Measuring the Iraq War
[Guest post by DRJ]
It’s frequently said that the Iraq War is a failure. Initially, the conventional wisdom was that it failed because of the chaotic situation in Iraq, but the surge has helped to bring stability to many areas of Iraq.
It has also been claimed that the Iraq War is a failure because the Iraqis have not embraced freedom and taken control of their country, but the Awakening and Prime Minister Maliki’s showdown with al-Sadr’s Shiites suggest that many Iraqis have chosen to participate in rebuilding Iraq.
The most recent theme of failure in Iraq has focused on American deaths – over 4000 to date. That made me curious about military deaths compared with prior years. The Congressional Research Service published statistics on active duty military deaths from the Revolutionary War through 2006. The following statistics are excerpted from Table 4 at page 10 at the link:
U.S. Active Duty Military Deaths, 1980 Through 2006
Year-Total Military-Deaths
1980 – 2,159,630 – 2,392
1981 – 2,206,751 – 2,380
1982 – 2,251,067 – 2,319
1983 – 2,273,364 – 2,465
1984 – 2,297,922 – 1,999
1985 – 2,323,185 – 2,252
1986 – 2,359,855 – 1,984
1987 – 2,352,697 – 1,983
1988 – 2,309,495 – 1,819
1989 – 2,303,384 – 1,636
1990 – 2,258,324 – 1,507
1991 – 2,198,189 – 1,787
1992 – 1,953,337 – 1,293
1993 – 1,849,537 – 1,213
1994 – 1,746,482 – 1,075
1995 – 1,661,928 – 1,040
1996 – 1,613,310 — 974
1997 – 1,578,382 — 817
1998 – 1,538,570 — 827
1999 – 1,525,942 — 796
2000 – 1,530,430 — 758
2001 – 1,552,196 — 891
2002 – 1,627,142 — 999
2003 – 1,732,632 – 1,228
2004 – 1,711,916 – 1,874
2005 – 1,664,014 – 1,942
2006 – 1,664,014 – 1,858
Snopes.com used this information to summarize the deaths by President:
Carter – 1980 – 2,392
Reagan – 1981-1988 – 17,201
Bush I – 1989-1992 – 6,223
Clinton – 1993-2000 – 7,500
Bush II – 2001-2006 – 8,792
Est. 2007-3/26/2008 – 1,114
For those who measure the value of the Iraq War and the greater War on Terror by military deaths, these are the numbers.
— DRJ
It’s not simply a measurement of the number of deaths, it’s a measurement of what we’re getting in return for those deaths. And so far, all we’ve gotten is more and better terrorists, blemishes on our reputation and credibility, and in general, more anti-American sentiment around the world. That’s why it’s a failure.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/30/2008 @ 10:59 amTable 4 to that report is pretty meaningless, as it does not tell how how they died, and also it is not weighted to account for the fact that there are many fewer people in the military now than there was in the cold war 1980’s (with the decline mostly coming in the 1990’s.
This is why, for example, Reagan had roughly 2000 deaths every year with few coming from hostile action (lots of accidents, homicides and illnesses back then) while Bush II has kept under 2000 deaths each year while also sustaining 400-600 or so deaths due to hostile action (less accidents, homicides and illnesses).
More illuminating is the next table, Table 5, which shows this; you can see that accidental death, homicide and illness rates have much declined since the Reagan years.
Contrary to your statement that “For those who measure the value of the Iraq War and the greater War on Terror by military deaths, these are the numbers,” the numbers you cite are fairly meaningless unless you think there is some meaningful connection between the war and military deaths due to such things as accident, homicide or illness.
The numbers that matter are under “Hostile Action” in table 5, where we see the 4000+ deaths of the Bush II years contrasted to a single death under Clinton, for example.
Aplomb (61ab33) — 3/30/2008 @ 11:00 amDRJ – Heresy, I tell you. Heresy!
JD (5f0e11) — 3/30/2008 @ 11:18 amAplomb,
I linked to the underlying report so everyone would have access to the data and could make points like the one you did. It is also interesting to compare George Bush’s war years with other periods when America was at war.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/30/2008 @ 11:20 amLevi,
I’m glad it’s not all about numbers to you. Tell that to CNN, MSNBC, AP, etc.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/30/2008 @ 11:23 amWell, now that I understand how to evaluate success in war using Levi’s standards, I finally understand what complete failures that Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson really were.
Good thing that they make G.W. Bush look so good …
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/30/2008 @ 11:25 amBy the way, Levi, the President of France is “unabashedly pro-American.”
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/30/2008 @ 11:29 amall we’ve gotten is more and better terrorists
Allow me to quote Bill Whittle on this very subject:
BTW, Whittle is still waiting for an historical example of successful appeasement.
So am I.
Oh, Levi?
I suggest you click the link above. There’s also a an excellent argument that anyone who thinks that Bush is an idiot is…well, engaging in idiot thinking.
Paul (b8f307) — 3/30/2008 @ 11:31 amLevi,
I’m glad it’s not all about numbers to you. Tell that to CNN, MSNBC, AP, etc.
Nope, DRJ, it’s not about numbers with them.
::cough::cough::GRIM MILESTONES::cough::cough:: stories
Paul (b8f307) — 3/30/2008 @ 11:35 amPaul, all I read was what you bolded, because it’s the first thing that caught my attention, obviously, and it’s absolutely retarded enough that I believe I can safely dismiss whatever else this idiot had to write.
Doves think the choice is between fighting or not fighting. Hawks think the choice is between fighting now or fighting later.
I can put this to rest for you. It’s not a choice of fighting or not fighting, it’s a choice of fighting smartly, and for the right things, or, you know, not doing that. And George Bush hasn’t done that in Iraq, that’s why we have a problem with him. It’s more counter-productive to our own interests and security than anything that we’ve ever done.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/30/2008 @ 11:52 am“It’s more counter-productive to our own interests and security than anything that we’ve ever done.”
Silly rhetoric that shows an extraordinary ignorance of American history.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/30/2008 @ 11:57 amThere’s no precedent in American history for just invading a wholly insignificant and weak country out of left field with absolutely no evidence to support any, like, not even one, of the bullshit charges you levy against them.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/30/2008 @ 12:02 pmLevi, you really have never read any American history, have you?
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/30/2008 @ 12:21 pmI can put this to rest for you. It’s not a choice of fighting or not fighting, it’s a choice of fighting smartly, and for the right things, or, you know, not doing that. And George Bush hasn’t done that in Iraq, that’s why we have a problem with him. It’s more counter-productive to our own interests and security than anything that we’ve ever done.
More assumptions!
There’s no precedent in American history for just invading a wholly insignificant and weak country out of left field with absolutely no evidence to support any, like, not even one, of the bullshit charges you levy against them.
evi, you must be Catholic…for you today is The Feast of the Assumption.
Paul (b8f307) — 3/30/2008 @ 12:27 pmPaul, not only does Levi dishonestly misrepresent the Iraq operation in that silly sentence, but he demonstrates that he thinks American history began in 1981.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/30/2008 @ 12:37 pmYou know, during the Cold War, there was at least an overall strategy of containment, with established goals and a known adversary, where there were actual things at stake. That’s not to say that the Vietnam was some great, necessary war, but on it’s worst day, it’s not as mind-numbingly pointless and counter-productive as this Iraq war is.
It’s really pointless to ask your opinion on what exactly was a bigger foreign policy disaster in our past, since we can’t even agree that Iraq is a disaster, but why don’t you go ahead and tell me what you think was worse than this?
Levi (76ef55) — 3/30/2008 @ 12:48 pmPaul,
You’re incoherent.
I’m not assuming anything, I’m telling you that your impression that liberals are just a bunch of pacifists is wrong.
I know I’m just a big dummy, but how am I supposed to interpret your last post? What am I assuming exactly? What are you talking about?
Levi (76ef55) — 3/30/2008 @ 12:51 pmLevi, you really haven’t read any history have you? You seem ignorant of the litany of foreign policy mistakes that can be characterized as worse than Iraq using your dishonest standards.
Woodrow Wilson’s botched job at the WWI peace talks.
Wilson’s interventions in Latin America and Caribbean.
FDR’s incompetent handling of the Japanese
Harry Truman’s botched handling of Korea
The Vietnam War
As for interventions on dubious grounds, you seem ignorant of:
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/30/2008 @ 12:55 pmMexican American War
Spanish American War
Wilson’s entry into WWI
JFK’s dishonest excuses for the Cuban Missile crisis
There’s no precedent in American history for just invading a wholly insignificant and weak country out of left field with absolutely no evidence to support any, like, not even one, of the bullshit charges you levy against them.
The closest parallels I can think of are the Mexican War and the Spanish War, and both of those had real quarrels underlying them (the status of Texas and Cuba respectively) even if the specific excuse for war was, in the case of Mexico, manufactured or, in the case of Spain, proved under historical inquiry to be based on errors. And in both of those cases we weren’t already at war with someone else, like we were (and still are) when we invaded Iraq.
“It’s more counter-productive to our own interests and security than anything that we’ve ever done.”
Silly rhetoric that shows an extraordinary ignorance of American history.
Actually, the first sentence is a very accurate summary of why we shouldn’t have done what we did in Iraq. If I wanted to engage in rhetorical ploys, I would say that the response given by the second sentence shows an extraordinary ignorance of Mideastern history and culture.
kishnevi (a6ffde) — 3/30/2008 @ 1:05 pm“And it is just so with terrorism. When the results of terrorism do the terrorist more harm than good, terrorism will go away. We need to harm these terrorists, not reward them, if we ever expect to see the end of them.”
– Bill Whittle
It’s not “just so” with terrorism; that’s a stupid over-simplification. The Vandals ran around Roman territories in Vandal hordes doing Vandal deeds. The Vikings sailed around in Viking longships doing Viking deeds. The Barbary Pirates flew Barbary Pirate flags.
We went into Iraq to wage war on… whom? “Terrorists”? Okay… who are these “terrorists”? Anyone who shoots at us, you say?
Well… that’s not fucking fair, is it? Since we invaded their country and all, it might be fair to say that they have a right (of sorts) to shoot at us. I know I’d be shooting at the Chinese if they invaded the U.S.
We didn’t start bombing Iraq because the Iraqis were “terrorists”; the Iraqis started becoming “terrorists” because we were bombing Iraq.
You guys have been willingly confusing cause and effect for the past five years:
Leviticus (c3afa7) — 3/30/2008 @ 1:17 pmI think Levi lives in a bunker because he sounds so freaking afraid of and ignorant of the outside world, particularly during the past seven years, and that he is a loyal dues paying member of International A.N.S.W.E.R. It’s also revealing that he is supporting a gay crack whore for president.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/30/2008 @ 1:21 pmLeviticus, and you’ve been willingly misrepresenting the reasons for the Iraq operation for the past five years. Such that your “stupid over-simplication” comment seems to be an overdose of irony at best.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/30/2008 @ 1:21 pmSPQR – I’ll bet he hasn’t even read the AUMF and is just repeating talking points.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/30/2008 @ 1:27 pmLeviticus, which is more successful: giving the grade-school bully your lunch money, or beating his ass?
Name one instance–anytime in history–of successful appeasing an aggresive enemy.
Just one.
Paul (b8f307) — 3/30/2008 @ 1:28 pmSPQR:
You call these interventions on dubious grounds, and I’d agree with you. However, the big difference here is that those interventions had some definable benefit to them.
Mexican American War? We stole half of Mexico, the better half I might add, and were incredibly enriched as a result. Can you imagine where we’d be if Mexico had managed to hang on to all the California gold?
Spanish American War? This established America as a world power, and though it wasn’t quite so great in a material sense as the MAW, it was still a big foreign policy gain.
WWI? It’s funny how many false cliches about WWII are actually true about WWI. For WWII, the story goes that we saved the world from direst evil without much provocation and without our help, the Allies would have lost. This is debatable at best. But those statements are pretty much true of WWI. We can say Wilson was overmatched by Clemenceau and Lloyd George during the Versailles settlement after the war was over, but we must acknowledge that without America, the Allies would have lost WWI. The German empire would have extended across most of Europe and Asia (remember, they had already beaten Russia and taken most of the best parts with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk). Sure, it wouldn’t have been as bad as the Third Reich, but we know that Germany planned to dismantle its own ally Austria-Hungary if she won the war. Surely such a powerful empire would have been a threat to America.
Again, JFK may have made dishonest excuses about the Cuban missile crisis, but what the hell was he supposed to do? I’d say that was the Kennedy administration’s finest hour. We aren’t dead.
My complaint about Iraq is that not only was it invading a tiny, insignificant country for shit-ass reasons–I never understood why mutually assured destruction didn’t apply to Saddam–it didn’t even give us some definable material benefit. I’d kill for some good old-fashioned imperialism now. Better than than just spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives for nothing at all.
Russell (5ecf4a) — 3/30/2008 @ 1:33 pmPaul:
How about the Anglo-Irish Treaty? How about the Revolutionary War? How about allowing the Soviets to take over Eastern Europe? Appeasement has gotten a terrible reputation because of Hitler, but it has worked in the past. Here is how appeasement was defined pre-1930:
Your playground analogy is too simple. Sometimes concessions can work, as long as one is appeasing from a position of strength and not out of fear, as with Hitler.
Russell (5ecf4a) — 3/30/2008 @ 1:47 pmRussell – I guess we could have continued with the fiction that the U.N. was trying to maintain that internationally negotiated cease fire agreements mean something. After all, they could just keep telling Saddam stop again, or we’ll say stop again. How many times was it? He was never in compliance with the original agreement from the First Gulf War, but the left doesn’t like to talk about that. The left doesn’t like to talk about making regime change in Iraq the official U.S. policy in 1998 and Clinton’s cruise missile attacks that year to take out suspected WMD sites.
The left also likes to ignore Saddam’s demonstrated support for international terrorism and the attrocities he committed against his own people.
It’s no wonder then that the left has trouble seeing any benefits from what has occurred from liberating 25 million people in Iraq from a tyrant like Saddam Hussein. They weren’t troubled by his existence in the first place. Most democratic legislators actually voted against our involvement in the First Gulf War when when of our staunchest allies was attacked by Saddam, so there is continuity in the position. Personally, I enjoyed the collateral benefits of seeing Libya end its WMD programs and the Cedar revolution in Lebanon, although Syria and Iran are doing their very best to reverse that.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/30/2008 @ 1:49 pmRussell – How do you describe Eastern Europe as appeasement? In any event, the Russians were not content with Europe, they continued to try to increase their sphere of influence to Asia and Africa and South America, directly or by proxy, so I would call that analogy flawed.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/30/2008 @ 1:55 pmdaleyrocks:
So what are those benefits, exactly? I’d say that objectively, the average Iraqi is much worse off today than he was under Saddam, and I defy you to prove otherwise. Sure Saddam was a horrible, evil, mass-murdering fuckhead, but a power vacuum filled with guns and money is worse.
Saddam had no operations ties to Al-Qaeda, as George Tenet said:
My real criticism of this whole WMD thing is that mutually assured destruction, which worked for the entire cold war, was never mentioned for Saddam. Is Saddam really so stupid to try and nuke the US and get his entire country vaporized as a result? He was a tyrant, not an idiot.
And WMD is an idiotic phrase to boot. Including nukes and chemical weapons in the same category is ridiculous.
Russell (5ecf4a) — 3/30/2008 @ 2:01 pmHow about the Anglo-Irish Treaty?
The British were raping and pillaging?
How about the Revolutionary War?
Uh, no. We won, remember?
How about allowing the Soviets to take over Eastern Europe?
Ask those who lived under Soviet rule how beneficial it was. Ukrainian Famine, anyone?
Paul (b8f307) — 3/30/2008 @ 2:04 pmRussell – “Saddam had no operations ties to Al-Qaeda”, although there were plenty of other links as documents have since proven. The Bush Administration also did not claim that Saddam was involved in 9/11 as the left frequently claims.
We didn’t claim Saddam had nukes, Russell. We said he was trying to develop them. Absent having them, I’m not sure why your MAD argument has any relevance. What is your argument?
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/30/2008 @ 2:09 pmdaleyrocks: “Russell – How do you describe Eastern Europe as appeasement?”
Well, we basically wrote off all of Eastern Europe as the Soviet sphere of influence. We allowed the Hungarian and Polish uprising to be crushed in 1956 without so much as a peep. I defined appeasement pre-1930, but here’s a more general definition:
We let the Soviets have Eastern Europe because we were too afraid to fight them for it. Of course, we put to boot down in Korea and elsewhere, but that doesn’t change the situation in Eastern Europe. And I would further argue that was exactly the right thing to do. Even before the Soviets developed nukes, it would have been nearly impossible to defeat them, and it would have been objectively worse for the occupied countries in any case.
Russell (5ecf4a) — 3/30/2008 @ 2:12 pmI’d say that objectively, the average Iraqi is much worse off today than he was under Saddam, and I defy you to prove otherwise.
Russell – Prove to me, objectively, why the average Iraqi, is much worse off today or has much worse prospects.
Do you think there is any good prewar information available about how Saddam discriminated against non-Baath party members in terms of jobs and others favors in Iraq? The Shia have been under the boot of the Sunnis in Iraq for decades.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/30/2008 @ 2:15 pmWe let the Soviets have Eastern Europe because we were too afraid to fight them for it.
As you point out later, we were not in a position to fight them for it, so can it really be called appeasement?
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/30/2008 @ 2:17 pmPaul:
What?
Well, my argument was that the British appeased the colonists by allowing them to have their own country and only fought a half-hearted war. I’ll let you have that one, though; it’s a weak example. Besides, you only wanted one, and the next one is stronger.
I’m not saying it was beneficial for the Balkans, I’m saying it was beneficial for the Western Powers. We allowed to Soviets to have their sphere of influence and it turned out all right for us. In fact, it was really the only possible option open.
