc. are opening all over the country. However, the violence in small pockets dominates every newscast.
There's a scene in the movie Stalag 17 where the prisoners get a small clip of news about the German breakthrough in the Battle of the Bulge. They are dispondent because the short bit of news has no context, preventing them from knowing that was the last gasp of a doomed force. American soldiers often have the sense that Al Quaeda in Iraq is a doomed force, but they don't see the news media picking up on it.
The second frustration is the insistence on using american deaths as the sole indicator of failure. Sure, every life is important, and unfortunately men die in war, but since the beginning of Iraqi freedom, US forces have lost an average of 2 lives a day, compared to hundreds in WWI & Vietnam and thousands in WWII. Soldiers also understand that sometimes they have to be put into harm's way to accomplish the mission.
USA Today recently had an article detailing the success one Army Colonel was achieving by not tying his troops in "safe areas", but rather getting them to work with the local tribal leaders. His open style exposed more of his troops to harm, but the payoff was having the tribal leaders turn against Al Quaeda in Iraq. Achieving that goal is key to true peace, and is worth a few lives when weighed against the options.
Leaving Iraq now would reinforce the main weakness our AQ enemies sees in us--we will cut and run at the first sign of trouble. That will only bring more attacks, since their own websites proclaim the goal of spreading Sharia across the entire globe in the next 100 years.
Hopefully, we can agree that none of us want that to happen.
Cheers,
"... even the RUssians were convinced that he still had wmds."
Which Russians?
"First is the inability for good news to get any traction in the american press. The US military, in association with the Iraqis, is building the key infrastructure for successfully running a society. Schools, electrical plants, roads, etc. are opening all over the country. However, the violence in small pockets dominates every newscast."
So it's going well (perhaps with some small set-backs), and if it were not for the 'press' we would know about it?
We're not even hearing this much good news from Gen. Petraeus or Tony Snow.
Thank you.
sorry Pavel,
sometime after the war had "ended" I heard a story on NPR (you know that anti-Bush liberal network) detailing how the US Gov't was tipped off by the Russians that wmds were present in the country. They just felt that he wasn't dumb enough to actually use them, in addition to all of their other objections. They had the afgan war not to long ago.
sigh..........
statman, the biggest problem I have is that every single big hurdle that the Iraq's were to overcome and that would then lead to some peace in the country has proven wrong. Further, a number of the projects that you mentioned have been so mishandled that we've spent zillions on getting them up and running and then they don't seem to solve any problems. I mean, garbage in the streets and sewer water is STILL a big issue over there.
also, I dont think comparing what is happening now to WWII is very fair. The nazis were a major world power with equipment just as good (and sometimes better) then that of the allies. they took on the world and nearly won. Saddam's Iraq could never (NEVER) have even come close to that. Meanwhile, years later, we still don't have these guys beat.
that is not a call for retreat. I don't know what we should do and I think the whole thing just sucks. we should never have attacked.
pax
pax
I think Saddam had wmd but since we telegraphed our intentions he with the help of the russians hid them in Syria
Perhaps illustrating the seemingly limitless human capacity for self-deception?
The only real question regarding President Bush is whether he truly believed that Saddam was a danger or if he cynically went along with the PNAC deception believing the war would cement a political Bush/Republican hegemony that would be with us for generations.
Dale,
The difference is, Germany fought more or less using the Western style warfare. And yes, they usually had better equipment, and training. I've talked to many WWII veterans, and they all agree the German soldier was, ounce for ounce, better than any other. There just weren't enough.
The Enemy today has learned from the post-WWII era. You don't fight the West using Western tactics and/or ethics. The Vietcong figured that out. Saddam didn't. He paid for it in the first Gulf War. But now, the terrorists have learned. If you want to beat the tar out of a country like the US, the last thing you want to do is amass panzer divisions on the border and then invade. Instead, break the rules, avoid direct conflict, and while you're at it, play off the problems already going on in those countries (you know, being aware that Bush’s opposition will try to create a ‘Vietnam’ template to beat him). And voila! You win. At least, that's what we're proving up to this point.
We also need to give credit where it’s due. Our Enemy knows our weaknesses and has exploited them brilliantly. They also know our strengths, and have exploited them as well. Pulling out of Iraq won’t change a thing if we don’t learn our lessons. It will simply be the first step in a long, agonizing retreat toward oblivion.
Pulling out of Iraq won’t change a thing if we don’t learn our lessons.
Spoken with true cavalier conviction.
Never mind the fact that we waging a "war" for which success cannot, nor will not be defined.
By all means, let's continue to throw good money and good lives after bad.
Hey, do me a favor. On your way to the slaughter house, could you stop by and at least get sheared. If the people in this country are going to continue to act like sheep, lets at least stockpile some of the wool so we have something to wear after Bush and company have finished wrecking our country and we are left out in the cold.
