DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on June 17, 2007, 01:41:53 PM
-
Petraeus: Escalation Not Done By September, 50-Year Iraq Presence A ‘Realistic Assessment’
Today on Fox News Sunday, Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, agreed that lawmakers will be able to have a “reasonable and a realistic sense†of whether the escalation is “working or not working†by September. “I’ve said that all along. I started saying that back in January. I think we’ll have had by then our forces in the mix for a good several months.â€
Later in the show, however, Petraeus admitted that he didn’t expect the “surge†to be done by September, the date set for Petraeus’ supposedly make-it or break-it report to Congress. Asked by host Chris Wallace whether he believed “the job would be done by the surge by September,†Petraeus responded, “I do not, no.†Watch it:
Asked in a follow up question if that meant “enhanced troop levels would continue for some months after that and into 2008,†Petraeus refused to answer. “Again, premature right now,†said Petraeus. “A number of options out there. And I’m not about to announce what we might do here today, I’m afraid.â€
Petraeus then went on to endorse the “Korea model†for Iraq, which envisions keeping troops in the country for decades. “[T]ypically, I think historically, counterinsurgency operations have gone at least nine or ten years,†said Petraeus. “I think in general that that’s probably a fairly realistic assessment,†Petraeus said of the Korea comparison.
Transcript:
WALLACE: Let’s explore that. General Odierno, your number two, said this weekend that the Washington politicians need to give the surge more time. Do you think by September you’re going to “have a reasonable and a realistic sense of how the surge has gone, whether, in fact, it is working or not working?
PETRAEUS: I think we will have a sense of that, Chris. i’ve said that all along. I started saying that back in January. i think we’ll have had by then our forces in the mix for a good several months. We’ll have some sense of how we have done in these various sanctuaries that al Qaeda has had in the past that we are now entering for the first time in which we will endeavor to stay. we’ll have a sense of how we’ve done in some of these tough neighborhoods in Baghdad and how we are doing also, all of this in partnership with our Iraqi security force counterparts in Diyalla province and some of the other areas of the country. […]
WALLACE: There are reports that you and General Odierno would like the surge to continue until at least early 2008, that if it’s going to work, it needs to continue into early next year. is that true?
PETRAEUS: We’ve got a number of different options that we have looked at, Chris, and it really is premature at this point in time to try to prejudge that. again, i would suspect that late in the summer, early September, that we will provide some recommendations on the way ahead up our chain of command as well.
WALLACE: But you surely don’t think the job would be done by the surge by September, do you, sir?
PETRAEUS: I do not, no. I think that we have a lot of heavy lifting to do. The damage done by the sectarian violence in the fall and winter of 2006 and early 2007, as I mentioned, was substantial. And this is a tough effort.
WALLACE: So then it would be fair to assume that the enhanced troop levels would continue for some months after that and into 2008.
PETRAEUS: Chris, again, premature right now. A number of options out there. And not about to announce what we might do here today, I’m afraid. […]
WALLACE: Let me look out even further than that, General. Some administration officials have talked about needing to make and basically squaring with the American public saying, look, this is going to be a long-term commitment and comparing it to the situation in South Korea where we have had thousands of troops for decades. Do you see this to stabilize and achieve what we want in Iraq as that kind of a long-term commitment?
PETRAEUS: Well, I think the real question, Chris, is at what level. I think — I think just about everybody out there recognizes that a situation like this with the many, many challenges that Iraq is contending with is not one that’s going to be resolved in a year or even two years. in fact, typically, I think historically, counterinsurgency operations have gone at least nine or ten years. The question is, of course, at what level, how much will we have to continue to contribute during that time, how much more can the Iraqi security forces and the Iraqi government pick up as it goes along, and I think that’s the real question. And I’m not sure what the right analogy is, whether it’s Korea or what have you. I think all that the folks in Washington were trying to indicate by that was that there’s some possibility of some form of long-term security arrangement over time, and I think in general that that’s probably a fairly realistic assessment, assuming that the Iraqi government, in fact, does want that to continue and, of course, it is very much up to them and their sovereignty is paramount in all of this.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/17/petraeus-korea/
-
50 years is a long time. With all that oil, the Chinese and/or Russians and/or Indians will have their asses kicked out of there in under 35. Too bad I won't be around to see it happen.
-
We are still in Japan and Germany right?