Russell (5ecf4a) — 3/30/2008 @ 2:20 pmIs there anything that the liberals will not defend? life waz better under Saddam. Who cares if only 20,000,000 or so died at the hands of the communists? There is no soul in these people.
JD (5f0e11) — 3/30/2008 @ 2:40 pmIn fact, it was really the only possible option open.
That’s why it was not appeasement Russell.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/30/2008 @ 2:43 pmdaleyrocks:
It doesn’t fit the pre-1930’s definition of appeasement, but it fits the more general definition I gave: “Appeasement is a policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles.”
I’d say that appeasement as a policy is generally better from a position of strength, as in the Anglo-Irish treaty, but it doesn’t have to be so to fit the definition.
Well, you didn’t accept my challenge, but there are a few places to start. These news stories here and here give some human-side stories. Here is a study by a British polling firm that came up with a result of over 1 million excess deaths since the invasion. Here is an article measuring the increase in mortality rate (between 1.5-2.5 times the rate under Saddam) after the invasion. And there is also the refugee crisis: over five million Iraqis have left the country, most of which are the wealthy, educated middle class people needed to build a society–the only ones who can leave.
Iraq is now number two on the list of “failed states” for Foreign Policy magazine–it’s been creeping up since they started publishing that ranking in 2005.
Does that do it for you?
Russell (5ecf4a) — 3/30/2008 @ 2:47 pmJD:
Look, I’m not trying to apologize for Saddam or any other dictator. He was, as I mentioned before, an evil mass-murdering fuckhead, as was Stalin et al. I’m saying that sometimes you can’t do anything about it. Military invasion would have been worse for Eastern Europe than communism. Are you seriously going to argue otherwise? Oh, and this ties in to my other point.
daleyrocks: “That’s why it was not appeasement Russell.”
I’m saying that it was the only reasonable (did I say possible?) option, but that doesn’t mean we couldn’t have invaded. In fact, they were arguing at the Corner the other month (can’t find the link) that we should have invaded Russia right after WWII, before they developed nukes. To me, that’s insanity. But we still could have tried it.
Russell (5ecf4a) — 3/30/2008 @ 2:55 pmWhen the President of the United States convenes his Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, obtains evidence from his military advisors and uses information that we can’t possibly come even remotely close to knowing…we, as citizens, must rely on the information. And when he says the following:
“The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.”
“The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government — a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently”.
“The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm’s way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq’s military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.”
“Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm’s way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion”.
“Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.”
“And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.”
Yes, so when the President of the United States says to mark his words, Iraq would have developed, deployed and used weapons of mass destruction…and quite possibly handed them off to terrorists to export around the world…when the President of the United States says that Saddam Hussein and Iraq presented the greatest danger to the free world…perhaps those inclined to say he’s lying about it all, might want to tell us what they KNOW and what their security clearance is that gives them such knowledge.
Unless you are willing to call this President a complete liar…William Jefferson Clinton.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 3/30/2008 @ 4:28 pmcfbleachers:
I guess this is the theory of “constitutional dictatorship,” that we must always trust whatever the president says and does no matter what…you’ve got some hefty intellectual comrades holding that particular view.
I think we can see exactly what happens when we trust the president as you suggest. When he says that Saddam is developing nukes, and he lets Cheney say that Saddam and Al Qaeda are collaborating, and that it will be better for the Iraqis if we destroy their country, and all of those things turn out to be complete shit, you don’t have to have a security clearance to see that the “unitary executive” is a terrible way to run a country.
Bush is either a liar or a fool, and I don’t know which is worse.
Russell (5ecf4a) — 3/30/2008 @ 4:41 pm“[M]ark my words, [Saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them… Iraq [is] a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity… Some day, some way, I guarantee you he’ll use the arsenal.” – President Bill Clinton (D)
“Saddam’s ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat… to the security of the world.” – Vice President Albert Gore (D)
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction… Iraq is a long way from Ohio, 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.” – Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (D)
“[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983.” – National Security Advisor Sandy Berger (D)
“The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons… The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein’s near success with developing anuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all. [Saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Harry Reid (D)
“If you don’t believe…Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.” – Sen. John Kerry (D)
“Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it’s just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons.” – Sen. John Edwards (D)
“One of the most compelling threats we in this countryface today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that…Iraq…mayacquire or develop nuclear weapons. [Saddam’s] chemical and biologicalweapons capabilities are frightening.” – Sen. Dick Durbin (D)
“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.” – Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D)
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, 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.” – Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton (D) – All of them
“In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now – a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.” – President Bill Clinton (D)
“[L]et’s imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he’ll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time, believes that, too.” – President Bill Clinton (D)
“Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.” – President Bill Clinton (D)
“[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He’s already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons; he poison gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunctions about killing lots and lots of people.” – Vice President Al Gore (D)
“This is a man who has used poison gas on his own people and on his neighbors repeatedly. He’s trying to get ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons. He could be a mass murderer of the first order of magnitude. We are not going to allow that to happen.” – Vice President Al Gore (D)
—
Secretary of Defense Cohen appeared on ABC’s “This Week” in 1997 to talk about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. To illustrate the danger, he brought a five-pound bag of sugar.
Cohen: It’s important when we talk about weapons of mass destruction that we translate that into something that the American people, and hopefully, the world community can understand. If you take a five pound bag of sugar and accept – call this anthrax (holding up a 5-pound bag of table sugar). This amount of anthrax could be spread over a city – let’s say the size of Washington. It could destroy at least half the population of that city. If you had even more amounts …
One of the things we found with anthrax is that one breath and you are likely to face death within five days. One small particle of anthrax could produce death within five days.
VX is a nerve agent. One drop from this particular thimble as such – one single drop will kill you within a few minutes.
Cokie Roberts: Would you put that bag down please.
Cohen: Now I want to point out – I will spill it on the table – point out that he has had enormous amounts and I’d like to go to some of the lies that have been told about this, because originally, if we could look at this particular chart, the original declaration of Iraq, he said he had small quantities of nerve agent for research. We found almost four tons of VX – that little vial I just showed you – four tons of it——————————–
“Saddam has thumbed his nose at the world community and I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion.” – Sen. Harry Reid (D)
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Ted Kennedy (D)
“I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security… Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein… These weapons represent an unacceptable threat.” – Sen. John Kerry (D)
“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,his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa’ida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons… I can support the President because I think it is in the long-term interests of our national security.” – Sen. Hillary Clinton (D)
“Hussein has chemical and biological weapons, there is no question about that.” – Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D)
“According to the CIA’s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons.” – Sen. John Kerry (D)
“[It] is Hussein’s vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people to the United States.” – Sen. Chuck Schumer (D)
“We must eliminate that [potential nuclear] threat now before it is too late. But that isn’t just a future threat. Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. … [He] is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly.” – Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D)
“There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. That is not in debate. I also agree with President Bush that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must be disarmed, to quote President Bush directly.” – Sen. Chris Dodd (D)
“We know that [Saddam] has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his Country.” – Vice President Al Gore (D)
“Countering terror is one aspect of our struggle to maintain international security and peace. Limiting the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction is a second. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq encompasses both of these challenges.” – Secretary of State Madelyn Albright (D)
“Iraq is a long way from [America], 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. And it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm. In discussing Iraq, we begin by knowing that Saddam Hussein, unlike any other leader, has used weapons of mass destruction even against his own people.” – Secretary of State Madelyn Albright (D)
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 3/30/2008 @ 4:49 pm“and he lets Cheney say that Saddam and Al Qaeda are collaborating, and that it will be better for the Iraqis if we destroy their country,”
Russell – How about the MSU link for this creative bit?
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/30/2008 @ 4:52 pmBecause Russell, we know, as you pointed out above and according to the recently released Pentagon study, they were cooperating, just not operationally.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/30/2008 @ 4:54 pmRussell…those quotes were from the Democratic President Clinton. And see the other quotes from the Democrats.
Was Gore lying too? Albright? Cohen? Berger?
They are all liars, who simply were setting up “Bush’s War”?
Here’s the deal, Russell. Unless you have a security clearance you aren’t disclosing, you are in no position to intelligently suggest much of anything on the topic as to what “existed” or didn’t “exist” as a threat.
I heard not ONE peep out of the left when Clinton, Albright, Cohen, Berger, and Gore were saying the EXACT SAME THINGS about the threat Iraq posed…Kennedy, Kerry, Rockefeller, Hillary ALL saw the information…and came to the same conclusion.
State sponsored terrorism was an enormous threat to the US and left unchecked, would have continued to be so. Those are the facts, Russell. And that, more than any other phony issue…is the Inconvenient Truth the democrats and their apologists and propaganda arm have muddied for the American public.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 3/30/2008 @ 4:55 pmNote: I found a comment from Russell in the filter. I’m not sure which one it was but you may want to check because I think it was on this thread.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/30/2008 @ 4:58 pmI think we can see exactly what happens when we trust the president as you suggest. When he says that Saddam is developing nukes, and he lets Cheney say that Saddam and Al Qaeda are collaborating, and that it will be better for the Iraqis if we destroy their country, and all of those things turn out to be complete shit, you don’t have to have a security clearance to see that the “unitary executive” is a terrible way to run a country.
Russell, sorry if you missed the last sentence…Clinton didn’t “let Cheney” say…anything. This was prior to the Bush Presidency.
Those quotes in my first post…are from William Jefferson Clinton.
Bush is either a liar or a fool, and I don’t know which is worse.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 3/30/2008 @ 4:59 pmI’m saying that it was the only reasonable (did I say possible?) option, but that doesn’t mean we couldn’t have invaded….. To me, that’s insanity. But we still could have tried it.
Russell – If you have to label something insane in order to make your argument work, I’d say you have a very shitty argument, but that’s just me.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/30/2008 @ 5:08 pmRussell – I don’t find your material in 38 compelling. The ORB poll has been discredited and I don’t trust anything from Lancet based on their proven bias. Is your contention that Iraqis seriously want Sadaam back in power or what exactly is your argument?
I prefer sources, even though liberal, such as the Brookings Institution, which shows steady progress:
http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq%20Index/index20080228.pdf
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/30/2008 @ 5:44 pmRe: #42: So you’ve got a whole bunch of quotes that prove Democrats are largely a bunch of fucking morons as well–and a lot of those were taken from way before 2003, and not in support of Bush’s AUMF. Gore wasn’t saying that Saddam had WMD’s during that time. Moreover, there were a lot of experts like Hans Blix–the only guy who actually had inspectors on the ground–who said that the WMD intelligence was not convincing and in his opinion, Saddam didn’t have them. And remember, only like six senators actually read the NIE that summarized the Iraq intelligence.
But that’s beside the point. I never understood why the logic of mutually assured destruction didn’t apply to Saddam. Sure, he’s evil and has used poison gas on his own people. But he’s not a complete idiot. Is he really going to take the chance to give his (nonexistent) nukes to some random terrorist to hit New York City, which would not destroy America, but would almost certainly result in Iraq becoming a smoking crater? To my knowledge, hardly anyone even discussed this issue.
As to your contention that only the foreign policy elite with proper security clearances are qualified to talk about these sorts of things, I think that is self-evidently false. So what if the democrats repeated Bush’s craziness? That just means more people were catastrophically wrong. That exactly why we need to question our leaders, because they tend to screw up big time when we don’t.
State sponsored terrorism was/is a threat to the US, but Iraq did not sponsor terrorists. But more than that, the US has failed to realize that terrorism is largely state-free. Terrorists operate in zones with little political control, and don’t really recognize countries. Countries are not the fundamental unit we need to be thinking about. It’s more about the tribal/ethnic cultures.
daleyrocks: first of all, the Brookings Institution is hardly liberal. Moderate is more like it. Second, you get to discredit anything based on the Lancet’s “proven bias?” Unfair. I could just say “I don’t trust anything from Brookings based on their proven bias,” and we’d be back to square one. Tell me why the study is biased and inaccurate. Tell me why and how the ORB poll has been discredited, other than Bush didn’t like it.
My argument is that Iraqis are, by a number of measurable metrics, in worse condition than they were when Saddam was in power. I don’t know of any wide polling done on theoretically returning Saddam to power.
Your study from Brookings shows some progress with surge compared to ’06, but in the few places they compare prewar Iraq to present day, things are not unequivocally better. I’d say your study does not show what you say it does.
Oil production: down from 2.5 million barrels/day to 2.2
Doctors: 17,000 out of 34,000 left, 2,000 murdered. 20% of medical graduates plan to leave.
Megawatts of electricity generated: down from 3,958 to 3,850
Things like phone and internet are up.
So what was the point of invading? And if it’s for the Iraqi people, are we then going to invade Zimbabwe, Sudan, Somalia, Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea, and the Central African Republic?
Russell (5ecf4a) — 3/30/2008 @ 7:14 pmRussell,
I don’t see how MAD works when the other party has deniability and doesn’t claim responsibility for its actions. For instance, assume Saddam provided the funding for a terrorist group that detonated a dirty bomb in NYC. Even if the group claimed responsibility, that doesn’t prove a link to Saddam so he’s free to deny involvement. As long as he has deniability, MAD doesn’t stop him nor does it give the US any leverage against him.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/30/2008 @ 7:40 pmDRJ,
What does taking responsibility for your actions have to do with MAD? That’s not how MAD works. You think we’d be waiting for Moscow to take formal responsibility with a press release for the nukes they shot at us before we shot back?
Levi (76ef55) — 3/30/2008 @ 7:55 pmLevi,
MAD worked because there were only two parties involved. The Soviets knew that if the US was nuked, we would retaliate against them and vice versa. Thus, both parties had an incentive not to act first.
Nuclear proliferation has made MAD a much less effective and reliable strategy. Not only are there several nations that have nuclear capabilities, there are also a number of surrogates that are not nation-states who could act in their stead. If the US is hit, it will first try to identify the responsible parties. We won’t indiscriminately nuke everyone with nuclear weapons and other nations know that. The uncertainty in our response undermines the viability of MAD.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/30/2008 @ 8:06 pmListening to Levi/Leviticus/etc, doesn’t engender a great deal of confidence in the effecacy of the educational system in this country.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 3/30/2008 @ 8:14 pmIt is reassuring though, that we have one public institution that accomplishes what it sets out to do: The Military!
Back to casualties…
Another Drew (8018ee) — 3/30/2008 @ 8:19 pmLet’s not forget the “gold standard” when it comes to casualties, in this case deaths:
Antietam/Sharpsburg….12,000+ dead Americans in less than 72-hours.
And not one foreign devil involved. Libertarians still blame Abe.
DRJ,
I absolutely agree with Russell’s point about MAD and I totally understand what he’s saying, but it doesn’t apply exactly to the sort of strategic relationship the United States had with Saddam. It was in fact a much better relationship for us, obviously, since MAD with Russia meant that we were goners, too. We never had to worry about that with Saddam; there was never even a remote chance he could do any sort of lasting harm to our country.
I think Russell’s point was that Saddam was still operating under that MAD mentality, except that he also lost the reassurance of the ‘mutual’ part of that, putting him in even worse position. Saddam had everything to lose and nothing to gain. Saddam might be a crazy, evil dictator, but he’s not irrational. He was content playing king of the desert, watching American mafia films and writing gay plays or whatever. Sure, he had to keep up appearances, and make it look like he was a big tough guy by defying the U.S., but when you’re as low as Saddam was in the chip count, your only hope is to bluff. Remember how full of shit Saddam’s press secretary guy was at the beginning of the war? Yeah, that’s basically how they ran everything, including their international relations.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/30/2008 @ 8:41 pmI’d say your study does not show what you say it does.
I said some progress Russell. Electricity blipped down in February, but otherwise has been above prewar levels. Cars have increased along with those telephones, as has education. External refugees are listed at less than half your five million number. Oil revenues are up, per capita GDP, as well as other measures. It’s a mixed bag, but there are signs of progress.
The Lancet lost all credibility with most intelligent people with its shameless promotion and lack of credible peer review of the two flawed Johns Hopkins studies on Iraqi War deaths immediately before U.S. elections. There is enough information out there on the Lancet’s fall from respectability and integrity to easily reach that conclusion.
Unlike you, I have no personal knowledge of G.W. Bush’s reaction to the ORB poll. After criticism, ORB revised its sampling to increase it’s coverage of rural areas and in January 2008 rereleased the data, dropping the death count down to about 1 million. They still ignored Kurdistan and Anbar (they claimed Anbar was still too dangerous in 2007), reasons to suggest a significant upward bias in their figures. Their Iraqi reasearch partner is the same one used in the bogus Lancet studies – what a surprise.
Where do you think all those bodies are buried Russell?
Here’s a reference to a 2007 ORB poll of 5000 Iraqis that found a majority thought life was better now than under Saddam.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/30/2008 @ 8:41 pmLevi,
I’m not sure I grasped your complete point but I think you have minimized America’s concerns. The US was concerned about Saddam’s financial support for terrorists. In addition, we were also concerned by the threat Saddam posed to the Israelis, other Arab nations, and his ability to destabilize the region. Even if Saddam was a tin-pot dictator as you portray him (and I think he was much more dangerous that that), he was not harmless.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/30/2008 @ 9:16 pmThat may have been long winded, but the point is basically that Saddam was in the best position he could ever aspire to and was therefore motivated only to preserve that position. What does he gain by attacking Israel? He’d lose power. What does he gain by attacking us? He’d lose power. Saddam wasn’t some ultra-religious zealot whose motivations you can dismiss as straight up fanaticism, he liked his palaces and his riches and his cars. He never bought into the jihad bullshit, he relished extravagance.
Now certainly he gained by threatening Israel, and threatening us, because again, total bullshit is what he ran his government with. Remember the revelation that Saddam had tried to broker a deal with us through the Swedes to leave the country for $1 billion? That’s revelatory. An offer like that tells us Saddam had nothing to use against us, nor any real intention to do so in the first place. If he was such a threat to us, because he hated us and wanted to destroy us or whatever, why would he be fishing for bribes? He would have sold out all of his bullshit in order to continue living in a palace. That’s not a mortal enemy you’re dealing with, it’s a charlatan.
