Patterico's Pontifications


Has President Bush Created More Idiots By Invading Iraq?

Filed under: 2004 Election,Morons,Terrorism — Patterico @ 10:49 am

Beldar puts to rest once and for all the silly argument that President Bush has created more terrorists by invading Iraq.

Here is my own analogy: we sure have heard a lot of stupid arguments about Iraq from the fringe left over the last year or two. Does that mean that the invasion of Iraq created more fringe leftist idiots?

11 Responses to “Has President Bush Created More Idiots By Invading Iraq?”

  1. Well, I have a friend with a VERY high IQ, who posted me a few days back with some trash about Bush that Michael Moore would have rejected as sophmoric.

    Kevin Murphy (6a7945)

  2. Under the Rule of the Conservation of Idiots (similar to the Law of the Conservation of Matter), fringe leftist idiots can neither be created or destroyed but can merely change the form of their rants.

    EagleSpeak (0d84c2)

  3. Indeed, the stupid actions of the right-wing nuts HAVE created at least one additional left fringe person, whose IQ probably exceeds yours PLUS the dummy you cited: upper 1% of the upper 1%; number varies by test, but sufficient to equal at least two morons such as those who attack as idiots every person bold enough to oppose their lunacy.
    Further, if my family were “collateral damage” to the invasion of my country, I would not be able to find enough HMX (thanks, by the way, to Bungle) to manufacture enough nukes, to express properly my outrage. A few hundred tons would be far too little to complete the task of sending to Hell those responsible.

    Conley T. Gwinn (88c54f)

  4. Don’t you just LOVE the argument that the more we oppose the terrorists, the stronger their ranks grow and the stronger they become?

    In other words, we should just lay down and let them stomp us and stomp us and stomp us. We should let a 9/11 happen every week, and not respond at all, because goodness knows we wouldn’t want to oppose them and make ’em REAL mad!; Why, then they might hurt us reeeeeal bad.

    I can’t believe the IDIOCY of such ‘logic.’

    clark (866957)

  5. Gosh, Conley, if you’re so smart why aren’t you in charge? Then we wouldn’t have to put up with lesser beings screwing things up. Oh, I know those of you in the top 1% of the top 1% have better things to do with your prodigious intelligence, like sniping at the people actually doing something.
    See ya at the next Mensa meeting – will you be dressed as Spock or Bones?

    EagleSpeak (0d84c2)

  6. Mensa is indeed on my resume – but I have a little problem with my temper – I hit people a LOT when I am in (disagreeable) company. Now, as to what we SHOULD have done, we definitely SHOULD have gone after bin Laden (AND Omar – the “other” Afghan obstacle): we have not caught up with either of them, and we have stopped even a serious PRETENSE of trying to catch them. We have diverted our efforts into invasion of a country wholly unrelated to the past attack on our nation, and further (Duelfer) presenting no imminent threat for the forseeable future. In that process, we have brought death to tens of thousands who might have been our friends, and maimed tens of thousands more. Had we instead seized the offer brokered by the British, that Saddam would avoid the invasion if we would arrange and protect his exile, we might indeed be heros to those “fanatics” who respond to our invasion and destruction of their country exactly as I would, were it mine.

    Conley T. Gwinn (ca6dcb)

  7. Conley,
    There seems to be something wrong with your keyboard – it occasionally makes all the letters in a word full CAPS. I’ll bet you don’t suddenly start SHOUTING at parties when talking, or do you?

    As a fellow Mensan, let me clue you in – you haven’t got a lock on smarts. There are a lot of bright people who think that it would be an absolute waste of time to direct all our effort to hunt down OBL and Omar when we have crippled their network and can better devote personnel to more immediate threats. However, I fail to see how there has been any “pretense” in our pursuit OBL.

    My reading of the Duelfer report differs from yours in that I believe that it provides that as soon as the sanctions were lifted, Saddam intended to resume WMD programs. See page 44 of the report. I think that was in the foreseeable future. Saddam had several chances to avoid an invasion, he failed to take any one of them. Finally, I think that you exaggerate the number of deaths and injuries “we brought” to Iraq, especially compared to the mass graves we have found filled with Saddam’s victims. I also think you misunderstand the nature of the forces we are actually fighting, very few of whom are not former Baathists or foreign fighters. Needless to say, I do not think their motivation is defense of their homeland.

    EagleSpeak (0d84c2)

  8. Oh, Conley, one more thing. You forgot to mention how you are personally contributing to the successful prosecution of the Global War on terrorism. Perhaps you have volunteered your intellectual capacity to the CIA, DIA or other intelligence services? Perhaps you rushed down to your local recruiter to offer up your fighting spirit that causes you to “hit people a LOT?” Maybe you are contributing coherent plans to the elected leadership of this country? Or maybe you are just keeping all this to yourself so that you can sit safely on the sidelines while others, presumably your inferiors, do the heavy lifting without the benefit of your wisdom? As I said before, if you are so smart, why aren’t you in charge of something useful?