Thanks for proving my point Paul, couldn't have done it better myself.
American soldiers often have the sense that Al Quaeda in Iraq is a doomed force, but they don't see the news media picking up on it.
Of course, their perception may also be incorrect. It is very difficult to tell with an enemy that is as nebulous and slippery as AQ or other terrorist types. Not to dehumanize them, but only to compare: They seem like cockroaches - you stomp a few and they scatter, but they show up later somewhere else. You can never get rid of them.
They told me specifically, and I can believe it, that they would never have considered letting him have their top of the line conventional weapons
(again -"that lunatic?") Would they have therefor shipped his WMDs to Syria?
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/arc...sky-iraqi-wmds/
Mr. Chichikov, there does seem to be a lot of suggestions that the WMD's did exist but were removed from the scene with the aid of Russia.
FWIW, when Bush sent the troops into Baghdad despite dire warnings of WMD's, it made me think Bush knew the WMD's were not a danger to our men - and pregnant women -.
I figured Bush knew they were gone, to Syria,Bekaa Valley etc.
"Mr. Chichikov, there does seem to be a lot of suggestions that the WMD's did exist but were removed from the scene with the aid of Russia."
As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
FWIW, when Bush sent the troops into Baghdad despite dire warnings of WMD's, it made me think Bush knew the WMD's were not a danger to our men - and pregnant women -.
I figured Bush knew they were gone, to Syria,Bekaa Valley etc.
Then Bush ought to be impeached and jailed afterwards for invading a country he knew perfectly well was no threat to us (and ignoring the country that had become a threat). This is why the government will never, ever admit that the WMDs went to Syria: it would be far, far more damaging to the Bush administration than bad intelligence. It would mean criminal incompetence or outright criminality, as in the case of the scenario you mention. I'm amazed so many on the right just don't get that.
As someone who voted twice for Bush, my disappointment and disillusionment is almost too much for words. There are two issues that history will judge the President upon:
1. The Iraq War.
2. The Supreme Court
The Iraq War is a textbook study on administrative sloth, hubris, and blind loyalty. The fact of the matter is, whether or not the war was just, Bush allowed his indestructible fidelity to Donald Rumsfeld and his minions at the Pentagon to trump the professional military apparatus' estimation of troop deployments. Whereas CENTCOM required 300,000 troops for a post-Saddam containment, Rumsfeld was so enamored of the "light and fast" philosophy, he systematically bullied his way into a force about half that size. Furthermore, the half-hearted and delinquent planning for how to administer the basic needs of a post-Saddam Iraq led to the mind-boggling decisions of Paul Bremer to do such things as dismantle the Iraqi army and release almost a million now-unemployed, disaffected soldiers back into civilian life. Most of what we see in the news today - if not all of it - could haver been avoided if Bush, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, had listened to his seasoned generals and prepared. Two years of planning were frittered away until December of 2002, when the Defense Department told CENTCOM that it had to come up with a plan to administer an occupied Iraq - just FOUR MONTHS BEFORE THE INVASION! That is inexcusable.
This doesn't even take into account the incompetency of our intelligence services, which were gutted by Clinton and had very little in the way of contacts in Baghdad who could affirm or deny the presence of WMD. Bush gambled on intelligence that was nothing more than a "guesstimate". He listened when he should have led. Whether or not the it was a "slam dunk", he should have known that the intelligence was coming from questionable and outdated sources.
This whole thing could have been avoided, and instead of dealing with an emboldened Iran, Iran would be checked by a potentially WMD-armed Iraq.
But to the second issue. The Supreme Court. We all want to excoriate Bush over Iraq. But if Iraq is a defining moment, why isn't the appointments of Justices Alito and Roberts? Whatever we can say about the inexcusable loss of life in Iraq, we musn't turn a blind eye to the fact that this President prevented SCOTUS from becoming an irreversible wasteland of liberal activism. The only reason we have a SCOTUS-upheld ban on partial birth abortion is because George Bush was president. The alternative was John Kerry. In spite of the Iraqi debacle, who here would prefer a Supreme Court composed of six liberals, two conservatives, and one moderate?
So while we're busy destroying the legacy of Bush, could we stop for a second and recognize the enormous good he did for the unborn? If Roe v. Wade is overturned in the coming years, would you prefer that history remember George Bush as someone who fought an unjust war, or as someone who gave the unborn a voice amidst their slaughter? I submit that he should be judged by both of these issues.
Iraqi WMDs moved to Syria?
Iraqi general Georges Sada says the same thing.
and
Christopher Hitchens asks some pointed questions about NYTimes reports of weapons plants "looting".