What is that 60 years plus
-
We are still in Japan and Germany right?
What is that 60 years plus
Why use Japan and Germany? They don't seem to be similar situations at all.
-
We are still in Japan and Germany right? What is that 60 years plus
Why use Japan and Germany? They don't seem to be similar situations at all.
Military presence in those locations following open war is not similar? Do we have different branches of the military, I'm not aware of?
-
Military presence in those locations following open war is not similar? Do we have different branches of the military, I'm not aware of?
Military presence following a complete surrender without open hostilities and a guerilla campaign afterwards. No sectarian violence either.
Perhaps the colonial period of the Phillipines is a more similar example. It doesn't imply the just war of World War II, but gives a similar set of circumstances (though we didn't take Iraq from a separate foreign power).
We lost about 4300 soldiers in the three year guerilla war and the Phillipino forces lost about 15,000 or so. We built concentration camps in an attempt to sort out the guerilla sympathizers. There was a great deal of atrocities committed by both sides of the conflict, including torture by the United States.
Also, there was a political and cultural movement against the war at home. William Jennings Bryan was the Democratic candidate who was staunchly anti-Imperialist. Mark Twain was also famously against the war and considered it un-American. Andrew Carnegie was another famous personality who was against the war. Some of the Filipino leaders even considered the possibility of causing enough casualties to bring Bryan to office and end the war.
I think that this war is far more similar to Iraq and you still get your lengthy occupation period to bring up - 44 years - from 1898 until the Japanese kicked us out in World War II.
-
From a purely "interest" standpoint, it's impossible for me to conceive a strategic importance for the Phillipines in the same universe of strategic importance Iraq has come to be. Further, not that we were particularly concerned in 1898, but the threat of internecine strife exploding into genocide -- on what should be our watch -- is huge in Iraq. Plus, perhaps the coup de grace, a US exodus with a rag-tag or full-blown conflict raging there (Iraq) almost certainly will destabilize the whole region, as we are seeing now in the particularly volatile pockets.
-
Due to a single and easily preventable attack on the Pentagon and New York City, carried out by only 19 guys, the U.S. is tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars with no end in sight. Even if the conflict ended tomorrow, those 19 guys inflicted more damage to America than they could ever have dreamed of. They basically created an arena for jihadis from all over the Muslim world to come and joust with the Great Satan in a win-win scenario - - martyrdom or victory. They've already cost the U.S. more deaths than the WTC attacks, and maybe 25,000 wounded as well. This isn't even counting "contractor" casualties. The combined expenditures of the Afghan and Iraqi Wars and the Homeland Security have to be counted against the cost to al Qaeda of mounting the attacks. The huge loss in American prestige around the world was just the icing on the cake. I think they got the biggest bang for their buck that any group of warriors have gotten throughout the history of the world.
Who knows how this is going to end? If the Democrats' grass roots fail to find new faces and new leadership, it could drag out for a long, long time. The Iraqis don't have the advantages of huge numbers, as the Vietnamese people did. In the long haul, the U.S. could prevail. That would be a total fucking disaster for law and humanity. Success in Iraq would probably encourage them and others to unleash more wars of aggression elsewhere. The toll in human suffering would be enormous. International law, already in ashambles, would just be wiped out not only as a force but even as an idea. They have to be stopped, but from here I don't see anyone who is going to stop them. The situation looks really, really bleak.
-
Sometimes I shudder when I read your brilliant posts, Michael, not because of their brilliance, which I celebrate, but for the flat out hatred of the US you consistently express with its bookend oddity clinching a landscape of a bizarre anti-world: your support, hell, your outright cheering and rooting for the world's worst cutthroats, who, be sure, would literally cut your throat, too, given the slightest opportunity.
-
Military presence in those locations following open war is not similar? Do we have different branches of the military, I'm not aware of?
Military presence following a complete surrender without open hostilities and a guerilla campaign afterwards. No sectarian violence either.
You're trying to tell me there were absolutely no skirmishes from the Germans & Japs, following the accomplished mission of ending WWII?? Everyone layed down their arms the very next day?? Then why did we precede to keep a military presence if all was completed nice & neat?? And ironically the presence of sectarian violence and guerilla warfare kinda reinforces the need for our military presence ::)
-
Domer,
I don't get the same feeling from Michael's posts that you describe.