Damn. $1 billion for regime change, just like that. Sounds like a pretty good deal 4,000 dead soldiers and half a trillion dollars later, doesn’t it?
Levi (76ef55) — 3/30/2008 @ 10:03 pmLevi,
I agree with you that Saddam should have been satisfied with his position and that the US would normally have been satisfied to leave him there. (Thus, if that’s what you and Russell meant by MAD, I understand your point even though I don’t think that’s an accurate label.)
However, there were at least two factors that changed that equilibrium. One was 9/11 and the fact that so much damage could be done by 19 men with access to financial resources. Since we couldn’t hope to stop every terrorist, their financial backers became much more important. Saddam was a financial backer.
The other factor was that Saddam had been willing to go to war before, not only against his own people – the Kurds in the North and the Shiites in the South – but also against his neighbors, Iran and Kuwait (and, by extension, most of the world during Desert Storm). We had to take him more seriously because he had proven he was not all bluff and bluster.
Ultimately, Saddam was impotent only because we rendered him impotent. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t a danger or that he couldn’t help others put us in danger.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/30/2008 @ 10:25 pmThose weren’t changes. Who didn’t realize that so much damage could be inflicted by a well connected few? Hasn’t that been the premise of like 90% of the action movies ever made? Remember that Presidential Daily Briefing from August 2001 that warned that bin Laden might try to hijack some American planes?
You talk about it like that fact was some big revelation, and yours is the side that somehow claims the mantle of ‘foreign policy experts?’ Please.
You call that a ‘change in the equilibrium?’ That’s something that’s been a constant part of Saddam’s past for decades, how does that change any equilibrium we’d progressively attained years later?
We let him off the hook for the wars and the killing, years ago. According to Dick Cheney, because it would cause a quagmire, I am eager to remind you. He might have been willing to go to war at one point, but he’d learned his lesson well enough in Persian Gulf I, and thusly settled into a role as a greedy, pathetic, full-of-shit despot. How much sense does it make to opt out of invading a threatening country, then implement a very successful containment policy that neutralizes completely the threat, then with no provocation whatsoever invade and dissassemble that country after it’s been rendered impotent?
2003 Saddam was all bluff and buster, as evidenced by his weaponlessness. We did that to him. He would have taken exile. Again, this wasn’t some mastermind, Saddam was always about self-preservation. That’s what gave us control over him.And unfortunately, we’ll be lucky if we get someone in charge of Iraq that’s as easily contained and manipulated as Saddam was, because now there’s this whole ancient fanatical religious bullshit to deal with.
Giving him that billion sure seems like a good idea in hindsight. But then, Bush couldn’t give his corrupt band of war-profiteers all the billions he’s given them, and we wouldn’t want them to go billions-less, would we?
Levi (76ef55) — 3/30/2008 @ 11:06 pmLevi:
The scope of the damage from 9/11 didn’t surprise you? It surprised most people.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/30/2008 @ 11:30 pmhe’d learned his lesson well enough in Persian Gulf I,
Absolutely Levi, you blithering idiot, which is why he never adhered to the terms of the cease fire agreement, resulting in the imposition of sanctions. His support of international terrorism really never bothered anybody either, right, or the human rights abuses in his own country?
Do you ever take the time to think about what you write and the internal contradictions you continually spew out, sparky?
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/30/2008 @ 11:35 pmDRJ – Levi is just assuming that familiar, superior liberal role of HINDSIGHT HERO.
He can’t help himself.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/30/2008 @ 11:38 pmAccidenal Military deaths include in addition to the types of acciental deaths encurred in Civilian life deaths due to combat training which can never be made “safe” if it is too be effective.
Also just regular operations, the flight deck of a carrier is probably the most dangerous environment on the face of the earth.
During the Cold War we lost as many if not more Service men and women to such incidents as we did to hostile actions.
Those GIs gave their lives to defend their country just as surely as any did in Combat
Your implication that those Deaths do not “matter” IMO is (expletive deleted)
Dan Kauffman (b31cae) — 3/31/2008 @ 6:09 amWell, most people are idiots. I mean really, have you never seen an action movie? Die Hard? True Lies? The Rock? Whenever there are terrorists involved, there’s usually only a handful and they’ve usually got plenty of financial backing. If ‘evil, out-of-touch, liberal Hollywood idiots’ knew about such things, what’s your excuse? How did you think terrorists operated?
It shouldn’t have surprised you, and it especially shouldn’t have surprised George Bush, who let’s face it, really dropped the ball on preventing 9-11. Vacationing all summer, not holding any meaningful terrorism meetings in his first months in office, then the cherry; totally ignoring the memo he received in August from the CIA about bin Laden hijacking planes. Half of these guys were on watch lists, how hard is it to beef up security a little bit at major airports? Or to warn airlines, warn anybody? I mean honestly, how can you possibly excuse the total inaction of President Bush after getting a memo like that?
The same incompetence that brought us this war, New Orleans, and the economy also brought us 9-11 in the first place. It’s not something that happened overnight, George Bush was a fucking idiot from Day One.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/31/2008 @ 7:32 amLevi, your rhetoric is only getting stupider. There was nothing in the briefing that gave any real indication that anything was upcoming. The vague comment about Bin Laden desiring to hijack aircraft was literally years stale.
Your comments about New Orleans and the economy are similarly devoid of any content. The Bush administration were not to blame for New Orleans, New Orleans was to blame for New Orleans. And there is nothing about our current economic situation that is the result of any executive branch policies.
Your commentary has continued to be dominated by silly claims that only show that your mental processes are dominated by BDS and that you have not the slightest understanding of any topic on which you opine.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/31/2008 @ 7:38 amLiberals knew the Iraq war would be a disaster from the beginning. Howard Dean gave speeches in 2002 about how the ethnic situation could explode and how we’d need a massive troop presence. Remember when Bush fired the head of the Army because he kept talking about how it would require 300,000 troops? Barack Obama knew it would be a bad idea. Fuck, in 1994, even Dick Cheney said it would be a quagmire.
People knew this was going to happen, and they tried to warn us. You don’t get to call it hindsight just because you’ve been ignoring all these people that have been right along.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/31/2008 @ 7:39 am“Remember when Bush fired the head of the Army because he kept talking about how it would require 300,000 troops?”
Didn’t happen. This is another BDS myth that has been long debunked. That Shinseki would not have his term extended had already been announced months before, and the reason was his opposition to reform of the Army organization that was being pushed by Rumsfeld.
You really are full of the silliest myths.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/31/2008 @ 7:44 amYet you then proceed to do just that.
Levi – Seek help.
JD (75f5c3) — 3/31/2008 @ 7:46 amLevi, this is really an almost constant refrain – people like you who are most convinced of how incompetent Bush is are in fact stuffed to the gills with the greatest ignorance.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/31/2008 @ 7:46 amEverybody is dummerer than a box of rox, ‘ceptin for Levi, who is briter than the briterest star in th skigh.
JD (75f5c3) — 3/31/2008 @ 7:49 amLevi and his friends are walking, talking, case studies in cognitive dissonance.
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 3/31/2008 @ 7:50 amBush is stupid, etc, etc; yet, he defeats them (the best and brightest) at every turn.
The bill for the meds must be incalcuable.
Though he revealed his true thoughts…
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 3/31/2008 @ 7:52 am“Well, most people are idiots.”
Another Drew, I don’t like to make reference to mental illness, but I find it astonishing how much of their house of cards is built on “proof” that Bush is incompetent / liar etc., that requires them to lie, misrepresent and make up events.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/31/2008 @ 7:52 amYears stale, huh? Is that why they attacked us, exactly as we predicted they would, just one month later?
I’m sure you’d afford the same wiggle room to a Democratic President, wouldn’t you?
Decades of deregulation have caused the economic crisis. I mean Republican economic policies are self-evidently stupid, “Let’s cut taxes for the rich as we start a war and not even pretend to care about reigning in spending! We’re economics experts!” A 10 year old would know that’s a stupid fucking idea.
And Bush chose to react to New Orleans with a bunch of hand-wringing about bureaucracy and who knew what when, when he should have been saving people. He put a horse lawyer in charge of disaster response, I mean hello?
Give me a break. I’ll say again, if you people are so right about everything, why do most Americans hate George Bush, Republicans, and their policies? If I’m so wrong about all this, why am I in the majority? That doesn’t make any sense to me. Why is America viewed less and less favorably around the world, even among our allies?
Levi (76ef55) — 3/31/2008 @ 7:59 amIt seems to me that the arguments that are brought against the removal of Saddam Hussein stem from quantum leaps in logic paired with faulty information and whole cloth imaginations. Those pesky things called facts pose a bit of a problem.
Here is a recap of most of the arguments I have heard.
1) “We KNEW that Saddam was “weaponless” because, …well, we didn’t FIND any weapons, did we?”
Not sure how anyone outside of the international intelligence community and the select legislators getting daily briefings on the subject could claim to “know” much of anything on the topic.
Frankly, after he refused to allow the inspectors in to do any work at all, the international community was entitled to a rebuttable presumption that he was expanding his arsenal.
In fact, it was first the Democrats, who insisted that Saddam was a threat to build, expand, use, AND hand off to terrorists for international export…weapons of mass murder.
For anyone to believe that Saddam would have sat back and allowed Iran to build a nuclear arsenal on his doorstep, without responding in kind, is also likely to believe that “playing nice and talking to” North Korea and Iran would induce them to play by the Marques of Queensbury’s rules.
Appeasement and naivete’ are deadly cocktail when dealing with “the greatest threat to the world”…as Saddam was called by the DEMOCRATS.
As to “not finding” the anthrax, ricin, nerve gas, …since we KNOW he had them at one time, how is it possible that some people “knew” he didn’t have them after he kicked out the inspectors?
The answer is simple. They didn’t…and still don’t.
There is some evidence to suggest that the Russians and the Syrians (and possibly, although not conclusively…some French and German companies)…spent six weeks in a cleanup mode on the chemical and biological aspects of the arsenal.
How concrete the evidence is, is unclear to date. However, from a linear logic perspective, …a warring, egomanical, menacing, fanatical, dictator who ADMITTEDLY possessed (this is not open to debate) such weapons previously did one of two things after he kicked out the inspectors for years:
a) he unilaterally and voluntarily sought NOTHING in the way of chemical, biological or nuclear advancement in weaponry…while North Korea and Iran did the precise opposite…especially his neighbor, Iran; or …..
b) he kept the inspectors out of his country, while the WORLD imposed toothless resolution after toothless resolution….and while he explored, researched, tested and expanded his plans to build a lethal arsenal.
The “war profiteers”, as far as any real PROOF goes…are the UN, Scott Ritter, the French and German companies who built those “dual use” sites, the Russians and all the other scum who were stealing money in the oil for food scam.
It was the LEFT who kept bleating that the “sanctions” were KILLING MILLIONS OF IRAQI BABIES…and weren’t working.
So, not only did the leftists want to not explore what Saddam was up to behind sealed walls…they also wanted to stop sanctioning him as well.
It is almost as if they WANTED him to build and pass off weapons to terrorists…because, after all…that would only be “chickens coming home to roost”.
Why is it relevant that nearly EVERY Democrat with a security clearance saw that Saddam was a threat to the west, to America, to Israel…to the world? Because NOW they say…the war is BUSH’S war. Nonsense.
If they believed their own words, Saddam was a threat to build and pass off weapons to terrorists, to STATE SPONSOR TERRORISM against the west…BEFORE BUSH BECAME PRESIDENT.
What changed after Bush was elected? 9-11 changed the world. Changed the dynamic.
Al-Qaeda isn’t a country…but State Sponsored Terrorism is and was a legitimate target where we could take the battle to THEM, rather than waiting for them to take it to us again.
They were operating under the assumption that we are all cowards, and if you skin our knee, we would go crying home to mommy.
They believed we didn’t have the stomach to stand toe to toe against them and defend our nation, our countrymen. That we would turn on each other and say we were to blame in the first place.
And each and every time we do that…we embolden them. WE prove them right.
Their problem…was…they got all their information about us…from our corrupt information stream. They want appeasement and naivete’…because it serves their purposes. They want the “blame ourselves” crowd to carry the day here.
If only they could have Jimmy Carter as President again. America Held Hostage, national malaise, weak, begging, pleading, cowering, whimpering, supplicants and sychophants …asking to be liked, ambivalent to being respected.
If ever there was a recipe for us to inviting chickens to come home to roost…I could not think of a better one that that scenario.
Socialist at home, isolationist in the Mideast, protectionist in the Pacific Rim, revisionist in Russia, apologist for Hamas, multi-culturalist on the Mexican border, Afro-centrist in South Chicago, statist in the nanny state controlled media.
Welcome to Animal Farm. The Democrats are on record and their quotes are written down…but, they keep changing the rules. We are on the verge of Socialism, and the vote in November is perhaps the most crucial of our lifetime.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 3/31/2008 @ 8:04 amLevi, #76:
meet Levi, #66:
Shad (36f787) — 3/31/2008 @ 8:06 am“Years stale, huh? Is that why they attacked us, exactly as we predicted they would, just one month later?”
That’s a lie. The intelligence briefing did not predict multiple aircraft hijackings and did not predict their use as a weapon. Claiming that it was “exactly as we predicted” is a crude, brazen lie on your part.
“Decades of deregulation have caused the economic crisis. I mean Republican economic policies are self-evidently stupid, “Let’s cut taxes for the rich as we start a war and not even pretend to care about reigning in spending! We’re economics experts!” A 10 year old would know that’s a stupid fucking idea.”
Another incoherent rant on your part. There has been little deregulation of the financial industry during the Bush administration. What there has been has been bipartisan. And the Federal budget has nothing to do with the current financial sector problems which are built on mortgage lending practices that have actually been encouraged on a bipartisan basis since the ’90’s.
More of your ignorance.
“And Bush chose to react to New Orleans with a bunch of hand-wringing about bureaucracy and who knew what when, when he should have been saving people. He put a horse lawyer in charge of disaster response, I mean hello?”
The Federal government was not in charge of first response for hurricanes you blithering moron. Local state, county and municipal departments are. FEMA does not have squads of fire and paramedic personnel. In any event, thousands of people were rescued by Coast Guard and other military assets in the hours following the hurricane.
Grow up, Levi, you are an embarrassment.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/31/2008 @ 8:07 amSuppose that’s true. Really, it doesn’t matter in the slightest if they fired him, all that matters is they ignored him. He’s the guy that’s supposed to know about this sort of thing, not fucking George Bush or Dick Cheney, and he was absolutely right about it.
The point is, it’s not hindsight when you can literally point to thousands of individuals, like Shinseki, who were right about, well, everything. Howard Dean seemed to know more about Iraq and the costs of occupation than did the entire Bush administration. I mean how’s that make you feel? Howard Dean, the crazy liberal, absolutely proven to be smarter, about war, than everyone in Bush’s war trust.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/31/2008 @ 8:07 amLevi #68:
Congress voted in favor of the Iraq War. The vote was 77-23 in the Senate and 296-133 in the House.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 3/31/2008 @ 8:08 amLevi, actually Shinseki did not have a serious alternative plan for occupying Iraq. He just pulled a number out of his backside that was no more valid than Rumsfeld’s faction’s number. The problems with the Iraq occupation were not in the amount of resources but in how they were applied. Shinseki was not right about “everything” any more than the CIA “exactly predicted” 9/11.
Your commentary would be laughable were it not so disasterous.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/31/2008 @ 8:11 amIt’s the first one. Like I’ve said, Saddam liked thinking he was the king of the desert. That’s what he aspired to. He had no designs on unseating the West, or crushing the infidels, or any of the bullshit that bin Laden is selling, because he wasn’t a religious fanatic. Again, he would have sold us Iraq for $1 billion.
He couldn’t develop anything even if he wanted to, anyway. The sanctions and the no-fly zone made sure of that. So why would he bother? Why risk everything to gain nothing? That was the position Saddam was in. Interested in self-preservation, and nothing more.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/31/2008 @ 8:18 amDid I say Democrats? Was Howard Dean in the Congress?
Levi (76ef55) — 3/31/2008 @ 8:21 amThe ‘Tard of Thunder writes:
Four reasons. First, the majority is fickle, so the mere fact that the majority thinks X at any given time is scant evidence (if that) that X is in fact correct. Second, you’re not in the majority, particularly with your more moonbat pronouncements, which no majority (pro-Bush, anti-Bush or otherwise) would ever endorse. Third, as others have pointed out already, but you’ve conveniently ignored, Congress polls substantially worse than Bush, so unless you’re arguing for some third party that you think will emerge out of nowhere, you don’t represent the majority in any way, shape or form; quite the contrary, you represent an even smaller minority than Bush supporters do. Fourth, much to your chagrin, Bush isn’t the candidate, the guy who opposed him in the 2000 primary is. Current polls have McCain outperforming both Democrat contenders, with a solid chunk of Democrats promising to vote Republican if the “wrong” candidate wins. [Not that polls taken in March tell us anything useful about November elections, anyway – you probably think they do, but all the adults in the group know that they do not.]
It’s not, but I’m not surprised that someone who was not only prebubescent when the Cold War ended, but actually appears proud of that fact, to know any better. When I lived in West Germany (that was the “allied” portion) 20 years ago, 16 million of their countrymen resided in a great big prison named after your Democratic Party. The apparatchik-installed dictator of the Soviet Union defended that policy as necessary to the preservation of his worthless ideology, while the twice democratically elected President of the United States called on him to tear such wall down. Despite that, or perhaps in part because of it, a solid majority of West Germans polled said they trusted the Soviet dictator more than the American President.
Hate to burst your bubble, TOT, but as uncomfortable as our foreign relations may be today, they’re a hell of a lot better than they’ve been in the past.
Xrlq (b71926) — 3/31/2008 @ 8:29 amAbsent proof of your assertion, it is safe to assume that you are just making this up.