So while we're busy destroying the legacy of Bush, could we stop for a second and recognize the enormous good he did for the unborn?
I don't think Bush gives any evidence of being staunchly pro-life. It was only because of a lot of pressure by Conservatives that Harriet Meyers isn't on the bench. And it is only because of the brilliance of Roberts and Alito that they are on the SCOTUS
As for Bush's legacy, who cares?
Bush doesn't give a whit about you. Bush is quite happy to take your money and your liberty and spend the lives of your friends and family in Iraq if it benefits his "legacy."
The true measure of greatness is not what the citizens can do for the ruling class it is what the ruling class can do for the citizens yet we are supposed to worry about the legacy of those who so seriously fail us?
So while we're busy destroying the legacy of Bush, could we stop for a second and recognize the enormous good he did for the unborn?
What about all the pregnant women soldiers in a war zone, say nothing about one without a front? Do their unborn babies count in calculating Bush's legacy?
I mean, Bush styles himself a cowboy (although he is the bluest of blue bloods) but would a real man, say Wyatt Earp, send pregnant women to get the bad guys at the OK Corral?
If only the American elite had been reading David Fromkin's excellent book- A Peace to End All Peace- the dry history of how the West thought it could control the Middle East after WWI by use of colonial and neo-colonial interventions- all with an eye first and foremost to their own self-interests. This very un-Christian approach did not work- even poor, uneducated people come to resent being led around by foreigners.
What we have with the Bush Administration is a philosophical imperitive driven by the ideas of Leo Strauss and his neophytes like Wolfowitz, Libby, Feith, et al. These "philosopher kings" use the relgious and patriotic masses by means of "noble lies", and they also believe in the macho nonsense of "redemptive violence". All of this has been on vivid display in the Iraq invasion.
Saddam Hussein was a two-bit dictator, he had dreams of grandeur, but as the head of a bloodied nation, under sanctions, and as Ron Paul noted being bombed in places for over 10 years- it is really, really hard to believe that he had the wherewithal to be constructing new weapons of mass destruction- perhaps he had some old stuff made in the US hidden away- but really did you really believe that Saddam and Bin Laden were in a partnership and jointly responsible for 9-11? Anyone who reads anything even slightly impartial academically or read some of the independent media, could not have supported the idea that Iraq was this major threat to us. The facts were pretty clear, and the Vatican was spot-on as usual. The failure was to be found with conservative American Catholics who followed the Straussian Bush Administration propaganda with no objectivity, falling back on the mass media to "prove" this Hussein threat- does anyone recall how pretty much every big network and paper was cheerleading the invasion up until it became ridiculously clear how foolish and destructive it all was.
The time is now for Republican Catholic supporters to apologize and repent, the one good thing about Bush was his potential in being a true compassionate conservative- if only he had been focused on saving the lives of the unborn, and taking a VAtican-approach to dealing with 9-11- America would be in a whole different world right now. It is far past time for these so-called faithful Catholics to realize that they have been party lap dogs, used by elites who are truly just right-wing Nietscheans. Time to wake up boys- turn off your Fox News and read some books not written by ditto-heads, and start studying the social doctrine of the Church. If you haven't been studying the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, you really are a sorry excuse for a civic Catholic. I would pity you if you weren't responsible for so many deaths of innocent civilians, and patriotic young soliders. What I feel for you is what I feel for the liberal Catholics who stand for abortion and still flout their Catholicism- I feel ashamed over how you all are misleading the little ones, causing such destruction, and being so proud of your political allegiences. It is time to open up actual CAtholic flanks in both major parties. All lock-step party CAtholics should really start checking their consciences before they write another letter or sound off in favor of the killings of war and/or abortion. What do you think- God is fooled by the propaganda that says we can save the Middle East by invading it, by occupying it, by having proxy control of it's resources, and putting extreme value on the lives of only American and Israeli human beings? Is God satisfied that all of our "collateral damage" in the name of 9-11 and "democracy" is really the way "The Way" Christ intended for us? Like Ron Paul, I would urge us to consider the hard truths- the Republican world would like to shut Paul up, they want to cheerlead invasions and wars in the Middle East, and the use of torture- this is how they get their applause lines- not by standing up for the tiny unborn. Republican Catholics better stand up soon if they are truly men in the spirit of CS Lewis' classic "The Abolition of Man"- Are Republican Catholics "men without chests"? I know it is not easy to stand up and be a leader- but that is exactly what Christ expects of us.
Rod thinks & acts like a liberal. Specifically a liberal with a socially conservative streak. Like your average liberal he "feels" his way threw politics instead of "thinks".
No Davey G,
Thank you for proving my point.