I disagree with some of his thoughts, but I think he's worried about our country, mourns its dead and grieves at the situation our soldiers are in right now. It is ruinous.
I want our soldiers home. That part of the world is starting to blow up now.
We can get our troops out, or let them perish when it all blows up.
-
OK, Lanya, you take the floor. Please detail how you would address all the myriad competing interests affected by the Iraq belligerency, and what, pray God, would happen as the result of a premature withdrawal, especially as to a possible out-of-control civil war taking, conceivably, countless more dead and wounded to the realm of genocide in its farthest extrapolations, or the clear and present danger of the fighting sparking a broad regional strife.
-
The US will NEVER WIN an Iraqi Civil War. Ain't gonna happen. It can't be done, and won't be.
The voters will NOT allow this to go on for any f*cking 40 more years, no matter how brave Petreus might be.
The goal of Juniorbush and his despicable handlers (because he is just not bright enough to come up with this, and those who are are cfreepods like Cheney or worse that no one would ever elect) was precisely this: to monger an endless war that would generate revenue for the Military Industrial Complex just as the Cold War did. If we allow them to do this, we are morons.
The Arab world wants to be LEFT ALONE. If we leave, it could be dicey for a few years. But if this goes on, it will be much worse.
And once more: Israel is NOT a state of the US. It is an unwelcome colony whose interests are mostly quite different from our own.
-
Domer,
I'm afraid I can't detail all the myriad competing interests or what would happen if we left. I'm no expert and I can't foretell the future.
What I can do is read articles by people who are reading the Arabic news; people like Juan Cole.
I can listen to reporters who are there. I can read testimony of US military generals and sometimes glean things.
I can foresee a time when this part of the world won't be our only problem. If we continue to act as if it is, we'll be stuck, we'll lose troops and equipment, and possibly we still would not have enough to meet another threat elsewhere.
I think we need to remove ourselves from the region. Remember Condi Rice talking about the birth pangs of democracy? Yeah. More like a huge conflagration that's flaring up region-wide.
Our soldiers aren't a magic firewall. They never had enough men there in the first place which is why it got this bad----not enough security. Not enough water, or electricity. Not enough people to guard the ammo dumps way back when the war started, so people are blown up daily. Streets are unsafe, sectarian warfare. Iraq is a failed state.
Study: Iraq World's No. 2 Failed State
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6718897,00.html
The presence of American soldiers won't cure that.
-
You seem to harp on the lack of troops.
Are you in favor of a full blown surge of up to half a million troops staffed if need be by a draft? perhaps we would be able to deal with other problems, or fronts if you will, that you vaguely reference, but fail to define.
Hillary as well as Harry Reid are on record as saying they wanted to send 79k more troops. I guess they were for the surge before they were against it
Nevertheless, they saw the need and the worthiness of the war, until it was no longer to their political advantage to do so.
And that is just sad.
-
You're trying to tell me there were absolutely no skirmishes from the Germans & Japs, following the accomplished mission of ending WWII?? Everyone layed down their arms the very next day?? Then why did we precede to keep a military presence if all was completed nice & neat?? And ironically the presence of sectarian violence and guerilla warfare kinda reinforces the need for our military presence ::)
Are you really asking why we kept soldiers in Europe and Japan after World War II?
Do you want me to discuss the history of the Cold War?
-
Are you really asking why we kept soldiers in Europe and Japan after World War II?
No. I'm actually re-referencing the fact that we did. Simple as that. You're the one trying to rationalize why we did then, and yet apparently scoff at the idea that it might occur here
Do you want me to discuss the history of the Cold War?
Your dime. The point remains that there still is a military presence in a once open area of war, despite the fact that military acts have long since been extinquished
-
Domer,
I don't get the same feeling from Michael's posts that you describe.
I disagree with some of his thoughts, but I think he's worried about our country, mourns its dead and grieves at the situation our soldiers are in right now. It is ruinous.
I want our soldiers home. That part of the world is starting to blow up now.
We can get our troops out, or let them perish when it all blows up.
Funny how people can read the same words and come away with 180 degrees diffrent meaning from them.
-
The US will NEVER WIN an Iraqi Civil War. Ain't gonna happen. It can't be done, and won't be.
The voters will NOT allow this to go on for any f*cking 40 more years, no matter how brave Petreus might be.