Truth never gets in the way of Teh Narrative
You have insight into Saddam’s mindset?
JD (75f5c3) — 3/31/2008 @ 8:32 amIt’s the first one. Like I’ve said, Saddam liked thinking he was the king of the desert. That’s what he aspired to. He had no designs on unseating the West, or crushing the infidels, or any of the bullshit that bin Laden is selling, because he wasn’t a religious fanatic.
I don’t know, Levi. Saddam was cruel, unpredictable and sadistic.
The flyovers were useless against dual use plants and he (and the UN, including Kofi Annan’s family) made a mockery of the sanctions. He could get around both pretty easily.
Don’t know your background, but he and Chemical Ali could have developed biological and chemical weapons virtually anywhere.
If you ask an honest weapons inspector, they will tell you that a country that wishes to hide chemical, biological or yes…even SOME nuclear projects…can do so. It’s a COUNTRY…plenty of places to hide. North Korea hid its nuclear development. Iran hid theirs. It doesn’t take that long to get pretty far along.
Building a dirty bomb, or testing chemical or biological elements…can be done in a lab. Iraq is twice the size of Idaho. I could build 50 labs and you would never find them.
Saddam wasn’t a religious fanatic, he was a megalomaniac and power fanatic. Iran, Kuwait, the Kurds…if he found an enemy…he attacked.
He hurled missiles at Israel.
If he could find a way to transport terrorism here, he wouldn’t have hesitated. If he could do it with somebody else’s fingerprints…all the better.
“Again, he would have sold us Iraq for $1 billion.”
Again, Levi…I’m not so sure. Saddam would have sold his soul for that much…less than that. But he would not have given up power. He made choices that were nearly insane….in order to hold onto the vetiges of power until the final dirty, dusty moments in a spider hole. This was a man for whom power was the opiate…not money.
The power to put people in woodchippers. The power to have his two idiot sons build rape rooms.
The power to thumb his nose at the world while he played with gasses to murder Kurds.
He was unpredictable and unstable. He lacked conscience and morality. And he was unchecked domestically and unfazed by international condemnation. He skirted the sanctions and profited from his own people’s suffering.
He couldn’t develop anything even if he wanted to, anyway. The sanctions and the no-fly zone made sure of that. So why would he bother? Why risk everything to gain nothing? That was the position Saddam was in. Interested in self-preservation, and nothing more.
Perhaps, Levi…but his decisions to not allow the inspectors and to abide by the last UN Resolution…sure don’t bear that out. In fact, they militate against that notion.
Why would he do something and gain nothing? He thought he could stare us down, I suppose. Thumb his nose at the world and survive as he always had. Call our bluff.
He either had something to hide and needed time to clean it up…(maybe he had already sold out for $1 billion…to someone else)…or…he simply miscalculated the end game.
I think it was the former. He had something to hide…and either way…was going to be found out.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 3/31/2008 @ 8:43 amThat multiple aircrafts were hijacked and that they were used as weapons are wholly insignificant details. The goal is to stop the hijacking in the first place. Who cares what they wanted to do with it?
You obviously can’t look back and say for certain that things would have gone differently, but absolutely nothing was done about this. How hard is it to discreetly give a heads up to airports? Or even just investigate, a little bit. Bush apparently saw this thing and thought nothing of it, and he’s the ever-so-noble terrorist-fighter?
Like I said, you obviously can’t blame him for it, but at best, he was asleep at the wheel on the issue of terrorism.
The deregulation of the finance history has been going on for decades, and it’s coming to a breaking point, Bush is the President, and he’s paralyzed. He’s not doing anything about it. He wants more tax cuts and to send checks to people. That makes things worse. He’s had eight years to reverse these economic trends, and just like everything else, he’s dragging his feet.
It’s his job to be a troubleshooter, not just stand back and lament that there’s nothing he can do about this. At least fucking try, you know?
The federal government might not be the first line of defense against hurricanes, but the problem with New Orleans wasn’t the hurricane. That happens all the time. New Orleans’ problem was with massive flooding and general destruction, that’s pretty unprecedented on such a large and costly scale. How is local government supposed to rescue its citizens with no electricity, no running water, and no transportation? They were quite literally swamped, overwhelmed by the problems they were facing, which seemed to multiply exponentially in a very short amount of time.
It’s the job of the federal government to step in at that point. And they didn’t, because the guy that was put in charge of disaster relief had no experience in disaster relief.
There’s a constant thread here, on all these issues. Bush just sits back and waits for shit to happen, then pretends like there’s nothing he could have done because oh gee, I’m just the government, and you can’t trust the government to do anything!
That is what you Republicans believe, right? That government is the problem? A self-fulfilling prophecy.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/31/2008 @ 8:57 amTextbook BDS.
JD (5f0e11) — 3/31/2008 @ 9:10 amYes, he would have. He said he would leave Iraq forever for one billion dollars. He knew he was going to lose power anyway, why not give it up freely and try to score some quick cash?
There’s really nothing more illustrative of the kind of leader Saddam was and the kind of threat he posed to us than his 11th hour ‘please don’t kill me’ play.
he simply miscalculated the end game.
That’s exactly right, the other thing you said, not at all. I don’t think he ever thought America would invade Iraq, probably because he recognized how strategically fucking retarded that would be for us, but exactly, he miscalculated George Bush. Saddam’s greatest mistake was not realizing that George Bush was an irrational idiot in time to save his own skin, the only thing he was ever really after.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/31/2008 @ 9:11 amLevi, the flooding in NOLA was exactly a local problem. They were the ones who let the contracts for the construction of the walls, pumping stations, etc., and allowed the skimming that degraded the work. The Army Corps of Engineers oversaw the work that Congress funded; and, if some stick-in-the-mud bureaucrat got picky about doing the right thing which would upset the local graft machine, the local pols (including Congressmen & Senators) would climb all over them telling them not to interfere.
The President is not assigned by the Constitution to be a “trouble-shooter”. That function is assigned to Congress in its’ oversight of the Federal bureaucracy. The President, in fact, is quite constrained in just what he can, and cannot, do absent direction and consent by the Legislative Branch.
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 3/31/2008 @ 9:12 amLevi, I live in New Orleans….on the West Bank…63 houses in my neighborhood, out of 65, flooded…mine didn’t…
Can you answer this question for me?
Why were there 9,000 cars parked within the five city blocks of the Superdome and Convention Center areas of the city, nearly all of which were flooded after Katrina?
There are literally no residential areas in the area I describe. The Superdome is in the Business District, and the Convention Center is bordered by the Mississippi on one side, and one relatively large Condo area (about 400 units) on another. The remainder of all the area I describe is BUSINESS, with no residential areas.
(Hint: the answer is that those cars were driven there by people who stayed. Next question: Why didn’t they just drive out???)
reff (bff229) — 3/31/2008 @ 9:19 am“Listening to Levi/Leviticus/etc, doesn’t engender a great deal of confidence in the effecacy [sic] of the educational system in this country.
It is reassuring though, that we have one public institution that accomplishes what it sets out to do: The Military!”
-Another Drew
I love you too, AD.
I haven’t got much faith in the educational system of this country, either. It takes kids I know (like Ian and Matt, Class of ’08), chews them up (2.0 GPAs), and spits them out… right into Fort Benning. Graduate, nine day break, boot camp… and then you ship out to the middle of nowhere to fight an enemy that no one can really identify. “But I’ll have $30,000 when I get back”, as Matt says. Little Patriot.
And the really grating part is that smarmy little punks like me (with good grades and moderate means) get to go to the Hill (next semester) to learn how to make laws that self-righteous whiners like you have to follow.
Yeah: that’s a broken system if I ever saw one.
Allowing (from sheer benevolence) that the military is a “public institution”, I will also agree that it accomplishes exactly what it sets out to do: tricks poor kids with poor grades into spilling their blood so decadent assholes like you and I can continue to get 20 mpg.
Finally, regarding the failure of the educational system… you misspelled “efficacy”.
Leviticus (68eff1) — 3/31/2008 @ 9:20 amLeviticus….damn, are you channelling John Kerry these days???
reff (bff229) — 3/31/2008 @ 9:27 amBTW Levi, the Army doesn’t take boots right out of basic and throw them into Iraq, or any other combat situation.
First, you have to go to Infantry Training, and then Specialty Training, and then (perhaps) Advanced Infantry Training.
It is rarely that you get into a combat unit until you’ve been in for a year or more.
If you’re going to criticize an institution, the least you can do is to learn how, and within what parameters, it operates.
And, if you are an example of what will be populating the Hill (I assume you mean Capitol Hill, and that you are going to be a staffer/intern there), you will fit right in with the other know-nothings that fill-out the rosters of the Democrat caucus members.
Heaven Help Us!
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 3/31/2008 @ 9:27 amThat’s it? We’re all just wrong, huh?
Bush’s presidency has had every leg-up you could ask for, control of Congress, a weak opposition party, a media that will literally eat out of your hands, almost unanimous support after 9-11, and they’re tremendously unpopular despite all those advantages because… we’re fickle. And that dismisses the 2/3 of us that don’t approve? We’re just complaining about nothing?
Why aren’t we being sold on the merits of conservatism? You’ve had every opportunity to turn the government into anything you want, the people generally hate all your ideas, and we’re all just fickle? That’s the best you’ve got? Maybe your ideas are shitty.
As for the rest of that bullshit, stop throwing the Democrats in my face like I give two shits about them. And no, America isn’t viewed as favorably around the world as it once was, mostly because we’ve lost the moral high ground that we had against the Soviets with this absurd war and all the great public relations moments it’s given us, like Abu Graihb. The world still likes America and Americans, just not George Bush or his policies. That’ll change if we keep electing Republicans.
And yeah, I’m gonna keep talking about George Bush because that’s what I want to talk about. If you don’t, maybe you should leave, because this standing rule about how we shouldn’t talk about the President of the United States on a political website doesn’t make much sense to me.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/31/2008 @ 9:33 amAnother Drew…
Levees did not fail because of any fraud on anyone’s part in the Metro New Orleans area…the failure of the levees was a result of dredging along the levees to make the canals deeper for public use…the dredging made uneven the support for the levee walls, and the walls failed at their base, flipping out from the bottom, then settling down into the canals. As only two levee portions failed at any point, this reflects that the levees actually did what was expected. However, subsequent investigations show that there is a substantial weakness in nearly all the levee systems for a storm of the magnitude of Katrina, and the levees are being upgraded. There are fights between locals and the Army CoE about the system, and it is being proven daily that the Army CoE has done what they were told by locals, so, yes, in that sense, it is a local problem that has been allowed to fester. It had nothing to do with the failures of the levees in fact, only in theory.
Yes, pumping stations could have helped but in most cases, the workers were taken out of the city/suburbs for their personal safety, expecting to return in the first 12 hours or so after the brunt of the storm. Little did anyone know that the road systems in the outside areas would be blocked by downed trees, etc., preventing their return. My neighborhood, for example, would have only needed about 4-6 hours of pumping to stop all flooding. Other areas would have needed constant pumping, so, there would have been flooding even if the levees had held.
reff (bff229) — 3/31/2008 @ 9:40 amThat multiple aircrafts were hijacked and that they were used as weapons are wholly insignificant details. The goal is to stop the hijacking in the first place. Who cares what they wanted to do with it?
Levi – I don’t need to remind you that President Clinton got many warnings similar to the one that Bush received about terrorist use of airplanes and did nothing more than put some airports on higher alert status, do I? You are not so brain dead to have flushed those facts down your memory hole are you?
Your use of hindsight to build a case against Bush selectively using facts that aid you and ignoring those that don’t is a fascinating study of classic Bush Derangement Syndrome. You really have contributed nothing here.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/31/2008 @ 9:41 am“Leviticus….damn, are you channelling John Kerry these days???”
-reff
You had seven minutes, reff. Come up with something better next time.
Leviticus (ed6d31) — 3/31/2008 @ 9:57 amI don’t know, how would I know? Maybe they didn’t have anywhere to go, maybe they were lazy, maybe they thought it would all blow over, who knows?
The point is, when those levees broke, the problem transformed from a pretty standard hurricane event to city-wide total destruction. That’s not something local governments prepare for or are equipped to handle. In a scenario like that, the federal government needs to be all over that shit, with smart people that know what they’re doing, not horse pageant lawyers, or whatever the hell he was doing that ‘qualified’ him to be in charge of disaster relief in the eyes of George Bush.
That just didn’t happen. And Bush has been just as sluggish and indifferent on the recovery. I remember one of the first thing he wanted to do was repeal the law about employees on state and federal construction projects being entitled to prevailing wages. He wanted to rebuild New Orleans, but he wanted the builders earning slave wages, I guess.
Ugh, I had totally forgotten about that. It sucks when the President is so shitty that even the things he does that disgust you are forgotten because of new things that he does to disgust you.
Worst President of all time.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/31/2008 @ 9:59 amWhy would you remind me of that? Bush didn’t even do what Clinton did. Is that what you’re telling me? And guess what, Clinton never lost any fucking planes. Maybe that means that all you have to do is raise the alert status of airports to prevent hijackings? Bush didn’t even do that.
Can you recognize how this supports my argument?
It’s not selective, none of what I’ve said is false. They weren’t interested in terrorism, nobody in Bush’s cabinet was, those first 8 months in office. They had the stuff they wanted to focus on, and terrorism wasn’t one of those things. It’s semi-understandable, you get in office and you want to implement your agenda right away, hitting the ground running or whatever, but you can’t just neglect the responsibilities that you haven’t prioritized, which by all accounts, is exactly what Bush did with regards to terrorism in his first year.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/31/2008 @ 10:08 amHey, Patterico, DRJ….
Is it possible to see posts from particular people without f-bombs once in a while? I’m not trying to be all prudish, but the constant cursing is getting tiresome. But I am wondering if one poster can in fact write more than two paragraphs without cursing. I’m just sayin’
Eric Blair (2708f4) — 3/31/2008 @ 10:26 amLevi,
Following your reasoning, President Clinton didn’t do anything to stop a terrorist attack on something a lot bigger than an airplane: USS Cole guided missile destroyer.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/31/2008 @ 10:34 amEric,
Some sites let you selectively ignore or disable certain commenters. As far as I know, this site doesn’t have that ability and neither Patterico nor I have the time to monitor it 24/7. If you have a concern like that (and I know how you feel), email Patterico at gmail.com. It’s helpful if you can include links to the comments or thread.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/31/2008 @ 10:37 amLevi, your understanding of each of the events you describe about Bush’s supposed incompetence shows only your own incompetence – not Bush’s.
Example: your statement “and that they were used as weapons are wholly insignificant details“. This is an amazingly stupid statement. That the aircraft were to be used as weapons meant that every tactic to deal with a hijacking was obsolete. The responses that had been developed by authorities were obsolete. The advice to aircrews and passengers was obsolete. The required timeliness of response – obsolete. But you completely lack the basic comprehension of that fact. Again, you only show your ignorance.
What is hilarious is that every excuse you use to justify your opinion of President Bush is wrong, a myth or a flat out brazen lie. And we all know that if that is pointed out to you, your opinion will not change. That’s why your opinion is not merely wrong but plainly irrational.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/31/2008 @ 10:42 amLevi, here is the conversation in which it was reflected, FOURTH HAND…to you, the consumer…that Saddam would take $1 billion dollars.
Let’s be straight on this…the Egyptians HINTED, that Saddam wanted to KEEP ALL THE INFORMATION ON WMD’s…and get $1 billion dollars to exile himself. So, here’s how YOU got the information…the 1) Egyptians “hinted”, 2)President Bush told Anzar; 3)The Spaniard Socialists tried to embarass Anzar and Pres. Bush; 4)So they gave it to a socialist newspaper; 5) and it was reprinted in our MetaStasisMedia
By the time it got to you…the references to NOT wanting war, and Saddam wanting the WMD info…was “mysteriously” left out.
Just thought you might like to know. I suspect it won’t matter, because you don’t like Republicans, President Bush and this info won’t be enlightening…but it might be to others who haven’t seen it.
Full text of the top secret transcript of the conversation between US President George W. Bush and Spain’s Prime Minister Jos√© Maria Aznar at Crawford, Texas, on February 22, 2003, as printed in the Madrid daily newspaper El Pa√≠s on September 26, 2007 (translation: Jos√© Guardia)
President Bush: We are in favor of pursuing a second resolution by the Security Council, and we would like to have it quickly. We would like to announce it on Monday or Tuesday [March 24 or 25, 2003].
PM Aznar: Better on Tuesday, after the meeting of the European Union’s General Affairs Council. It’s important to keep the momentum of the EU Summit resolution [in Brussels on Monday, February 17, 2003]. We would prefer to wait until Tuesday.
Bush: It could be on Monday afternoon, considering the time difference. Next week, in any case. We envision a resolution that doesn’t contain mandatory elements, that doesn’t mention the use of force, and that states that Saddam Hussein has been unable to comply with his obligations. Such a resolution could be voted for by many. It would be similar to the one for Kosovo [on June 10, 1999].
Aznar: Would it be submitted to the Security Council before, and independently of, a parallel declaration?
Condoleezza Rice: Actually, there wouldn’t be a parallel declaration. We are thinking about a resolution that is as simple as possible, without many details about compliance that could be used by Saddam Hussein as steps not to comply. We are talking with Blix [chief of UN inspection] and others in his team about items that could be in the resolution.
Bush: Saddam won’t change and will keep playing games. The moment of getting rid of him has arrived. That’s it. As for me, from now on, I’ll try to use the most subtle rhetoric I can, while we look for the resolution to be approved. If some country vetoes [the resolution] we’ll go in. Saddam is not disarming. We must catch him right now. We have shown an incredible amount of patience until now. We have two weeks. In two weeks, our military will be ready. I think we’ll achieve a second resolution. In the Security Council, we have three African countries [Cameroon, Angola, Guinea], the Chileans, the Mexicans. I’ll talk with all of them, also with Putin, naturally. We’ll be in Baghdad at the end of March. There’s a 15% chance that Saddam will be dead by then or will have flown. But these possibilities won’t be there until we have shown our resolution. The Egyptians are talking with Saddam Hussein. It seems he has hinted he’d be willing to leave if he’s allowed to take 1 billion dollars and all the information on WMDs. Ghadaffi told Berlusconi that Saddam wants to leave. Mubarak tells us that in these circumstances there is a big chance that he’ll get killed.