I believe that Dick Cheney's approach here and with his Ahab-like pursuit of the Unitary Exective Theory will - with much pain - result in a weakened executive (perhaps even weaker than that of the Ford-Carter era) and a diminution in the US's status as the effectively sole superpower (which is inevitable anyway, but this fiasco has hastened that day along quite a bit).
THANK GOD! This would mean at least one positive thing came out of this administration.
IANS,
Pregnancy makes you undeployable. Any DoD personnel pregnant in the CENTCOM AOR got that way after arrival.
This has been an issue for a long time.
What about all the pregnant women soldiers in a war zone
Do you have any clue what you're talking about?
Paul,
Uh, that's Dave G. I haven 't gone by Davey since I was a youngster. No doubt a typo on your part.
But you have proven my point, for you see Paul, you jumped to the conclusion that somehow I blindly support Bush, or his current policies, without any evidence based on what I said. If you read my posts, you will see I do no such thing. I have said repeatedly that I agree with William F. Buckley. Bush gets it, he just doesn’t know what to do about it. Yet in keeping with the same temperament that our Enemies are using to run circles around us, you plowed in with the subtlety of a bulldozer and declared me to be yet one more carnage-loving toady without a star on my belly.
I merely said that if we pull out without being honest about the lessons we (hopefully) should have learned, it will do no good. We will have taken a step closer to the end. If you can demonstrate that pulling out of Iraq without learning any of the lessons we should have learned will benefit us, I will gladly concede the point. Otherwise, we will continue to lose, despite the valor of our fighting men and women, and it will be our descendants who will pay the enormous price of our folly.
Tim Shipe -
Your elitest, judgmental post is hardly the path of sainthood. Last I checked, Christ loved the publican who understood his failings, not the Pharisee who could point out everyone else's.
Unless you've taken over the role of the Holy Spirit, keep your simpering fecal matter to yourself.
Lest we forget, the consensus on which Bush relied was not born in his own administration. In fact, it was first fully formed in the Clinton administration. Here is Clinton himself, speaking in 1998:
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program.
Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:
Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.
Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:
He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.
Finally, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained “absolutely convinced” of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.
Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A few months after Clinton and his people made the statements I have just quoted, a group of Democratic Senators, including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President
to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs.
Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House. In a letter to the new President, a number of Senators led by Bob Graham declared:
There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.
Senator Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Bush’s benefit what he had told Clinton some years earlier:
Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.
Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well:
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush’s opponents in his two campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002:
We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
And here is Gore again, in that same year:
Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 2002:
I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force—if necessary—to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.
Perhaps most startling of all, given the rhetoric that they would later employ against Bush after the invasion of Iraq, are statements made by Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, also in 2002:
Kennedy: We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
Byrd: The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.
Liberal politicians like these were seconded by the mainstream media, in whose columns a very different tune would later be sung. For example, throughout the last two years of the Clinton administration, editorials in the New York Times repeatedly insisted that
without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year [and] future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again.
The Times was also skeptical of negotiations, pointing out that it was
hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as his country’s salvation.
So, too, the Washington Post, which greeted the inauguration of George W. Bush in January 2001 with the admonition that
[o]f all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous—or more urgent—than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade’s efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf [where] intelligence photos . . . show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons.
So much vitriol...and so little foundation.
Let's look at some of the most popular themes of the ranting against Bush and his administration for the war in Iraq...and let's see what it's based on. To me, there seem to be three fundamental assumptions (all erroneous) upon which a lot of "righteous indignation" is based--and upon which people are basing judgments about this administration, the war, and everything in between.
1) That Saddam never had WMD, or if he had them, he was too stupid to use them (!), or if he had them, they weren't top of the line anyway (!!), or he was toothless and just rattling his sabres, or...
In a word, nonsense.
Every member of Congress who wanted to be seen as a "patriot" (including Hillary, Kerry, and all the rest) believed those WMDs were a threat. Every nation in the world believed those WMDs were there. And every day, our soldiers find evidence that weapons USED to be there, but aren't anymore. From that, what can we assume?
--the threat was reasonable in the eyes of reasonable people.
and
--the WMDs were there, all right. But the UN gave Saddam three years of delays, accepted his conditions for their inspections, and in short, enabled him to do exactly what he did...which was either to destroy most evidence of WMDs or move them.
How reasonable people cannot look at a three-year delay and not surmise that there probably WERE these things around, but that he had plenty of time (thanks to a cooperative and corrupt UN) to get rid of them? I don't know. If we applied the same standards to Saddam's WMDs we apply nowadays to the mere whisper of an athlete on steroids...
(The side trip of why US aeronautical schools didn't bother to ask why Arabic Muslim students didn't want to learn how to LAND planes is another good question...oddly enough, one that never gets asked. But I digress.)
2) That we are getting a balanced report of what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan from the news media.
Again, nonsense.