    EagleSpeak (0d84c2)

  9. EagleSpeak: Apparently there are indeed some (smart? – I think 50% of them are half-simple) people who think that killing al Queda, of which snake, bin Laden is at least the iconic head, with minimum loss of all other human life, is a waste of time. Indeed, it does not enrich Halliburton, not ensure the re-enthronement of our imperial Bungle. It would cost us several hundred billion dollars less, enable us to inflict less harm upon our foreign alliances, and produce fewer reactive terrorists outside al Queda; that, in turn, would not allow us to bulldoze the next $100 billion or so, to finish the non-functional Star Wars project; which would mean that we would have no project to immediately begin upgrading, then enhancing, then perfecting, then making such that it can actually hit a target carrying an electonic marker.

    Insofar as contributing to the Global war on terror, I have a son doing that right now – my youngest; I have had another, almost 20 years ago, in the Navy. My personal military record is less fulsome, as I was medically unfit three times during the (early) Vietnam era; and married, with a child (deferment) the fourth time I went for induction. This administration would not accept plans from either it’s own State Department, nor it’s Chairman, Joint Chiefs, so I doubt I would have the ear of Der Bungle, either.

    As to the Duelfer report, let us recall that 1. the sanctions had not YET been lifted; 2. there was no timetable to lift them; 3. there were years of development between what was left of the basis for WMD, and any realised threat – and Saddam is not young; 4. many express intentions that they are unable to carry out, for our destruction: no imminent threat in Iraq; someone else DID carry out his threat, and remains both free, better funded than before he attacked us, with a larger organisation, thanks to our “benign neglect” in Afghanistan; and his original allies now run the warlords in over 60% of the land area in Afghanistan, with opium now the chief funding source for al Queda.

    Yes, I habitually use the caps for emphasis – learned that in the old mIRC; but throwing the entire sentence or paragraph into upper case, is “shouting”; a single word is merely emphasized.

    Conley T. Gwinn (034470)

  10. EagleSpeak: Yes, I read the Dod estimates of Iraqi civilians killed by US combat operations – those had risen to (published) estimated 13,500 just before the election. Of course, now the DoD has adopted the Viet Nam counting techniques: the deaths of civilians in Fallujah and Mosul are so far, non-existent – any dead are deemed default insurgents, male or female, adult or child. Even the 13,500 is ridiculous, from first-hand accounts of soldiers on the ground, and from imbeds. And, this fight (not a war, certainly, since none was declared) is finally doing to THIS generation of soldiers, what Viet Nam did much earlier: witness the video of the Marine killing the wounded presumed insurgent, and the sounds of shots at the other wounded in that mosque. If there were a single greatest tragedy of this endless series of tragedies, that indictment of our armed servicemen is the greatest.

    As to MY plans, those which Bungle would not have listened to:
    1. To have elected JFK, for his credentials in attacking terror financially (BCCI and Iran-Contra).
    2. To come clean with the American people – there never was any national motive to invade Iraq – simply personal need for Bungle to ring up a “real” war, in order to ensure his re-inauguration; combined with the opportunity for immense funneling of US funds to offshore (and onshore) instruments of Halliburton, and other favored recipients, including the Kuwaitis.
    3. To recognise that had we not invaded Iraq, even those former Baathists would have been far more tractible, especially were we to have kept the pressure on, to have NOT pulled the inspectors, which was solely our US decision, and to have restricted ourselves to enforcement of the no-fly zones insofar as military effort in Iraq. Duelfer plainly recognises (and he was BUNGLE’S choice) that there was no clear and present danger, no imminent threat, and that even the potential threat at some future time, was attenuated by the past effect of sanctions.
    4. Mass graves – the last certainly dated were from 1990? “Disappearing” people? We do that ourselves, constantly, and in violation of several treaties which we signed and approved; and we do it to Iraqis, among others, with no recourse to determine even if these are terrorists or simply farmers.
    5. The recognition that even HAD we invaded Iraq, had we done so in reasonable fashion, we would have had enough troops on the ground to
    protect the residual fissile materials – some 13 tons of enriched, and (estimated) 30 tons of raw; plus enough to guard at least the component explosives of atomic bombs (the 380 tons of HMX and RDX); and maybe even enough to avoid the desperation of “we are surrounded by hostile natives, so we better kill a few as a show of force.”

    Now, I have done my best to lay out my plans; other than offering to go into exile if the US would protect that exile (which we refused even to acknowledge so as to be able to proceed with an invasion nine months later) Saddam’s options to avoid an invasion were: 1. Produce for us to destroy, the WMD which Duelfer, nor anyone else to my knowledge, have been able to find?
    2. Show us documentary proof of the destruction, which he did, but we didn’t believe?
    3. Stop obstructing the inspectors, which he did, but we were already committed to pulling them (despite the pleas of the team head to leave him there)?

    Did I miss anything (as options for Saddam)?

    Conley T. Gwinn (034470)

  11. Take a Walk on the Blog Side
    Haven’t done a round-up in a while, so here goes:

    Even while sleeping on the job, Patterico does a fine job exposing Jeralyn Merritt as the political hack that she is.

    He didn’t need any help in this endeavor, but Armed Liberal and I provided…

    damnum absque injuria (2c5473)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2464 secs.