We would like to act with the mandate of the UN. If we act militarily, we’ll do it with great precision and focus on our targets to as high a degree as possible. We’ll decimate the loyal troops, and the regular army will quickly know what it’s all about. We sent a very clear message to Saddam Hussein’s generals: we will treat them as war criminals. We know they have stocked big amounts of dynamite to blow up the bridges and other infrastructure, and the oil wells. We are planning to take control of those wells very soon. Also, the Saudis will help us by putting as much oil as necessary on the market. We are developing a very strong aid package. We can win without destruction. We are already working on the post-Saddam Iraq, and I think there’s a basis for a better future. Iraq has a good bureaucracy and a relatively strong civil society. It could be organized as a federation. Meanwhile we’re doing all we can to fulfill the political needs of our friends and allies.
Aznar: It’s very important to have that second resolution. It will be very different to act with or without it. It will be very advisable to have a sufficient majority in the Security Council backing that resolution. In fact, having that majority is more important than whether some country vetoes. We think that the resolution should, among other things, clearly state that Saddam Hussein has squandered his opportunity.
Bush: Yes, of course. That would be better to mention than “the necessary means.”
Aznar: Saddam Hussein hasn’t cooperated, hasn’t disarmed – we should summarize all his non-compliance and make a more elaborate message. That, for example, would allow Mexico to change [its opposition].
Bush: The resolution will be made in a way that can help you. I don’t care much about the actual content.
Aznar: We’ll send you some text.
Bush: We don’t have any text. We only have one goal: that Saddam must disarm. We can’t allow Saddam to drag his heels until the summer. After all, he has had four months in this last stage, and that’s more than enough time to disarm.
Aznar: Such text would help us to be in a position to introduce the resolution [at the Security Council], to be its co-authors, and to convince many people to sign it.
Bush: Perfect.
Aznar: I’m meeting Chirac next Wednesday [February 16]. The resolution will be circulating by now.
Bush: I think this is a great idea. Chirac knows the situation perfectly. His intelligence services have explained it all to him. The Arabs are sending Chirac a very clear message: Saddam Hussein must go. The problem is that Chirac thinks he is “Mister Arab,” and the truth is that he’s making their lives impossible. But I don’t want any rivalry with Chirac. We certainly have different points of view, but I’d like that to be all. Give him my best regards. True! The less rivalry he feels there is between us, the better it’ll be for us all.
Aznar: How will the resolution and the report by inspectors work with each other?
Rice: Actually there won’t be a report on February 28; the inspectors will submit a written report on March 1, and they won’t appear before the Security Council until March 6 or 7, 2003. We don’t have high hopes about that report. Just like on previous occasions, they’ll cover their bases. My impression is that Blix will be more negative now about the Iraqis’ intention. After they appear at the Security Council, we forecast a vote one week later. Meanwhile, the Iraqis will try to convince that they’re complying. It won’t be true and it won’t be enough, even though they’ll likely announce the destruction of some missiles.
Bush: This is like Chinese water torture. We must put an end to it.
Aznar: I agree, but it would be good to have as many people on board as possible. Be a little patient.
Bush: I’ve run out of patience. I won’t go further than mid-March.
Aznar: I’m not asking you to have infinite patience. I’m just asking you to try as hard as possible to make everything work.
Bush: Countries like Mexico, Chile, Angola and Cameroon must know that it’s US security at play and that they must act according to their friendship to us. [Chilean president Ricardo] Lagos must know that the Free Trade Agreement is pending ratification in the Senate and that a negative attitude on this issue could jeopardize that ratification. Angola is receiving funds from the Millennium Account that could also be compromised. And Putin must know that his position is endangering Russia’s relationship with the United States.
Aznar: Tony [Blair] would like to wait until March 14.
Bush: I prefer March 10. This is like the good cop, bad cop routine. I don’t mind being the bad cop and letting Blair be the good cop.
Aznar: Is it true that there’s a chance that Saddam will go into exile?
Bush: Yes, there is. There’s even a chance that he’ll be assassinated.
Aznar: An exile with some kind of guarantees?
Bush: No guarantees. He’s a thief, a terrorist, a war criminal. Compared to Saddam, Milosevic would be a Mother Teresa. When we go in, we are going to discover many more crimes, and we’ll take him to the International Criminal Court at The Hague. Saddam Hussein believes he has escaped. He thinks that France and Germany have stopped the process of his prosecution. He also thinks that last week’s anti-war demonstrations [Saturday, February 15] protect him. And he believes I’m weakened. But people around him know that things are totally different. They know their future is in exile or in a coffin. This is why it’s so important to keep the pressure up. Ghaddafi is indirectly telling us that this is the only thing that can finish him. Saddam’s only strategy is delay, delay, delay.
Aznar: Actually, the best success would be to win the game without firing a single shot when entering Baghdad.
Bush: To me, it would be the best outcome. I don’t want war. I know what war is like. I know the death and destruction they bring. I am the one who has to comfort the mothers and wives of the dead. Of course, for us [a diplomatic solution] would be the best one. Also, it would save 50 billion dollars.
Aznar: We need you to help us with our public opinion.
Bush: We will do all we can. On Wednesday, I’m going to talk about the situation in the Middle East, proposing a new peace system that you already know about, and about weapons of mass destruction, the benefits of a free society, and I’ll put Iraq’s history in a bigger context. That may help you.
Aznar: What we are doing is a very profound change for Spain and the Spanish citizens. We are changing the last 200 years of the country’s politics.
Bush: I’m guided by a historical sense of responsibility, as you are. When history judges us in a few years, I don’t want people wondering why Bush, Aznar, or Blair didn’t confront their responsibilities. At the end of the day, what people want is to enjoy freedom. A short time ago, in Romania, I was reminded of Ceaucescu’s example: it only took a woman to call him a liar for the whole regime to come crumbling down. It’s the irrepressible power of freedom. I’m convinced I’ll achieve the resolution.
Aznar: That’s better than good.
Bush: I made the decision of going to the Security Council. In spite of some internal disagreements within my administration, I told my people that we needed to work with our friends. It will be great to have a second resolution.
Aznar: The only thing that worries me about you is your optimism.
Bush: I’m optimistic because I believe I’m doing the right thing. I am at peace with myself. We have the responsibility of facing a serious threat to peace. It irks me tremendously to contemplate the insensitivity of Europeans toward the suffering that Saddam inflicts on the Iraqis. Maybe because he’s dark-skinned, distant, and Muslim, many Europeans think that all this doesn’t matter. I will never forget what Solana [European High Representative of the Common Foreign and Security Policy] asked me once: why do Americans think that Europeans are anti-Semitic and unable to confront their responsibilities? That defensive attitude is terrible. I must admit that I have a magnificent relationship with Kofi Annan.
Aznar: He shares your ethical concerns.
Bush: The more Europeans attack me, the stronger I am at home.
Aznar: We should try to bring together your strength with the support of Europeans.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 3/31/2008 @ 10:45 amWhy would you remind me of that? Bush didn’t even do what Clinton did. Is that what you’re telling me? And guess what, Clinton never lost any fucking planes. Maybe that means that all you have to do is raise the alert status of airports to prevent hijackings? Bush didn’t even do that.
Think, Levi, Think
It means most of the warnings were BS. Was there anything to indicate this one was special? Use your super IQ and powers of hindsight to figure it out for us.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/31/2008 @ 10:47 amThere should be a warning posted before comments like this one, so we can cover our monitors.
This envisions a scenario when a hobo comes to a party at your house uninvited, drops a deuce in the middle of a sashimi platter, and then tells you if you do not like it, you are free to leave.
JD (75f5c3) — 3/31/2008 @ 10:51 amEric – I am as guilty as most of cursing, though I have been working on rhetorical restraint. Sorry.
JD (75f5c3) — 3/31/2008 @ 10:52 amThe point is, when those levees broke, the problem transformed from a pretty standard hurricane event to city-wide total destruction.
Levi – The point is the city was ordered to be evacuated before the storm hit and the city ignored its plan for the event. My personal favorite is the pictures of the 400 flooded school buses that could have been used to evacuated buses before the levees broke. The locals have the responsibility for responding first and they fucked up big time. Acknowledge that before you point the finger at the feds, Levi, and then we can have a discussion.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/31/2008 @ 10:54 amI feel like I’m on a soap opera, The Young and the Ignorant. Time to give it a rest for a while.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/31/2008 @ 10:55 amThat’s not how I’d reason that at all.
First off, did Clinton get a memo that said “Terrorists determined to attack U.S. navy ships?” I really don’t know, did he? Because that’s the only reason I’d see for you to bring this totally unrelated and dissimilar example up.
And second, nothing could have been done to stop the bombing of the Cole, ported in a Muslim country, on the other side of the world. That’s just the nature of our military. They’re vulnerable to attack when they’re not in ports or at bases. That’s not at all similar to the ease with which you could disrupt an airplane hijacking, in our own country, by beefing up security a little bit, given that these people were all over our watch lists.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/31/2008 @ 10:59 amWell, obviously if the objective is to react to airplane hijackings, what they’re being used for does make a difference. But that’s a stupid fucking strategy, why give them the plane? The goal of counter-terrorism is to prevent the terrorist act in the first place. And the point is, in that memo, there was enough actionable intelligence that it’s not unreasonable to surmise that maybe, just maybe, we could have prevented 9-11, if something, if anything had been done.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/31/2008 @ 11:10 amLevi,
There are reports that Able Danger issued warnings about Aden prior to the Cole bombing.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/31/2008 @ 11:14 amThe sheer unadulterated mendoucheity of these kinds of pronouncements is breath taking. People like Levi have been suffering from end stage BDS since the elections of 2000. Pray tell, Levi, what constraints you would have accepted, prior to 9/11, had President Bush determined that a threat warning of “OBL determined to strike at American targets, may use airplanes”. This type of threat assessment is so vague as to time and place and delivery so as to be meaningless, yet you give it such weight, based on the used of your retrospectoscope, to make it actionable. It would be laughable if it were not sad.
JD (75f5c3) — 3/31/2008 @ 11:14 amIn the land of the Whoppers, this is like that freaky big-headed King of the Whoppers.
JD (75f5c3) — 3/31/2008 @ 11:16 amWow, you’ve got me all figured out, don’t you?
You don’t think I know where I got this from? You think you have to teach me about things that I bring up in the first place? My guess is you had to go read up on all that shit for the first time after I brought it up. I mean great, you can copy transcripts that I’m obviously familiar with and that I’ve already read, good for you!
I’m guessing my points about what this offer of Saddam’s says about Saddam’s motivations and psyche circa 2003 are still sailing over your head, too?
Levi (76ef55) — 3/31/2008 @ 11:18 amYeah? Fucking great. Issued warnings to who? To Clinton? To the Navy? To the boat? To Vanilla Ice?
Also, ‘There are reports’ is not a good way to start out making an assertion.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/31/2008 @ 11:20 amAs someone on another blog pointed out, Churchill once said, “A fanatic is someone who won’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”
Steverino (e00589) — 3/31/2008 @ 11:21 amThere was enough to warrant a phone call, wouldn’t you say? “Hey, someone look more into this, and maybe warn the airports.” Why couldn’t he do that, at least?
I know there wasn’t enough in that memo to drop everything and devote the entire government to it, but as it turns out, this memo did accurately warn against a credible, imminent threat, and it slid across the President’s desk in plenty of time, and he did nothing. You would have afforded Al Gore this same ‘Oh, what could he have done?’ generosity, I’m sure?
Levi (76ef55) — 3/31/2008 @ 11:26 amLevi,
You really aren’t intelligent, are you? You are the tailgunner trying to be the pilot. All you see is where we’ve been, but you can’t see where the Hell you are going or the dangers you are about to encounter.
PCD (5ebd0e) — 3/31/2008 @ 11:28 amWhat’s this thread about?
Oh yeah, the Iraq war.
Who started the Iraq war?
Oh yeah, George Bush.
I’m chastised and ridiculed for talking about George Bush once again, in a thread about George Bush’s policies.
Typical Republicans, all of you.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/31/2008 @ 11:30 amDRJ, JD:
It’s not a big deal, but I appreciate the thought. I thought of it the other day when I saw a sitemeter that counted vulgarities on the associated pages and assigned a Curse Rating.
People feel strongly, and that is great. It takes all sorts, and no one is cursing at me.
At least not here!
My father is a retired firefighter, and has always cursed like a proverbial sailor. When he met my wife’s parents, my mother had nagged him endlessly about his language.
So when we sat down in a restaurant, I thought that my father had had a stroke and was aphasic! Truth is, he was self-editing, and the removed profanity was leaving “holes” in his speech!
True story.
Eric Blair (2708f4) — 3/31/2008 @ 11:32 amAll any of us have seen is where we’ve been. There are lessons to be learned from where we’ve been. You can learn lessons that apply to our war in Iraq today as far back as the Crusades. The Soviets bankrupted themselves doing exactly what we’re trying to do. Even 1994 Dick Cheney can teach us something about quagmires.
And no, I’m not trusting your prognostications about where we’re going anymore. Why would I? All of your predictions about Iraq have been wrong to date. And you still think people should listen to you, and trust in your guesswork? You’re on strike number like 600, you actually believe you should get more swings?
Levi (76ef55) — 3/31/2008 @ 11:42 amEric Blair,
What a terrific story! I’m glad you shared it.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/31/2008 @ 11:43 amLevi,
Your response to Able Danger is to lecture me on debating tactics? Where’s your curiosity?
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/31/2008 @ 11:54 amWrong. That memo laid out in vague, broad, and general terms a warning that could have been issued on any day since the late 1980’s. It offered nothing to investigate as to time, place, or mechanism.
The rest of your tripe is assertion, speculation, uninformed opinion, and outright lying, on a good day.
JD (75f5c3) — 3/31/2008 @ 12:13 pmI asked four questions of you about it, right away. See all those question marks? There’s my curiosity, right there. And here you are, wasting a post by not answering my questions. Can we get on with it?
Also, it was one sentence. Either tell me about it, or don’t. I’m not gonna wait around for you to spring some trap on me or whatever, just make a point if you have a point to make.
And yeah, your tactics suck. The Cole is a terrible metaphor. I mean whatever you could say about Able Danger, the bombing of the Cole is in no way, shape, or form even remotely similar to the 9-11 attacks. I might as well bring up the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand if we’re just listing terror attacks and saying they’re all the similar to one another.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/31/2008 @ 12:19 pmTypical Republicans, all of you
I would be fascinated to know what comprises a “typical Republican” AND a “typical Democrat” in your mind.
I don’t think DRJ or I have been unduly harsh with you…do you? Are you open to other viewpoints or do you come to this site to “lecture Republicans”…who are “typical” and not worthy of debate. If so, why?
I’m serious about the questions…why would you come here…to discuss these matters, if you don’t want to know what other people think? And if you don’t believe any of those you find here hold worthy points of view?
Persuasion, argumentation and debate are noble endeavors. I think you will find that DRJ is as gentlemanly and intelligent person as any on this medium. Many others here as well. That’s why I have landed here myself…primarily because of DRJ…but also because of the quality and and intellectual standards set by Pat and many, many of the regular commenters. There are numerous choices…but very few hold the intellectual standards set here, Levi.
It is far from “typical”. I am often humbled by the breadth and depth of discourse and the eloquence with which issues are discussed.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 3/31/2008 @ 12:26 pmLevi,
Your problem on this site is not that your civility is a thin veneer that you lose once you’re contradicted. Nor that you slip into profanity the way a baby slips into tears and wails if you take away its pacifier.
Your problem is that you’re tedious, uninteresting and boring.
nk (34c5da) — 3/31/2008 @ 12:29 pmI don’t spring traps, Levi, I discuss. But I won’t be discussing things with you.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/31/2008 @ 12:30 pmIt mentions that bin Laden wants to hijack airplanes, you don’t think that narrows it down? That’s the mechanism right there, which also kind of tells you the place: airports, probably major airports in big cities, where middle-easterners can be lost in a crowd. Time’s the only thing you can’t make a guess at, but time’s the least important thing if you have the how and where. You just hold up at your chokepoint and wait for the bozos. Granted, this is a lot of hindsight, but those are some snap inferences you can make about that memo in like 2 seconds.
And it is not hard to tell airports in major cities that they need to beef up security, or to investigate a little further, that obviously would have been prudent, in this case. Remember the FBI had some info on these guys learning how to fly, but not land airplanes? Maybe if Bush had the good sense to tell someone to look into this memo he got, that someone could have connected the dots?
I don’t blame Bush for letting it happen, nobody really thought such a thing could happen, but man, to not do a single fucking thing?
That just fits in with the rest of this incompetent administration I guess. Tragic.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/31/2008 @ 12:32 pmYou discuss, with one word sentences, huh? That’s discussion?
[Yes, Levi, I’m discussing. You’re lecturing. — DRJ]
Levi (76ef55) — 3/31/2008 @ 12:34 pmRemember the FBI had some info on these guys learning how to fly, but not land airplanes?
Gorelick Wall, Clinton Administration, FISA Court – Big problems communicating that came out in investigating 9/11. Not related to Bush. Google it. Learn something.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/31/2008 @ 12:37 pmBut no so tedious, uninteresting, and boring that you and dozens of others have responded hundreds of times to what I’ve had to say, I guess.
And I know, I know, you’re all just making fun of the liberal. Whatever. These types of ‘You’re boring! You suck!’ detours or pathetic as they are humorous.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/31/2008 @ 12:41 pmSo predictable.