To a man, not a single soldier who has seen the actual conditions over there has not wondered aloud, "Why aren't they showing ______?" (insert name of positive change here!)
Answer: Because mentioning the positive changes in these countries would show our country, our president, and the cause in a favorable light. And by golly, we can't have THAT and call ourselves "objective."
Really? Isn't "objective" supposed to mean "balanced" and "evenhanded"? Does that even REMOTELY apply to the coverage we get? Hardly.
We don't want our media to toady to causes...or so we say. Yet it toadies to liberal causes every day of the week, starting with the way it chooses to write headlines. If you doubt this, ask a soldier (that is, one without a major publishing contract under his belt, major interview coming up, or forthcoming contract for a smear "tell all" book). If you further doubt this, look at any actual statistic and then compare it with how, say, CNN will write its headline about that statistic. Does CNN tell us that we lost more people in one battle of the Civil War than we've lost in Iraq in four years? Of course not. Do they tell us we've lost way more people in Vietnam or Korea or WWII than we're even close to losing in Iraq? Of course not. Does the media rejoice in the closing of Saddam's "rape rooms," show the people who thank the troops for being around, or temper its negative hammering with reminding us of the fact that, while this may be a torturous process, independence from tyranny always is?
Of course not.
Why? Because it's CNN's mission to prove that this presidency was a disaster, a miserable failure, and to stump as hard as it can for impeachment whenever it can. And the rest of the sheep follow meekly along. But NO, our media coverage is not biased, negative, or one-sided in the least.
Sheesh.
3) Most important of all, that the American people know all there is to know about what could have been known, what the President knew, what he didn't know, what he chose to reveal, and what the "truth" actually is, because there's no hiding information from our crusading--er, impartial news reporters.
Yeah. Right.
People, wake up. This is wartime. By definition, we CANNOT know everything there is to know, or there's no such thing as national security. We CANNOT know what the president knows, knew, or "decided to lie about"...because if we did, there would be no such thing as intelligence or national security. For some reason only this generation can answer, however, we walk around assuming we "KNOW" the complete story (because CNN feeds it to us, of course), and what we "KNOW" proves to us that this president is a lying piece of scum. But the fact is, we don't know what he knows. We will NEVER know completely what he knows, what he's beind advised about, what he's being told about, what intelligence he sees or hasn't seen, what he chooses to act on or ignore. We can't know these things, because they're none of our business to know.
Yes, you heard me right. There's such as thing as classified information, people. Remember that? By definition, that means we don't see it. NO ONE sees it except the people who need to see it, and they're making decisions of a magniture we can't even dream about.
And no, the media doesn't have "secret" information or access...except to what certain unscrupulous people within an administration feed them. And that's bits and pieces of the complete picture, filtered through the bias of the person leaking the information. Some of this has appeared to be "damaging"--no doubt because that's exactly how it was MEANT to appear. But those members of an administration, a press corps, or the like who leak things that are truly classified...we have a name for people like that. And we have a name for that offense.
They're called traitors, and that's called treason. And it's a capital offense. And it's about time that our hypervigilant media started calling THESE people on the carpet and asking why they're putting our country, our military forces, and every single one of us in danger every day. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to appear on CNN, either. Because the #1 offender in this aspect is the New York Times...and all the sheep fall in line behind them.
So much for objectivity. Don't make me laugh.
Come to think of it, if we're looking for some news worth reporting, how about the thousands of terrorist attacks that have been prevented by measures of the Patriot Act? And those incidents DO rank in the thousands, by the way. Without measurable civil rights violations against any of us.
Now if there was ever a "leak" of that kind of intelligence that the American people OUGHT to know about, that would be a prime example. But
I wouldn't hold your breath waiting to see that, either. Not likely to happen.
Garbage in, garbage out. Bush will be remembered as a leader who toughed out some very difficult times, who bore up under "journalistic" persecution that makes McCarthyism look like a British tea party, and who will have had the right idea all the time...but who most of all acted on information that any other reasonable person would have drawn the same conclusions from. And no amount of screaming on the part of liberal media, years from now, will change that.
IANS,
Pregnancy makes you undeployable. Any DoD personnel pregnant in the CENTCOM AOR got that way after arrival.
This has been an issue for a long time.
Ed:
When my wife and I were Army JAGS back in the mid to late 1980's (my wife with the recruiting command). A single individual with dependents or two individuals with mutual dependents could not enlist or remain in the service unless they surrendered custody of their children. Now children are left behind while their custodial parent(s) are shipped overseas. Likewise, twenty (20) years ago women were no where close to combat, but now its acceptable as long as they don't have an infantry MOS. So, pregnant women on the front lines - its only a matter of time.
Call me sexist, but women have no business in the military except in support positions stateside and/or well out of harms way. I'd be willing to fight for Mom and applepie but not so my Mom or daughter can be intimately involved with raping, pillaging and killing.