The goal of Juniorbush and his despicable handlers (because he is just not bright enough to come up with this, and those who are are cfreepods like Cheney or worse that no one would ever elect) was precisely this: to monger an endless war that would generate revenue for the Military Industrial Complex just as the Cold War did. If we allow them to do this, we are morons.
The Arab world wants to be LEFT ALONE. If we leave, it could be dicey for a few years. But if this goes on, it will be much worse.
And once more: Israel is NOT a state of the US. It is an unwelcome colony whose interests are mostly quite different from our own.
During the Trueman, Eisenhour , or Kennedy administrations which party was in favor of containment of Communism?
Who ever voted for a policy of staying for two generations?
It doesn't work that way , but each year the best choice is the same as the previous years choice because the same bad alternatives are still just as bad. Forty years in a row.
-
No. I'm actually re-referencing the fact that we did. Simple as that. You're the one trying to rationalize why we did then, and yet apparently scoff at the idea that it might occur here. Your dime. The point remains that there still is a military presence in a once open area of war, despite the fact that military acts have long since been extinquished.
Sometimes I don't even understand what point you are supposed to be making Sirs. As I recall, I was originally responding to Bt.
My point was that from an historical perspective this war resembles the colonial Phillipines and that war much more than the occupation of Germany or Japan, which happened for much different reasons and under far different circumstances.
Domer's point of mere convenience of reference not withstanding, I really do not see what your problem is. I'm not bashing your President or even the Iraq War. I'm merely pointing out that this war has far more in common with the Filipino War than the post-WWII occupations.
For example, the Phillipines was a war dominated by the United States presence. Germany was occupied by different nations and ultimately split into two separate countries which later joined two separate major military alliances. Iraq is not being occupied by any former enemies with which it has fought major protracted wars (like Iran or Kuwait), but instead is primarily being occupied by one former enemy - the United States, just as the Phillipines were.
The United States faces guerilla warfare which also punishes compliant civilians. This was not common and was even unheard of in Germany and Japan, but was exactly the type of war fought in the Phillipines. Also, unlike Germany and Japan there were multiple factions in the Phillipines, including a separate Muslim guerilla campaign.
I'm simply comparing historical similarities. I have no idea what your problem is. It is apparent to me that this war is much more similar to the Phillipines War than to anything related to World War II. Just because you don't like history does not give you the right to change it or attack someone for bringing up the similarities.
-
and My Point, is that there's been a military presence in places like Japan & Germany, for 60+years now, and that gets a pass, but the notion of any military presence in Iraq is tantamount to more validation of how terrible Bush and his policies are supposed to be. Tends to reinforce the leftist double standard
Understand now?
-
and My Point, is that there's been a military presence in places like Japan & Germany, for 60+years now, and that gets a pass, but the notion of any military presence in Iraq is tantamount to more validation of how terrible Bush and his policies are supposed to be. Tends to reinforce the leftist double standard
Understand now?
No.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Double standards and hypocrisy are commonplace in politics, amongst the right and left. I still have no idea what that has to do with my point.
-
and My Point, is that there's been a military presence in places like Japan & Germany, for 60+years now, and that gets a pass, but the notion of any military presence in Iraq is tantamount to more validation of how terrible Bush and his policies are supposed to be. Tends to reinforce the leftist double standard Understand now?
No.
Hmmmm, it seems quite simple, even for me Js. We have a military presence in Japan & Germany, not to mention a multitude of other arenas, incl Clinton's ("They'll be home by Christmas") Kosovo, and barely a peep of protest. We haven't been in Iraq for more than 6years, and the cries of some prolonged military presence is deafening. And yet you still don't get it yet, do you. Well, I tried. :-\ Perhaps Bt, Plane, or Ami can do better at explaining it
-
Hmmmm, it seems quite simple, even for me Js. We have a military presence in Japan & Germany, not to mention a multitude of other arenas, incl Clinton's ("They'll be home by Christmas") Kosovo, and barely a peep of protest. We haven't been in Iraq for more than 6years, and the cries of some prolonged military presence is deafening. And yet you still don't get it yet, do you. Well, I tried. :-\ Perhaps Bt, Plane, or Ami can do better at explaining it
Oh, I understand your point. I just cannot see what it has to do with me or the point I made.
You are making a rather simplistic comparison in an effort to try to make people who wish to pull US troops out of Iraq look like hypocrites. The problem with that notion is that it requires one to assume that all foreign military service performed by the United States is historically equivalent (and socially, morally, politically equivalent). Clearly that is not the case.