If I bring something up, what do you think, that I don’t know anything about it and am just reciting gossip I heard? I’m well aware of the communication problems involved, my only point was that maybe, if Bush had cared to do anything, somebody, somewhere along the line, might have stumbled upon this information the FBI had, and put two and two together. It’s a pure hypothetical. Maybe you should learn how to read?
Levi (76ef55) — 3/31/2008 @ 12:49 pmNo Levi, it’s not often we get a specimen as truly ignorant as you wandering in here who perseverates on Bush hatred. Most honest people are willing to acknowledge their factual innaccuracies, while you are not. That’s what makes you special. That’s a Levi feature, not a bug. Gold star for your forehead.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/31/2008 @ 12:52 pmMaybe you should learn how to read?
Maybe you should learn how to express yourself clearly.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/31/2008 @ 12:54 pmTell a joke for crying out loud, Levi. Here, I’ll start:
Obama and Hillary walk into a bar. And the bartender says: (Pick one)
1. I’m sorry, we don’t accept food stamps here.
nk (34c5da) — 3/31/2008 @ 12:58 pm2. Norman Hsu and Tony Rezko just left.
3. What is this? Some kind of a joke?
C’mon folks, he said himself, just let him rant and stomp in the corner by himself.
paul from fl (47918a) — 3/31/2008 @ 1:16 pmTypical Republicans are self-described conservatives that inexplicably hold this Christ-like reverence for people like George Bush that are also self-described conservatives, but aren’t in practice. It has to do with the absolutism that religion brings into politics. People figure, “I believe in Jesus, George Bush believes in Jesus, we can’t be wrong!” This kind of faith-based reassurance virtually eliminates the ability of Typical Republicans to self-criticize or reflect, and totally precludes them from ever admitting they were wrong about something, or more accurately, someone. (BUSH)
Nothing about George Bush is conservative, yet the Republican party is responsible for him and his policies. How’s that? He tricked you. That’s all. He feeds you this bullshit about tax cuts and gay marriage and you think he’s bona fide, but then he turns around and shits all over the ideas you all extol. And you’ve stuck with him, every step of the way, because you’re incapable of admitting you were wrong about him. That’s why I get blasted for mentioning a sitting Republican President on a Republican website, you’d all like to file him away and pretend like he never happened. I mean, I’d be embarrassed too if I had been calling this guy the next Reagan and lavishing him with praise all these years, but jesus christ, know when to cut away, ya know?
Typical Democrats? Who cares? They’re the most politically naive and afraid group of Americans there have ever been, at a time when we needed their oversight. And anyways, you can’t typify the rank-and-file Democrats as easily as you can the rank-and-file Republicans, they haven’t been defending and excusing these shitty Congressional Democrats the past few years, like Republicans have.
I’m fairly sure I know what most of you think, I just want to know why. Why put up with this shit? How did McCain, the candidate most similar to Bush, wrap up the nomination? Why keep believing anything George Bush or conservative media figures have to say? I thought we were at a point where people could finally start getting on the same page about this disaster of a war, but yeah, it seems pointless as long as you all remain convinced that it was the right thing to do. That’s the dealbreaker for me right there, if you haven’t come around to the conclusion, or even entertained the idea, which describes some of you, I’m guessing, that Iraq wasn’t a smart move, well.. I just don’t think you can be reasoned with.
I don’t know, I don’t care what people think. I mainly write this stuff for me, I like to put my thoughts down. I’m not trying to convince anybody, I don’t think I can, but being in a hostile environment where every single one of my words is parsed to the extreme might make me a better writer. Maybe that’s why I’m here.
Your turn!
Levi (76ef55) — 3/31/2008 @ 1:19 pm“this memo did accurately warn against a credible, imminent threat”
Brazen lie as I’ve said before, Levi. The memo repeated an vague interest that was years old and lacked any specificity as to the time, place, manner or perpetrators. Put airports on alert? For what? And for how long? If that intel item justified special action by itself, then the US air travel industry would have been on “alert” for literally years since it was that stale.
Your basic lack of honesty coupled with your enthusiastic ignorance makes discussion with you hilarious but unproductive.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/31/2008 @ 1:37 pmOkay, again.
PLACE: It has to do with airplanes, airplanes are usually at airports.
MANNER: Don’t know how you’re confused about this, it says he wanted to hijack planes, and hey, what else is a terrorist going to do with an airplane?
PERPETRATORS: Not sure how you don’t get this either. It’s a memo about Osama. So, you’d be looking for Muslims and referencing terror watch lists.
It’s not all as impossible as you make it seem.
Um, for terrorists. Lots of the hijackers were on watch lists, again.
I don’t know, until you investigate a little bit and either eliminate the threat or can safely deem it fizzled. All I’m asking for is a tiny bit more than a ‘meh.’ I doubt we even got that.
And because of 9-11, they’ve been on alert for years. So it’s not like they can’t do it.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/31/2008 @ 1:51 pmSo you believe everyone here is a religious zealot, bathed in Christian absolutism? How do you come to that conclusion? What evidence do you have about the religious beliefs of the commenters here or DRJ or Patterico? Or me?
This “disaster” of a war…if we don’t reach your conclusion…we can’t be reasoned with? So anyone who believes that Saddam Hussein presented a clear and present danger…is patently unreasonable? Or was any military action against him patently unreasonable? At what point did you come to that conclusion…before…or after…we toppled him?
You paint with a broad brush, Levi. And you seem so angry. If Republicans clearly don’t float your boat…and Democrats are naive and afraid…1) where do you fall on the political spectrum and 2)which candidate(s) meet your standards for courage and intellect?
The debate stemming from what to do about State Sponsored Terrorism…3)did you advocate sanctions? 4)Were you ok with imposing sanctions on Iraq, and 5)do you believe they were effective?
6)Would you ever advocate taking the battle to terrorists? 7)If so, how? 8)If not, why not?
9) In what ways is McCain similar to President Bush? 10)In what ways does he differ?
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 3/31/2008 @ 1:57 pmAirports where, though? You do know there are airports outside of the US, right? You also know that the US’s jurisdiction wouldn’t apply to those airports, right? Do you also know that Al Qaeda had tried to hijack airplanes in the Philippines? So a vague warning about hijacking planes could mean any airport in the world.
It’s pretty easy to use assumed names, fake IDs, etc. Just because a name is on a watch list doesn’t mean the list can’t be bypassed.
Do you seriously believe that absent a 9/11 attack that the American public would have accepted the level of security we’re now subjected to? Even if the public went along for a little while, after there were no attacks, the people would be grumbling about the unnecessary security measures.
Steverino (e00589) — 3/31/2008 @ 2:11 pmLevi, here’s the available transcript (from CNN) of the Bin Laden determined to strike in US PDB you keep saying warned George Bush of exactly what bin Laden was going to do on 9/11:
=============================================
=============================================
Now, since I’m just a dumb hick like everyone else here (excluding you, naturally), I still don’t see where this PDB spells out the plans for crashing planes into the Pentagon, White House, and World Trade Center. Take pity on us ignorant folk, Levi, and please highlight for us the exact, specific text in this briefing that George Bush should have paid more attention to.
Shad (36f787) — 3/31/2008 @ 2:14 pmI’d like to take personal issue with a couple of the claims being made here and at Snopes.
1. “aplomb” claims that there was only one hostile fire death under Clinton. Wrong, genius. Remember Somalia? That’s the place that Clinton’s feckless foreign policy led to bodies, plural, being dragged in the streets. Along with the rangers, operators and aviators whose sacrifice is depicted in the movie “Black Hawk Down” which even the historically blind and ignorant (that would be you, “aplomb”, might have seen, there were KIAs from indirect fire after the incident, and KIAs in other contacts that don’t get the Hollywood treatment.
Some of those people were friends of mine.
2. In November 1995, Al-Qaeda suicide bombers killed five Americans at an office supporting the Saudi Arabian National Guard.
3. Remember Khobar Towers? Uh, who was president in June, 1998? The Clinton DOD did not even make a serious effort to find the responsible individuals, but left it to the terror-sponsoring Saudis, who, amazingly enough, couldn’t figure out who did it. Clinton (through Bill Cohen and Sheila Widnall, two bureaucrats who add up to complete wastes of sperm and egg) DID find time to blame the Air Force unit commander for the attack, but never raised his voice to the Saudi terror sponsors — who poured millions into his post-presidential career.
4. USS Cole. 17 killed.
Finally, the CRS (which is controlled by the Democrat majority) and Snopes.com (which tries to be fair, but is also run by liberal Democrats) both suppress the zero for Carter’s years by only listing 1980. Casualties were high, particularly among aviators, due to deep cuts in training and maintenance funds and extensive recruiting of low-quality individuals for service support jobs (a male with some kind of high school diploma needed only to score in the sixteenth percentile on the ASVAB — which centered lower than the population IQ median at the time — meaning you could be retarded an get in).
Thanks for all the concern that our liberal friends have for us soldiers, but I was unfortunate enough to serve in both the Carter and Clinton presidencies, and I’ve seen the human cost that civilian leadership contemptuous of the military produces.
Kevin R.C. O'Brien (88bf29) — 3/31/2008 @ 2:21 pmLevi, that’s the best you can do?
What I cannot determine is whether you really are that ignorant or will just say anything no matter how lacking in credibility to attack Bush.
Either way, your comments are not those of an adult.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/31/2008 @ 2:21 pmMANNER: Don’t know how you’re confused about this, it says he wanted to hijack planes, and hey, what else is a terrorist going to do with an airplane?
Are you actually THAT bloody ignorant?
Up to that point, the thing terrorists did with hijacked airplanes is hold the folks in them hostage until they got what they wanted.
Not use them as bombs.
Beyond your near-psychotic hatred and parody of those who disagree with you, this really does show how unbearably biased and nearly idiotic you are.
Foxfier (74f1c8) — 3/31/2008 @ 2:31 pmPay close attention; it doesn’t have to in order for the President to take action. There’s not very many situations where you intercept the terrorists’ whole god damn plan, it’s usually bits and pieces, here and there, that have to be fit together. This piece, that says Osama might try to hijack some airplanes, is a huge piece, that tells you a lot about the other pieces, the pieces that you’re missing.
The point of counter-terrorism, again, is to prevent. We don’t need every detail, we don’t need to know it all, we just need to know enough that we have a shot at preventing it from happening. This memo that states that bin Laden wanted an airplane gives you plenty to start with. Call up some airports, send out some agents, do a little bit of investigating, maybe it’s bullshit, maybe it’s real,but it’s their job to check into shit like this. What bothers me is that it apparently didn’t even pique Bush’s interest for a second.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/31/2008 @ 3:12 pm“This piece, that says Osama might try to hijack some airplanes, is a huge piece, that tells you a lot about the other pieces, the pieces that you’re missing.”
That is plainly ridiculous. You continue to make silly statements like this. All while ignoring that the crap briefing ( to call useless garbage like this from the CIA “intel” is a joke ) in question was not merely vague but three years old.
Still not adult.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/31/2008 @ 3:51 pmNow Levi claims to be a counterterrorism expert! Unbelievable.
Do you consult for the CIA? I hear they need people.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/31/2008 @ 3:51 pmThe point of counter-terrorism, again, is to prevent. We don’t need every detail, we don’t need to know it all, we just need to know enough that we have a shot at preventing it from happening.
And the Left would have stood by, and said “Rejoice! Bush is protecting us!”
If you actually believe this, you are the retard.
Paul (b8f307) — 3/31/2008 @ 4:08 pmLevi is so good at this, I’ll bet he could find bin Laden in a heart beat, especially if you give him his customary hindsight.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/31/2008 @ 4:24 pmHeck, daleyrocks, I could find him with hindsight.
Sudan had bin Laden, offered him to Bill Clinton.
Clinton said no.
Paul (b8f307) — 3/31/2008 @ 4:32 pmThat’s kind of the assumption I operate under, yes. Nothing else makes sense to me. George Bush isn’t a conservative, he has no conservative credentials, yet there’s this inexplicable loyalty to him that I can’t explain any other way. If you’re a fiscal conservative, you have no reason to like Bush. If you’re a small government conservative, you have no reason to like Bush. If you’re a social conservative, well, that’s not real conservatism to begin with.
Couple that with the demonstrated stupidity and glaring incompetence of the man, I don’t know why any real conservatives still support him. So I assume it’s a religious thing.
I don’t think you can be reasoned with, no. The math of this war is such that America can not win, no matter how you define that. There’s not even a faint glimmer on the horizon that we’ll receive any sort of material or strategic benefit from Iraq that recoups even a tiny fraction of the ridiculous amount of resources we’ve dumped into the country. Our credibility is shot, and our military is being over-stretched. And we still don’t even know what our goals there are. It used to be about defending America from a madman with nukes, then it was about liberating the Iraqis, now it’s about mediating a thousand year old religious feud and maybe preventing a genocide. Will we accomplish this goal, or will it change into something else again? Where’s the goal that brings the troops back?
This is a coherent foreign policy? An intelligent, responsible way to conduct a war that’s supposed to ‘win hearts and minds?’ I know Saddam was bad, but as Bill Maher put it, “Stupidity can get more people killed than evil.” And that’s where we’re at.
I’ve come to these conclusions the way any reasonable person should have arrived at these same conclusions, by watching this clusterfuck unfold over the past 5 years. It’s just not worth it.
Anti-Republican, I guess. I really could have gone either way when Bush took office. I was his to lose, and he lost me.
Obama. Everything about Hillary is a joke, but ugh, I guess I’d vote for her, if I had to.
I was more into Ninja Turtles than politics when those decisions were being made, but looking back, sanctions certainly seemed to have prevented Saddam from getting his hands on anything too dangerous, since, you know, we haven’t found anything too dangerous in his country. All I could say is that the sanctions were preferable to this stupid war, as almost anything would have been.
Of course I would. Iraq’s not where the terrorists were though. George Bush is the one you should be asking those questions to.
The perpetual presence in the Middle East thing, mainly.
He’s obviously a little more intelligent, and I don’t think we’d have nearly as many problems with him appointing totally unqualified dumbshits to important government positions, but on policy he looks like a carbon copy.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/31/2008 @ 6:03 pm“I’ve come to these conclusions the way any reasonable person should have arrived at these same conclusions, by watching this clusterfuck unfold over the past 5 years.”
We’ve seen that the other conclusions you’ve reached are not based on facts.
So far, with this one, you are batting 1000.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/31/2008 @ 6:11 pmTo be slightly more diplomatic than SPQR– and thus raise the threat of the end of time:
Levi:
Please elaborate each step of this “cluster F*” that you mention.
Preferably in a simple, clean manner– without cursing, if you can manage that– then wait for people to make simple, clean responses to your assertions, preferably with links to proof.
Any other route will just be more of the same.
Foxfier (74f1c8) — 3/31/2008 @ 6:18 pmThe math of this war is such that America can not win, no matter how you define that.
Levi, you’re a noise generator and a waste of space. You’re also on my ignore list and I hope on everybody else’s as well.
nk (34c5da) — 3/31/2008 @ 6:29 pmFox, gladly. No promises about swearing though.
1.) The first part of the clusterfuck (woops!)involved the long string of lies the Bush administration told the American public about why we need to go to Iraq and how easy the whole thing would be.
2.) After the fall of Baghdad, Bush didn’t secure the munitions dumps all over the country, allowing them to fall into the hands of god-knows-who, and didn’t enforce any sort of order or law. Cue the looting. Imagine every American artifact in the Smithsonian Institute was destroyed. That’s what happened to Baghdad, except their artifacts were thousands of years old. A bad move if you’re trying to win hearts and minds, if you ask me.
3.) The next part was when Bush, in typical Bush fashion, appointed a bunch of know-nothings to the most important jobs in the reconstruction of Iraq. Cue Paul Bremer, who disbanded the Iraqi Army and barred all Baathists from participating in rebuilding the country, which rendered thousands of doctors, teachers, and soldiers jobless. These two mistakes are frequently cited as the most direct cause of the insurgency.
4.) The contractors in Iraq, that tool with which we were supposed to rebuild the country and put on display the full glory of capitalism and democracy, have been an epic failure. Companies like Halliburton and Blackwater have put their bottom line before the American mission to stabilize Iraq, and so they’re inefficient, they’re wasteful, and they’re bilking the military and American taxpayers. Bush’s idea with Iraq was to create a truly unregulated free market utopia, and guess what? It don’t work in Iraq just like it don’t work in America.
Those are the big things, I guess. I do believe we had a window there we could have done some good in Iraq, if we had stopped the looting, maintained order, and kept the Baathists and the Iraqi military around. But hey, George Bush is an idiot, and thus, the clusterfuck.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/31/2008 @ 7:14 pmExcept that’s not what it says. I’ll reprint it. Read it slowly:
It says OBL wanted to hijack AN airplane, not “some” airplanes as you claimed. It also says the report is uncorroborated.
Nowhere in there does it say OBL or AQ were planning to hijack more than one at a time.
But go on spewing your bile. It’s amusing to watch you constantly twist your own words when people call you on your bullshit.
Steverino (6772c8) — 3/31/2008 @ 7:23 pmThat’s kind of the assumption I operate under, yes.
Well, Levi…that assumption is made of pretty thin gruel. If you base most of your arguments and assumptions on “facts” as skimpy as these, there is little doubt as to why you come to so many erroneous conclusions.
Nothing else makes sense to me.
I know, I know…it can be tough when the world is like that and you’re young.
George Bush isn’t a conservative, he has no conservative credentials, yet there’s this inexplicable loyalty to him that I can’t explain any other way.
If it’s inexplicable,… then…yes, you probably can’t explain it in any other way, Levi.
However, maybe what you are seeing perhaps is based on your narrow perspective.
If you’re a fiscal conservative, you have no reason to like Bush. If you’re a small government conservative, you have no reason to like Bush. If you’re a social conservative, well, that’s not real conservatism to begin with.