Chris,
Wow- so now saints are not allowed to offer blistering critiques of warmongers and abortionists- what Bible have you been reading? It seems that self-described "conservatives" can dish out their fair share of fecally contaminated criticisms of the liberals, but if someone calls them out for supporting unjust wars- well I can hear Hannity crying out "Judge not, lest ye be judged!". I stand by my call for conservative American Catholics to begin the process of repentance for being supportive of this Iraq nightmare past or present. I have my own personal sins to repent of- but this sin of unjust war is one that is public and has killed a lot of people- lots of children ( pro-lifers take note). Sorry, if laying out facts and urging for study of the social doctrine is too pharisaic for some to take. It is far easier to run off whimpering because someone dared to offer some strong words of criticism. I suppose Chris and his ilk has never ranted in public about the damage liberal pro-abortionists have caused to children, our nation, and our Church. No a true Saint would never consider righteous anger directed about public or structural sins. When monstrous actions like the Iraq invasion and legalized abortion occur in my name as an American, it tends to get me fired up, because I recognize that I have some responsibility for the actions of my government. One doesn't have to be the Holy Spirit to call out his brother Catholics on public policies. Unless one is too beholden to their pet political ideology, they will see that the Church social doctrine and the guidance from the Holy See is the brightest light to follow in matters politick.
Pregnancy makes you undeployable. Any DoD personnel pregnant in the CENTCOM AOR got that way after arrival.
This has been an issue for a long time.
Ed. Agreed, in part. When young women soldiers in war zones do become pregnant, how long is it before they are allowed to return home?
Why hasn't the decider decided woman shouldn't go to war?
Just off the top of my head, I think the kidnapped Brit Sailor-Mom had two young children at home.
Such things are simply not justifiable nor can the responsibility for such monstrous realities be sloughed-off onto other administrations.
Do you have any clue what you're talking about?
Chris, my wife says no but she is, technically, not infallible.
No Dave,
I don't really care which flavor of crapsicle you like the most - for a war that had no legitimacy in the first place - for a war that was waged based on known falsehoods or blissfully ignorant doubt about the veracity of claims made to support the war - who gives a rats fat one about being honest at this point?
Why should honesty be such a concern now? To even admit that your question is of merit is to buy into the paradigm that this war had any justification in the first place. It didn't.
That is the same type of logic employed by those who encourage embryonic stem cell research as a means to gain some positive benefit out of the "unfortunate tragedy of abortion."
That Saddam never had WMD, or if he had them, he was too stupid to use them (!), or if he had them, they weren't top of the line anyway (!!), or he was toothless and just rattling his sabres, or...
In a word, nonsense.
Janny, why? The Soviets had scores of thousands of nukes and wmd's and they didn't use them.
This is wartime. By definition, we CANNOT know everything there is to know, or there's no such thing as national security. We CANNOT know what the president knows, knew, or "decided to lie about"...because if we did, there would be no such thing as intelligence or national security
But we can know Saddam had WMD's because we sold them to him; we can know he didn't have them at the time of the invasion because Bush would not have sent so many troops into such close proximity to them near Baghdad thereby risking exposing them to mass-murder; we can know Iraq was somewhat less of a threat than the Soviet Union had been with all of their uncountable WMD's; we can make judgments about what was promised and what actually happened, and we can know from Just War theory this was not a Just War, and that is not even taking into account the reality Saddam was not a threat to America.
Saddam was essentially a guy riding around on a Camel with a grenade in his shorts.
His Air Force could only fly in certain parts of his own country.
Good Lord. He didn't have control in much of his own country yet he was a danger to attack us?
He had no Navy, his Air Force didn't put one plane into the air when the invasion began.
I don't have to be sitting with Bob Woodard at the feet of a comatose Bill Casey to get such intelligence.
As for "intelligence," what report predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union?
I know that investment periodicals, such as Strategic Investment predicted collapse, but,did we ever hear that from our deciders?
When it comes to our gov't and any war, be skeptical and then verify.
Well said, Mark. You've more or less summed up my position on this mess in Iraq.
As for the missing WMDs - I think it's possible they were moved to Syria or elsewhere.
There is a reason why I spend more time criticizing self-described conservative Catholics who are too cozy with many of the Republican Party policies like this Iraq War decision. The reason is that many, not all, such conservatives are very big in defending the Church, and her right to speak out for Life and defense of traditional Marriage. They often claim to be "orthodox" Catholics, whereas most liberal Catholics seem to be up front a la JFK, in their independence from Rome. I strongly disagree with this approach to Catholicism, the whole nature of the Church is called into question, it reduces the Catholic Church to yet another protestant denomination.
But the conservative Catholics do heavy damage to the Church's credibility when they play games with the social doctrine, and the role of the Magisterium and the Bishops' speaking as a collective body. This has been most obvious with the Iraq war decisions and our foreign policies on many fronts- one would do well to go back and read John Paul's encyclical Solicitudo Rei Socialis to get an immediate reality check dating back to the closing years of the Cold War.
I am righteously angry with self-described conservatives because they belittle our American Bishops' collective wisdom, and they punt away advice and counsel from Rome on any number of topics- the sound advice and read on the signs of our times gets dismissed as vague platitudes that have mulitiple interpretations- so why bother.
This undermining and underappreciating of our God-given Church authorities by the self-named "faithful" Catholics of America, does great harm to our youth who want to trust their elders, but end up in ideological boxes, or they end up fighting in a nightmarish war that we wouldn't wish on our worst enemies. And this is how American Catholics treat their own- I was a troop right out of high school, I wasn't Catholic then, but I wanted to trust the elders of my nation. I'm afraid that now, my fellow elders are betraying that trust- we have sat back or cheerled an ugly, unjust war. Christ have mercy on us all. Let us ban on allegience to labels like conservative or liberal, and let us be very critical and very positive forces within both parties- Republican and Democratic. I am sorry if my written attacks on conservatives has hurt feelings- I just want to shake awake my brother Catholics- I don't want you to become liberals- I just want the term "orthodox Catholic" to mean something- to be an accurate description of people who are earnestly studying and striving to put on the mind of the Church on all of the important moral issues. Forgive my previous harshness- but it could happen again if I am honest with my emotions, and if those emotional words are not actually sinful but hurtful to my deeper purpose in life in serving the will of Christ.
"As for "intelligence," what report predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union?"
: )
I was there as it was falling. All anyone had to do was open his eyes, or listen to people using the words "soviet union" as a curse.
*Sovietskii Soyuz!*
Paul,
Well, I don't know how to respond. You have more or less said that since this war was wrong, honesty doesn't matter in dealing with it. The best I can figure is you have declare the entire subject an 'unclean thing.' Any dealing with it, at all, whether truth, honesty, or not, is irrelevant. At that point, you've got me. If honest appraisals don't count, and learning lessons doesn't matter, I don't know what to tell you. For me they do, but you are entitled to your opinion.
“…conservative Catholics who are too cozy with many of the Republican Party policies like this Iraq War decision.”
In terms of party politics-- many in the Democratic Party were supportive of the Iraq War decision in 2003.
“Let us ban on allegience to labels like conservative or liberal, and let us be very critical and very positive forces within both parties- Republican and Democratic.”
Though, Tim, I understand your broad point and your motivation
Tim, though I understand your broader point and the call for Catholics to fully listen to the teachings of the Church. Pope Benedict XVI: “We contribute to a better world only by personally doing good now, with full commitment and wherever we the opportunity, independently of partisan strategies and programs.
The argument that "everyone" thought Saddam had WMD is plausible but not sufficient. We don't invade countries solely for that reason. Otherwise we would now be occupying Pyongyang. We allow tinhorn dictators around the world to oppress their people all the time. Why depose Saddam and not the others? There had to be more, and I think Bush has still not leveled with us.
I have a personal experience with lies from our government regarding Iraq. The story is too long to relate here but it's on my own blog. Here is the link.
http://drivingoutthesnakes.blogs...h-lies-
war.html
I've read your blog commentary. It's interesting, Patrick, but not surprising.
I'm disappointed, though, that you only watch TV. How do you propose, then, to see through lies?
There is no doubt about it- the Dems caved on the Iraq War- they played it "safe"- being supportive in case it all went well- but when it turned out badly they jumped on that bandwagon. No surprise- I am trying to bring back honor and pro-life to the Democratic Party- Ronald Reagan said that he didn't leave the Dems, the Dems left him. He was a Roosevelt Dem and so am I. I won't wildly support or praise the sell-outs who are the modern faces of my chosen party. I am trying to be my own hero, keeping to my Catholic principles across the board- in this I find a great strength of conviction and courage- if I am on the side of the Church, who can defeat me?! Satan can only persecute my political ambitions and harass me during my time on planet.
So, I will not even try to cover for the big Dems support for the Straussian/Kojevean neoconservative wars- Lieberman and Cheney are cut from the same mold in terms of political morality in my opinion- and Al Gore certainly was no trendsetter for good when he had actual political power. As a Democrat I will not be tolerant of evil anymore than I will excuse my own sins, or the sins of fellow Catholics- I only hold us all to the highest standards- and let the chips fall. It does make for some passionate debates and for a good measure of angry exchanges with both liberals and conservatives, as I totally agree with some of their policies and soundly disagree on others.