Couple that with the demonstrated stupidity and glaring incompetence of the man, I don’t know why any real conservatives still support him. So I assume it’s a religious thing.
Support him in what way? On what issue? Taking the fight to the terrorists and not sitting back while state sponsored terrorism was a mounting threat…has almost nothing to do with the issues you outline above.
I don’t think you can be reasoned with, no. The math of this war is such that America can not win, no matter how you define that.
How about if I define it as the removal of Saddam…which the DEMOCRATS had voted into law, keeping the terrorists from exporting mass murder via Saddam, a foothold on the doorstep of Iran, eliminating the woodchippers and rape rooms from Iraq, and a show of fortitude to Al Qaeda that there are consequences to bringing terror to our shores?
There’s not even a faint glimmer on the horizon that we’ll receive any sort of material or strategic benefit from Iraq that recoups even a tiny fraction of the ridiculous amount of resources we’ve dumped into the country.
Meaning what, precisely? Frankly, putting Al Qaeda on the run, disrupting their continuity, making it nearly impossible to set up camp in a new country, making recruiting and training more difficult…keeping the pressure on…I can only imagine the resources that we would be spending had we simply ignored and appeased them.
Our credibility is shot, and our military is being over-stretched.
Our credibility with whom? The guys hiding in caves? What you will learn as you mature, is that things aren’t always what they seem. Some guys picked a fight with us by kidnapping our civilians and slamming them into our skyscrapers. For some faint-hearted souls, we needed to beg forgiveness for giving them the “root” reasons to do that, because we “deserved” that. Justice demanded something else.
And we still don’t even know what our goals there are. It used to be about defending America from a madman with nukes, then it was about liberating the Iraqis, now it’s about mediating a thousand year old religious feud and maybe preventing a genocide. Will we accomplish this goal, or will it change into something else again? Where’s the goal that brings the troops back?
The “goal” might have always been multi-layered and not simplistic or marginal. Maybe the goal, was all of the above. Regime change, give democracy and freedom a chance, show strength and fortitude, and send the bullies back to their caves. Maybe State Sponsored Terrorism doesn’t look like such a good bet now.
Bringing home the troops is a by-product of finishing the job properly. We don’t need the repeat of our cowardice that allowed 2 million Cambodians to be slaughtered.
This is a coherent foreign policy? An intelligent, responsible way to conduct a war that’s supposed to ‘win hearts and minds?’
What is it that you believe about the hearts and minds of Iraqi citizens? That they wanted woodchippers and rape rooms?
I know Saddam was bad, but as Bill Maher put it, “Stupidity can get more people killed than evil.” And that’s where we’re at.
Well, Bill Maher is a good place to start a lecture about stupidity, I’ll give you that. A coward dies a thousand deaths, a brave man but once.
I’ve come to these conclusions the way any reasonable person should have arrived at these same conclusions, by watching this clusterfuck unfold over the past 5 years. It’s just not worth it.
Five years is a long time when you’re ten. It’s not such a long time when you’re fifty. I know that it seems in the comic books and cartoons that everything is wrapped up and the superheroes are home in a half hour…but, sometimes real work takes time. Eliminating 40 years of corruption, propaganda, graft and greed simply can’t be done overnight.
And that’s just leftist here…doing it thousands of miles away is even tougher.
and 2)which candidate(s) meet your standards for courage and intellect?
Obama. Everything about Hillary is a joke, but ugh, I guess I’d vote for her, if I had to.
Obama is your standard bearer for courage? Based upon what…exactly?
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 3/31/2008 @ 7:24 pmSheesh, Levi, more nonsense. Your list looks like another grocery list of myths on your part.
Secure the munitions dumps of the country? The entire nation of Iraq was a huge munition dump. It was an impossibility to secure each one on day one. The Iraqi Army disbanded itself.
As for Baathists, yes we should have put the running of the country in the hands of the minority-Sunni dominated mass-murdering party that had oppressed the majority of Iraqis – including the Kurds and Shiites that were our allies. Brilliant – not.
Your attacks on Halliburton and Blackwater are just silly nonsense especially with that silly whacky socialist comment about a free market utopia.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/31/2008 @ 7:29 pmThe first part of the clusterfuck (woops!)involved the long string of lies the Bush administration told the American public about why we need to go to Iraq and how easy the whole thing would be.
Why was I sure you’d be unable to speak like a decent, civil person?
Ah well:
The war against *Iraq* ended very quickly– right now, we’re fighting imported and foreign-sponsored killers. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/01/21/ST2008012100189.html and http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2008/01/al-qaedas-in-iraq-new-sponsor-libya.html ) I would, however, be quite glad if you could link to the quote where Bush said this would be “easy?”
I’d also like to point out that my father, who was drafted during Nam, remembers German bombers killing some folks in the O club in Germany. That was quite a bit longer than five years after the end of WWII.
After the fall of Baghdad, Bush didn’t secure the munitions dumps all over the country, allowing them to fall into the hands of god-knows-who, and didn’t enforce any sort of order or law.
You do realize we’re talking about a country the size of California, right?
Exactly HOW MANY people do you think we have?
You also realize that the IAEA, who were supposed to be watching said stores, “left the country before the fighting began?” http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.explosives/
The next part was when Bush, in typical Bush fashion, appointed a bunch of know-nothings to the most important jobs in the reconstruction of Iraq. Cue Paul Bremer, who disbanded the Iraqi Army and barred all Baathists from participating in rebuilding the country, which rendered thousands of doctors, teachers, and soldiers jobless. These two mistakes are frequently cited as the most direct cause of the insurgency.
Levi, if you were taking over Nazi Germany, would you NOT remove all Nazi party members from power until you could get other folks into power?
(not an idle comparison)
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000023.html
You’ve already indicated that you’re aware of the vast number of horrific acts the Baathists committed. Why, exactly, are you against the temporary removal of all those who supported such actions so that the wheat can be removed from the (homicidal) chaff?
The contractors in Iraq, that tool with which we were supposed to rebuild the country and put on display the full glory of capitalism and democracy, have been an epic failure. Companies like Halliburton and Blackwater have put their bottom line before the American mission to stabilize Iraq, and so they’re inefficient, they’re wasteful, and they’re bilking the military and American taxpayers.
On this, I must request proof, or at least a hyper-link.
I will admit that *most* contracts with the military “bilk” us– my husband, who left the Navy this Christmas, recalls a .5 gig hard drive for 14 hundred dollars– but that is a side effect of government stupidity, and is not something Bush could change.
(personally, I’d want to sue the SOBs who do the classic 500 dollar toilet seat, but that’s not really related)
Those are the big things, I guess. I do believe we had a window there we could have done some good in Iraq, if we had stopped the looting, maintained order, and kept the Baathists and the Iraqi military around
We HAVE done good in Iraq.
(scroll down to “Some news you may not have read or heard elsewhere”)
http://theanchoressonline.com/2007/11/16/good-news-leaks-past-the-embargo-on-good-news/
I would, however, like to challenge you–once again!– to stop all crime in California. Assuming that half of the state wants to kill you. (if you’re drug-force, not that far off…..) If not, you’re a failure.
Foxfier (74f1c8) — 3/31/2008 @ 8:10 pmcfbleachers-
While you may suffer a bit from “tldr” for the people you are adressing, I think your posts are highly useful and informative to those who DO NOT come with a few dozen axes to grind.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/TLDR
Foxfier (74f1c8) — 3/31/2008 @ 8:13 pmLevi finally admits he’s been repeating the received wisdom of Bill Maher. No wonder it sounded so idiotic and fact free.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/31/2008 @ 8:14 pmLevi…seven minutes…no, I only responded to you in about 70 seconds, since you were repeating what John Kerry said several years ago…
And, since you brought up time, I’ll return to your repeating what someone else already said, and wonder why you can’t think for yourself….
But, I’m digressing….
You got hammered today, and I’ve enjoyed every moment of the read….thanks for your stupidity…
reff (59b2ad) — 3/31/2008 @ 9:50 pmcfbleachers,
First, I’m going to generalize you, get over it. I don’t have time to learn all the particulars of how each of you individually disagrees with Bush, you’re all little Sean Hannitys to me.
Second, war stuff:
None of that shit is worth the 4,000 soldiers alone. So we got Saddam, that’s a win? Now we have to run the country, and we’re not even doing it as well as he was, which is really fucking embarrassing, in my opinion.
I have no god damn clue what this means:
You’re counting your chickens waaaay too early for this one:
This:
is all well and good, but now there’s daily car bombings, kidnappings, and executions. Plus, we’ve now got Abu Graihb to our name, something else to be proud of!
And this:
means you believe Al-Qaeda was in Iraq?
That’s your definition of a win in Iraq? According to that definition, you realize that we’ve already won?
Does it feel like we’ve won anything to you?
Osama bin Laden has us right where he wants us in Iraq. He’s loving this. We’re bankrupting ourselves, we’re breaking our military by repeatedly throwing it at a problem that it can’t fix, and we’re ruining our reputation. Osama couldn’t do that to us on his own, he has to coax us into doing it to ourselves for him. And good ol’ Bush walked right into the trap.
We still haven’t been able to hold Al-Qaeda accountable for what they did to us on 9-11, and because we’re wasting time on sectarian squabbles in Iraq, it looks like we probably never will.
Osama is getting away with 9-11. Do you care? Bush doesn’t. And I think that’s fucked up. Why, after 9-11, was that the time to bring Saddam to justice? He didn’t attack us on 9-11, he never attacked us. I know all you people think that was a necessary front of the war on terror and everything, but you couldn’t put it off until we got the main fucking guy, the guy that did attack us? Priorities?
Now, Osama’s gotten away, and we’re left wondering how Saddam kept a lid on all this religious bullshit for so long. Our country looks as stupid as George Bush is.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/31/2008 @ 10:55 pmOsama bin Laden has us right where he wants us in Iraq. He’s loving this.
How do you know he’s still alive? Any sightings besides video footage that’s increasingly dubious?
We still haven’t been able to hold Al-Qaeda accountable for what they did to us on 9-11, and because we’re wasting time on sectarian squabbles in Iraq, it looks like we probably never will.
OBL and Al-Qaeda promised that 9/11 was the beginning of terrist attacks on the US. Seen any recently?
Why, after 9-11, was that the time to bring Saddam to justice? He didn’t attack us on 9-11, he never attacked us.
Ever read UN Resolution 1441 and all the resolutions that came before it?
Now, Osama’s gotten away, and we’re left wondering how Saddam kept a lid on all this religious bullshit for so long.
Yeah, its really amazing how a brutal dictator by routinely horribly tortures and murder his own people can crush any dissent between factions and the regime.
Paul (b8f307) — 4/1/2008 @ 1:29 amFirst, I’m going to generalize you, get over it. I don’t have time to learn all the particulars of how each of you individually disagrees with Bush, you’re all little Sean Hannitys to me.
Levi, your ad hominem attacks weaken your argument, you realize that…don’t you? For a guy who doesn’t have the time to separate out people from his polemics, you spend quite a bit of it making useless generalizations and absurdly broad sweeping condemnations.
Have you found the Kos site yet? They tend to tilt at windmills and you might find it more comforting there to be among that class of debaters.
I take it you don’t like Sean Hannity. Which commentaries do you like? For a guy who was into Ninja Turtles just a few years ago and was “Bush’s to lose”…you sound awfully similar to the Kos Kidz. What a wild transformation. With your anger and rage and flaming rhetoric…it’s sounds more episodic than evolutionary. Did a Republican kid steal your girlfriend?
None of that shit is worth the 4,000 soldiers alone. So we got Saddam, that’s a win? Now we have to run the country, and we’re not even doing it as well as he was, which is really fucking embarrassing, in my opinion.
The terrorists took out over 3000 of your countrymen in one day. Losing 4,000 brave soldiers over 5 years to keep from having another day like that…or several, …yes, that’s a win. Our wonderful men and women in the service preserve our freedom and security, and as individuals…are a great loss when any ONE of them is killed.
But they did not die in vain, Levi. We made it much harder for a terrorist base to build a new site after driving them from the heart of Afghanistan. The next logical place for them to obtain a safe harbor and sub rosa assistance, was Saddam.
The DEMOCRATS (see the litany of quotes from my prior post)…VOTED REGIME CHANGE INTO LAW. They ALL said that Saddam was the greatest threat to the world. They ALL said that he would aid terrorists, pass off weapons of mass murder to them, give them safe harbor, help build their infrastructure. Read the history, Levi. I know you were playing with your Ninja Turtles during this time…but history is important to formulating your thoughts and opinions.
If we drive the terrorists out of Afghanistan, only to allow them to set up again with Saddam’s assistance…only with his proven track record of USING weapons of mass destruction…we were assuring ourselves of their complicity…and our sorrows.
Yes, Levi..absolutely…every soldier’s sacrifice is a heartfelt loss. But those who mean to harm us are fighting our trained soldiers, not our civilians. Over there, not over here. They don’t seem to like it nearly as much when they have to face our toughest, instead of our women and children.
And we have to help THEM run a country, when there are forces in Iran and Syria that import chaos. Their democracy is an embryo, Levi. Starting a free nation is not like microwaving a bag of popcorn, Levi. It takes a little time. I think the Iraqi’s are doing some brave things to build a country in a very difficult situation. The dividends this will pay in the future, for them…and even for all the rest of the free world, has yet to be played out. But it could be enormous.
If you read anything from Michael Yon or Bill Roggio…you will see that the information stream you have been relying on…is giving you a false picture of the strides being made there.
If you looked at your own country in 1776, or 1777…you might say that we were running it worse the the British monarchy did. It wasn’t worth the loss of our soldiers. If you were around in 1864 you might have argued for the status quo because the loss of soldiers on both sides wasn’t worth it.
Freedom from tyranny and sacrifice for principle are messy things sometimes.
The early days of independence of a brand new country is a messy thing.
All things considered, the Iraqi’s are doing just fine…much of the rest of the world sees life on a different timetable than we do here. Their concept of time isn’t as rushed or hurried.
I have no god damn clue what this means:
keeping the terrorists from exporting mass murder via Saddam
Which words or concepts are you having difficulty with, Levi? Everyone…including the Democrats, especially the Democrats quoted in my post above…understands that Saddam was the greatest threat to the rest of the world utilizing the vehicles of terrorism to transport around the globe. If you take any other position, Levi…you stand alone with the Kos Kidz and other uninformed and rather insane fringe elements, like Michael Moore and the anarchists.
If that’s the case…you aren’t anti-republican…you are anti-America…which is fine, if that’s who you want to be, I suppose. But at least have the courage to say so. If not, your argument need to show more separation from the nutroots.
You’re counting your chickens waaaay too early for this one:
a foothold on the doorstep of Iran
I’m not counting chickens, we are there already. If we don’t cut and run…an imbecilic and cowardly notion which should not be taken seriously by any but the most demented…that foothold on the doorstep of Iran is of significant geopolitical importance.
This:
eliminating the woodchippers and rape rooms from Iraq
is all well and good, but now there’s daily car bombings, kidnappings, and executions. Plus, we’ve now got Abu Graihb to our name, something else to be proud of!
It’s all well and good…and more…for those innocent women who watched their husbands mutilated or were brought into those rape rooms. There are daily car bombings in other areas of the Mideast. A lunatic element that corruptly teaches hatred and convinces children, who should
be playing with Ninja Turtles…to want to kill people.
Their information stream is corrupted…and because of that…kids become enraged and angry over lies. They learn to lump reasons to hate and people to hate together…and lash out at them. They shake their little fists and scrunch their little faces up in their impressionable fury.
That’s a terrible outcome, Levi. It shouldn’t happen to any country that believes in truth, freedom, integrity, honor. The corruption begins when they are young and impressionable, Levi.
And they don’t have the experience or maturity to know how to wind their way past the minefields of misinformation and the litany of lies they are told every single day.
It’s that corrupted information stream, that binds them to a false history and welds them to phony doctrines.
It’s that corrupted information stream that seeks to enflame anger through angst and hatred through homilies…created out of whole cloth and bearing no resemblance to truth.
No country that believes in honor would make excuses for that behavior, Levi. No leader would make excuses for that behavior, Levi.
No country and no leader, indeed.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 4/1/2008 @ 4:44 amcfbleachers – You are stellar.
JD (75f5c3) — 4/1/2008 @ 4:44 amLevi,
paul from fl (12026e) — 4/1/2008 @ 7:08 amBefore going into lurk mode (In the hopes you’ll either grow up or shut up) I want to say one thing.
You need to spew you vitriol and whacked out paranoid fantasies towards the people who want to see your comfy little world destroyed and subjugated to jihadi rule and sharia law.
Before I end up getting issued another “yellow card” I’m gonna go straight to lurk and hope that one day or some day you’ll grow the fuck up and realise what a great country this is and how little you have contributed towards it’s greatness.
Yeeeeeeesh Lurk on
Utter bullshit. You can’t prove that anymore than I can prove I stopped more terrorist attacks by heavily drinking since 2001. Like I’ve said, they don’t need to attack us here anymore, we’re damaging ourselves by our presence in Iraq more than any hare-brained scheme they cook up possibly could.
This is the trap that I’m talking about. Nobody’s ever been successful at transmogrifying individual countries in the Middle East, let alone the broader region. The Russians couldn’t do it, the British couldn’t do it, the fucking Crusades couldn’t do it a millennium ago, and they were at it for centuries. Are those encouraging signs to you? What’s so special about us that we can’t bleed ourselves dry over there, just like everybody else in history has done?
Do you really think they’re intimidated by us? These people don’t fear death, if you hadn’t heard. They’re not scared of us nearly as much as some of you typical Republicans are of them. That’s why they’re called ‘terrorists.’
I don’t care how long it takes, it’s not our job to spread democracy around the world. I don’t know how this got mixed in with our priorities after 9-11. I want to go after the terrorists that attacked us, and now we’re on some totally non-related side quest that’s absurdly expensive with a remote-at-best chance of success, while the terrorists that attacked us are getting away. I mean, now it’s our job to mediate some thousand year old religious feud we don’t understand? That’s not our fucking problem.