"but when it turned out badly they jumped on that bandwagon. No surprise- I am trying to bring back honor and pro-life to the Democratic Party-"
15-20 years ago when I lived in upstate NY, I knew of a lot of pro-life Dems...in the state legislature and in Congress. Not sure where the upstate Dems stand now...
I was there as it was falling. All anyone had to do was open his eyes, or listen to people using the words "soviet union" as a curse.
Mr. Chichikov. We had spies there and still not one of our agencies predicted the collapse.
So, what does that tell us about the quality of our intelligence?
This is WOT, but, I'd be interested in reading your thoughts comparing the press you lived under in Russia and the Press you live under here.
Growing-up I used to try and imagine what it would be like to live in Russia which had a press that wasn't reliable (to say the least).
Of course, I now have some idea what it must have been like for you vis a vis the press.
Dave G,
The only way to win this game is not to play.
Pavel, I've since moved beyond TV. Government lying is now a multimedia phenomenon. 
Paul,
In a perfect world, you are right. But even the Church allows for 'Just War.' If only I could leave my house open, windows open, and front door open all night. But I know better (at least where I live). And that's the reality. The reality in our world is that we must, Must, MUST look at what broke down over the last months, years, and decades in our society if our children and their children have any hope at all. And while I am aware of the final victory as a Christian, I don't wish my children unnecessary burdens and horrors in the meantime if I can avoid it. That’s where I’m coming from.
If the only way to win the game of war is not to play, the only way to win the game of crime is to remove the locks and fire the police.
In a perfect world, you are right. But even the Church allows for 'Just War.'
But Johannes Paulus Magnus and Pope Benedict opposed both Iraq Wars.
And they know Catholic Doctrine pretty well.
In any event, Pope Benedict, (Then Cardinal Ratzinger) has already publicly foreshadowed Just War is going the way of the Death Penalty.
Zenit. 2003-05-02...
Q: In regard to two topics -- the death penalty and the just war -- is it possible that there will be a certain evolution in their treatment as compared to 1992?
Cardinal Ratzinger: In fact, on the question of the death penalty, there was a notable evolution between the first edition of the 1992 Catechism and its typical edition in Latin, published in 1997.
The substance remained identical, but the structure of the arguments was developed in a restrictive sense. I do not exclude the fact that on these topics there might be variations in the type of argumentations and in the proportions of the different aspects of the problems. I would exclude radical changes, however.
Q: Eminence, a topical question that in a certain sense is inherent to the Catechism: Does the Anglo-American war against Iraq fit the canons of a "just war"?
Cardinal Ratzinger: The Pope expressed his thought with great clarity, not only as his individual thought but as the thought of a man who is knowledgeable in the highest functions of the Catholic Church. Of course, he did not impose this position as doctrine of the Church but as the appeal of a conscience enlightened by faith.
The Holy Father's judgment is also convincing from the rational point of view: There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war."
Throw in his 30/05/07 general audience remarks about Tertullian...
His most famous work, "Apologeticus," denounces the unjust actions of the political authorities toward the Church. He explains and defends the teachings and customs of Christians; he lists the differences between the new religion and the principal philosophical currents of the time; he shows the triumph of the Spirit, who pits the violence of persecutors against the blood, suffering and patience of the martyrs. "As refined as it is," he writes, "your cruelty serves no purpose: On the contrary, for our community, it is an invitation. We multiply every time one of us is mowed down: The blood of Christians is a seed" ("Apologeticus" 50:13)...
and one can see the potential Encylical hand-writing on the wall.
Just War. Dead Doctrine walking?
In a perfect world, you are right. But even the Church allows for 'Just War.'
Yes, the Church does. This is not one of those 'Just Wars.'
As far as leaving one's home unlocked, please explain to me EXACTLY how this is congruent with the current topic. I want to see you get deep into your analogy and explain the part where we (USA) have had absolutely nothing to do in provoking other nations or peoples by means of our past and current foreign policy actions.
Hey, while you are at it, maybe you could explain why the U.S. keeps its' door (e.g. Southern Border) open?
I guess when a country is so focused on ensuring democracy abroad, it doesn't have time to lock, let alone close, the front door.
We continually ask the other kids to play nice in the sandbox, yet we don't have the decency to cover up our own turds.
You want us to be honest so we can learn from this experience?
There is only one lesson that can be learned from this whole mess and that is that war sucks - not 'what should we do next time we have a war to make it better?'
Anybody who voted for this moron (whose record and background was VERY clear before he was elected) should be ashamed of themselves. Many people know there are two wars going on...here in the USA and in Iraq. Most people know what the Chimp stood for. He's a divider, not a uniter and has Rove (Goebbels). I dont have to explain what these bastards really are trying to wage war on.
Commenting by HaloScan