And blah blah blah, 1776, birth of a nation, independence, whatever dude. There’s not even a fucking glimmer of similarity between our country’s founding and the situation in Iraq.
See, this is why you’re a typical Republican. If I’m critical of George Bush and his glorious war, well I must have some patriotism problem, right? I mean for all that bullshit you just spewed about how I paint with broad strokes, you’re doing the one thing that typifies Republicans more than anything else I can think of; impugning the patriotism of people that disagree with you. Typical.
How do you define anti-Americanism in the first place? You think I want the country to be destroyed? You think I want us to lose in Iraq?
Because Iran is next, right? I mean we’re not even close to being finished with Iraq, but you’re ready to get started on the next war already, aren’t you? What a foreign policy; invade, invade, invade!
Those women’s images of their husbands being tortured by Iraqis have been replaced with images of their husbands being tortured and sexually humiliated by Americans. Abu-Graihb single-handedly makes this war not worth it. We have totally ceded the moral high ground with that shit, which is too bad, because having the moral high ground is one of the greatest weapons you could have if your goal was to extol the virtues of capitalism and democracy.
So much for ‘hearts and minds.’
You’re twice as old as me, I get it. And I’m just supposed to defer to your wisdom and experience, I get it. What, you think you’re the first adult I’ve ever met or some shit? Fucking get over yourself.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/1/2008 @ 8:59 amThis is typical of Republicans, too, and it explains your whole dumbshit foreign policy.
We’re not going to be taken over by jihadists. All you morons know how to do is overstate the threat they pose. You think a ragtag bunch of assholes with no resources and no influence is going to impose sharia law on the richest, most powerful country that has ever existed?
Paranoid fantasies, indeed.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/1/2008 @ 9:10 amCorrect. That would be because our military is busy killing them by the ton at local’s not here.
You may thank them now, Levi…
And really, at some point, could you at least pretend to civility? Your insane spewings really do get tiresome after a while.
At the very least, add in some new words. Variety might help… Spice of life, and all that…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 4/1/2008 @ 9:17 amLevi, let’s take some time to digest the positions and facts.
I’ve been as patient as I’m able for the moment and I need a breather…suffice it to say, we simply don’t agree on much. I agree with virtually nothing you have written above.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 4/1/2008 @ 9:21 amNothing like our daily dose of spittle flecked BDS.
JD (5f0e11) — 4/1/2008 @ 9:22 amWhat’s the matter old man? Can’t keep up? Slowing down in your old age? Got some Matlock to watch? You need to make the early bird special? How’s the mid-life crisis going?
Levi (76ef55) — 4/1/2008 @ 9:32 amI hear your mom is enjoying it quite a bit…
Seems you just weren’t doing it for her…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 4/1/2008 @ 9:37 amOoo! Good one buddy!
Levi (76ef55) — 4/1/2008 @ 9:40 amWhat’s the matter old man? Can’t keep up? Slowing down in your old age? Got some Matlock to watch? You need to make the early bird special? How’s the mid-life crisis going?
Comment by Levi — 4/1/2008 @ 9:32 am
Playing with stupid children who have no manners gets tiring to decent folk, Levi.
Foxfier (74f1c8) — 4/1/2008 @ 9:52 amFoxfier – I have often been wrong for tilting at windmills in re. the likes of actus, semenkleo, et al. This Levi is in a class of its own. It absolutely oozes BDS, and it clouds it vision of its entire worldview. I do not shy away from difficult views, or even harsh language, but this troll du month takes the cake.
JD (75f5c3) — 4/1/2008 @ 10:03 amStupid children with filthy mouths, Foxfier.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/1/2008 @ 10:58 amGuys-
There’s no point in arguing with someone who brings up “True Lies” , “The Rock” and “Die Hard” as examples of how terrorists really operate. If Levi had been on OJ’s defense team, his strategy would have been, “OJ couldn’t have killed Nicole because he died in Capricorn 1. Didn’t you see the movie?”
MartyH (52fae7) — 4/1/2008 @ 11:15 amTrue, SPQR.
Foxfier (74f1c8) — 4/1/2008 @ 11:34 amDude, I’m not the one saying that I was surprised on 9-11 that there could be so much damage inflicted by a well-connected few. You should be making fun of that guy. Like I was, when a brought up those movies, which establishes that that very idea is extremely well represented in American fiction, and should be common knowledge to anyone who’s ever left their house. It’s the very definition of what a terrorist is. I mean that’s basically saying, “Duh, I didn’t know terrorists existed before 9-11.”
Go make fun of that guy.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/1/2008 @ 11:36 amIt is more fun to make fun of you, Levi. The lying mendoucheous hack that you are.
JD (75f5c3) — 4/1/2008 @ 11:52 amLevi – Bill Maher has really gotten to you hasn’t he? I don’t need to remind you, do I, that Maher has publicly stated that 97% of show business people are nutty liberals? It’s those people Maher mixes in on his show with political professionals to argue current events, as if being a celebrity automatically means you have a worthwhile opinion in addition to being a Maher sycophant. In any event, it pretty much guarantees which direction the show will take politically.
Do you share Maher’s other interesting views about rampant promiscuity and the legalization of all drugs, Levi? Bill was not very troubled about Michael Jackson’s molestation of young boys as I recall. Could be a good person to be your hero, who knows, you seem to spout his venom nonstop.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/1/2008 @ 11:56 amLevi-
It’s FICTION-i.e., not real. You can’t seriously argue that those three movies could have clued anybody in to the fact that nineteen terrorists would board four concurrent flights fly them into buildings. That’s just magical thinking.
MartyH (52fae7) — 4/1/2008 @ 12:04 pmNope, I have nothing against rampant promiscuity, tightass. And yeah, legalizing some drugs just makes sense, I don’t know that Maher’s ever said he wants heroin legalized, but who cares if he does? I don’t need to agree with everything the guy says.
You see how you’re doing the Reverend Wright thing to me here? I watch Bill Maher, I’ve been watching him for 10 years, so I must have spent my whole life watching Bill Maher and he must have dictated all of my political opinions to me? Right, that’s what you’re saying?
I quoted the guy. I think parts of his show can get really boring, it was a lot worse when the Writer’s Strike was on-going, for example, and there’s never enough conservatives on it. The better episodes have Tony Snow, Jonah Goldberg, people like that, but man he can get some dull ass guests on there, some of the actors just blow it. But where are the conservatives? What, are they afraid to come on the show? Why doesn’t John McCain sit down with Bill Maher, too afraid?
Oh I’m sorry, did you want to talk about Bill Maher or are you just being a retard?
Levi (76ef55) — 4/1/2008 @ 12:08 pmHere we go again, a Typical Republican focusing on a joke, the least important part of what I said, and thinking he’s proving I’m delusional.
I’m not arguing any such thing. Some guy up there said something along the lines of how surprised most people were that a small group of people could do such a massive amount of damage with the right connections. That’s just being naive, because that’s what terrorism is. Certainly, we can be surprised that it happened to us, but we shouldn’t be surprised that such things happen in the world. I mean Timothy McVeigh blew up a building with some bags of fertilizer, of course a group of people that’s better connected could inflict more harm.
Mentioning the movies was a joke.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/1/2008 @ 12:23 pmMentioning the movies was a joke.
Mentioning the movies was a mistake. You just don’t know any better, which is why people have trouble taking you seriously.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/1/2008 @ 12:53 pmWell that, and he’s an idiot…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 4/1/2008 @ 12:56 pmLevi-
Not even Bin Laden thought that the Towers would fall.
Even if you are intellectually prepared for something, the actual event itself takes on a different aspect. I’d experiences dozens of earthquakes before Loma Prieta (San Francisco) in 1989 and yet I would describe my response as shocked. It’s no surprise that the nation reacted the same way to 9/11.
On the other hand, Todd Beamer and the other heroic memebrs of Flight 93 quickly realized that the rules had changed and acted to prevent a greater tragedy. They’re the real life John McClain’s (or whatever Bruce Willis’ character’s name was) that we should strive to emulate should we end up in their unfortunate circumstances.
MartyH (52fae7) — 4/1/2008 @ 1:00 pmWell, yeah. You were shocked that it was a big earthquake, but you weren’t shocked to find out that earthquakes existed, which is the opposite of what the other guy basically said about 9-11 and terrorism. Something along the lines of ‘I was surprised a few people with resources could do so much damage,’ which is just ignorance to the ways of the world. We can be surprised that it happens to us, that it was so big, but we don’t have an excuse to be surprised that terrorists can be destructive in the first place.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/1/2008 @ 1:14 pmLevi-
The attacks of 9/11 killed more people than Pearl Harbor; more people than Katrina; more people than Oklahome City. The scope of damage even surprised Bin Laden. To have been surprised by it was a normal human reaction.
Again, that’s what makes the Flight 93 story so extraordinary-they changed their entire worldview in a few hours.
MartyH (52fae7) — 4/1/2008 @ 1:33 pmWe agree. And again, that’s not what the guy said, he sounded surprised that terrorism existed at all.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/1/2008 @ 1:38 pmDo you understand that yet?
Levi-
Comment #62 by DRJ (who is not a “he”) is the one that you keep referring to:
“Levi: [said] ‘Who didn’t realize that so much damage could be inflicted by a well connected few?’
The scope of the damage from 9/11 didn’t surprise you? It surprised most people.
Comment by DRJ — 3/30/2008 @ 11:30 pm”
No denial of terrorism. No surprise that 9/11 occurred. Just surprise at how horrific it was.
MartyH (52fae7) — 4/1/2008 @ 2:01 pmHey Levi,
How come you don’t reply to my comments anymore?
Don’t you wanna play?
Paul (4e4a20) — 4/1/2008 @ 4:41 pmLevi,
Have you been using my comment in this discussion – basically as a strawman – as Marty H suggests? That’s quite sloppy of you.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/1/2008 @ 5:46 pmComment #62 by DRJ (who is not a “he”)
DRJ is not a “he”….color me crimson.
Sorry, DRJ…I did not know that.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 4/1/2008 @ 6:34 pmDon’t be sorry, CF, because it doesn’t matter. What matters is whether a comment makes sense, not who says it.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/1/2008 @ 6:58 pmDesdemona Rosamonde Jakobskirtschenberger? 😉 (Ducks)
nk (34c5da) — 4/1/2008 @ 7:05 pmDRJ
Oh, I agree that it only matters if a comment makes sense completely!
However, I apologize if I said anything in ANY post previously since I stopped lurking…in which I inadvertantly referred to you as “he”…or in any other way made some clumsy reference.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 4/2/2008 @ 1:57 amHer comment at #60 is what I’ve been referring to:
How is that not naivety, if that’s really what she means? Again, I was surprised by 9-11, but I wasn’t surprised that ‘so much damage could be done by 19 men with access to financial resources,’ because well, that’s the most basic definition of what terrorists are, and an exact description of the tactics which they use.
Some of you are making fun of me because you think I’m saying we need to take our foreign policy cues from films. I’m not, and that’s a juvenile and intentional misinterpretation.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/2/2008 @ 2:31 amHere’s some bad news for the ‘Tard of Thunder, but good news for the rest of us: the image of the U.S. around the world has improved over the past year. Not because the Democrats took over Congress; that happened the year before. Not because President Bush pledged to withdraw from Iraq; in fact, the surge was quite the opposite. Just because … well, probably just because.
Xrlq (b71926) — 4/2/2008 @ 6:51 amXrlq,
35% say America has a positive influence, 47% say it has a negative influence.
Which of those numbers is bigger? George Bush did that.
Why don’t you compare those to the same polls from when Clinton was in office? People used to like us.
And just as easily as you can point to the ever so glorious success of the surge as the cause of this movement in the polls, I can point out that 2008 is the last year that this retard is in office, and there’s a good chance we’ll actually elect a good, smart candidate to replace him.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/2/2008 @ 7:05 amXrlq – Doing the right thing is not nearly as important as some boob in France “liking” us.
JD (75f5c3) — 4/2/2008 @ 7:14 amThis isn’t about the French, you typical Republican you.
This is about global opinion of the U.S. We want that to be strong, that’s historically been one of our greatest strategic assets. We reaped countless benefits by being known as ‘the good guys’ during the Cold War.
Also, institutionalizing torture isn’t ‘doing the right thing.’ My bet is that even more than Iraq, that’s what drives down international opinion of us. We’re supposed to be the fair, procedural, bearers of justice, Bush threw that all away with Abu Graihb.
By the way, if you further break down the questions, most people still like America, just not the people in charge or those policies they’ve implemented.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/2/2008 @ 7:24 amYou have the sense of humor God gave a goat.
Republican-ist. Those left-libs preach diversity and tolerance, but are intolerant of diversity of opinions.
I bet if they met you, Levi, the numbers would be even worse.
JD (75f5c3) — 4/2/2008 @ 7:27 amGlobal opinion? That would be the “globe” that obsesses over the Palestinians – who murder thousands of innocents – but ignores the Tibetans who murder no one?
Screw global opinion. Concern over whether the other grade schoolers like you, another juvenile point of view.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/2/2008 @ 7:34 amSee, stuff like that, where does that come from? We’ve been in the good graces of global opinion before and it’s not like it ever lead us down some terrible path that got a bunch of us killed or collapsed our economy.
I guess all that bullshit about showing people the power of freedom and spreading American principles was just that, bullshit, if ‘screw global opinion’ is how Republicans react to learning that not very many people like us anymore.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/2/2008 @ 7:44 amSo, Levi, our declining global opinion got a bunch of us killed or collapsed our economy? I thought that the declining global opinion was due to our condoning torture (IT”S FUN!!!!!!!!), Abu Ghraib, and your other talking points.
JD (75f5c3) — 4/2/2008 @ 7:46 amThe bullshit is yours, Levi, our economy is not collapse and our path is not terrible, we’ve freed two nations and tens of millions of people from oppression ( a record not equalled in decades ).
The people who don’t like us are people who have never liked us and don’t like freedom. Given how many people want to immigrate here, I’m not unhappy about our actual reputation among those who pay attention rather than buy into juvenile anti-Americanism like you spout.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/2/2008 @ 7:48 amNo.
TRY TO UNDERSTAND.
The policies that George Bush has implemented is what’s hurt us in terms of national security, our economy, and in terms of global opinion.
I’m only asking the guy that says ‘screw global opinion’ why he takes that attitude.
I mean, you can barely read, dude. Get some English teachers in here and they’ll back me up, you just warp everything I say into something else entirely, then try to prove that wrong, and you think you’re some sort of genius.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/2/2008 @ 7:56 amYou don’t want that, Levi. They’ll start pointing out the poor grammar and syntax in your writing.
Steverino (e00589) — 4/2/2008 @ 7:59 amlol!
What gives you so much confidence in the economy, when everybody else has none?
We’ve hardly freed anybody of oppression. We can’t even say we can maintain the peace better than Saddam did, so let’s stop counting chickens, okay?
Total bullshit. People have liked us in the past, most people actually still do like us. They just hate the President we forced them all to deal with.
The only ones ‘paying attention,’ I assume, are Republicans?
Great post.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/2/2008 @ 8:01 amLevi said in 195: “…we don’t have an excuse to be surprised that terrorists can be destructive in the first place.”
9/11 was an unprecedented event in history. Never have so few caused so much damage. There are few real life events that had as great an impact as 9/11, and all of them took much greater resources than nineteen terrorists with boxcutters. The loss of life, tremendous economic damage, destruction of the two most visible buildings in one of the world’s great cities is unprecedented.
The bookends of us involvement in WWII-Pearl Harbor and the atomic bombings-equal it in magnitude, but both events were the result of mighty superpowers concentrating great effort.
If you’re not surprised by something that has never occurred in history, you’re not paying much attention.
MartyH (52fae7) — 4/2/2008 @ 8:02 amSure, they can do that if they want. Just so long as they point out that good ol’ JD has the reading comprehension of a fourth-grader.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/2/2008 @ 8:02 amLevi – Getting lectured by you on thinking is the rhetorical equivalent of being lectured by Britney Spears on the dangers on not taking you medication.
JD (75f5c3) — 4/2/2008 @ 8:03 amHey, as much as I like going around and around in circles with you, let me repeat for the 20th time that I was surprised by 9-11. Okay? You seem to be under the impression that I wasn’t. I was. Okay?
Levi (76ef55) — 4/2/2008 @ 8:05 amWhich is still 3 grade levels above your writing skills.
Steverino (e00589) — 4/2/2008 @ 8:38 amLevi-
I’m trying to understand why you took issue with DRJ’s statement. I can see three potential sources of surprise:
-First, that foreign terrorists would attack within the US. I don’t think this is much of a surprise to anyone paying atention. The only surprise is the normal OMG reaction while it is occurring.
-Second, the method of attack-turning airliners into sucide missles aimed at major US economic, military, and governmental targets. I think most people were surprised by this, and rightly so, since it had never occurred before. Again, it’s a testament to the passengers of Flight 93 that they reacted as quickly as they did to the change in reality and took on the hijackers.
-Third, for reasons I explained above, the scope of destruction should have surprised everyone.
I really think that the third reason is what DRJ was referring to, when she said, “…that so much damage could be done by 19 men with access to financial resources.”
You say that you were surprised by 9/11 and yet take DRJ to task for saying she was. I am just trying to understand this.
MartyH (52fae7) — 4/2/2008 @ 9:11 amI don’t even remember. I was in the middle of a good argument with her, and I thought I’d take her to task for that statement, which struck me as naive, so I did. Then a bunch of commenters, in typical Republican fashion, ignored completely what I was saying, seized on my usage of action films to illustrate a point I was making. I tried to explain or clarify myself, and it descended into this endless, retarded tailspin.
Her original words aren’t as big a deal to me as the absurd pile-on that ensued. I’ve gotta defend myself around here.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/2/2008 @ 9:35 am