-
<<Sometimes I shudder when I read your brilliant posts, Michael, not because of their brilliance, which I celebrate, but for the flat out hatred of the US you consistently express with its bookend oddity clinching a landscape of a bizarre anti-world: your support, hell, your outright cheering and rooting for the world's worst cutthroats, who, be sure, would literally cut your throat, too, given the slightest opportunity>>
Sorry I don't make it clear where my hatred is focused, domer. It's not a hatred of "the U.S." It should be pretty clear by now that there is a fascist, militaristic, aggressive and just plain ugly streak in the American soul (what Robert Kennedy once called the "dark side" of America) and that is what I hate in America. I'd like to see America turn back to what it could have been, but unfortunately I think it's gone too far down the wrong road for it to come back to itself of its own volition.
And as bad as America's worst may be, I know that of course al Qaeda in Iraq, the Badr Brigades and the Mahdi Army are probably all worse, but so what? They weren't expected to be better, they had no reason to be better, they don't come from better. They will be bad whether they win or lose this struggle. America if it loses in Iraq may be forced to abandon some of its fascism and militarism. If it wins in Iraq, it's doomed. So, sure, I would like to see America - - or at least, American fascism and militarism - - defeated in Iraq. The country needs a lesson. A real hard lesson. It needs a huge kick in the ass.
-
also in response to "didn't we occupy Germany, etc.?" questions, I think the only close-to-valid analogy from the WWII and post-war periods would be South Korea. Germany and Japan were decisively defeated by superior military force and virtually every city they had (except, I think, Kyoto) was bombed flat. Anyone who would have resisted would effectively have chosen suicide. The fact is, there was no violent resistance to the occupation of either Germany or Japan worthy of note. For one thing, the entire population was at the mercy of the Allied Powers for the very food on their tables. South Korea was occupied to protect agaisnt invasion from the north. So this was not really an occupation of a country against the will of a substantial number of its citizens.
The Philippines is a valid analogy - - long-term occupation "worked" These were islands and had no outside support.
The reason the U.S. could never conquer Viet Nam was the rebels already had the North and an endless reservoir of troops there and if they needed more, they had China behind them.
Iraq will always find supporters coming in by land to fight. I think it's possible to subdue it with brute force, though. It's really up to the people of Iraq if they will submit or not. And how long will Americans tolerate the drain on the Treasury.
-
Hmmmm, it seems quite simple, even for me Js. We have a military presence in Japan & Germany, not to mention a multitude of other arenas, incl Clinton's ("They'll be home by Christmas") Kosovo, and barely a peep of protest. We haven't been in Iraq for more than 6years, and the cries of some prolonged military presence is deafening. And yet you still don't get it yet, do you. Well, I tried. :-\ Perhaps Bt, Plane, or Ami can do better at explaining it
Oh, I understand your point. I just cannot see what it has to do with me or the point I made.
Your point is the continued efforts to rationalize why all the other regions we have a military presence is apparently justifiable & gets a pass, but this time, under this President, it's all apparently wrong, when just the opposite arguement can be made.
-
Your point is the continued efforts to rationalize why all the other regions we have a military presence is apparently justifiable & gets a pass, but this time, under this President, it's all apparently wrong, when just the opposite arguement can be made.
Not at all and you forget that I support the continued US presence in Iraq.
The problem is that I respect the argument of those who oppose that policy. I have no reason to engage in partisan hackery in an effort to portray those who disagree as hypocrites.
-
Your point is the continued efforts to rationalize why all the other regions we have a military presence is apparently justifiable & gets a pass, but this time, under this President, it's all apparently wrong, when just the opposite arguement can be made.
Not at all
And yet you continue to do precisely that, explain why all the other regions have a military presence, while lamenting at such a possiblility occuring this go around, using an additional set of parameters, that to me express an obvious NEED for such a military presence to remain
and you forget that I support the continued US presence in Iraq.
Could have fooled me. I keep seeing innuendo as to how such a possibility is some supposed indictment as to how bad things are in Iraq.
-
And yet you continue to do precisely that, explain why all the other regions have a military presence, while lamenting at such a possiblility occuring this go around, using an additional set of parameters, that to me express an obvious NEED for such a military presence to remain.
Where did I do that?
Could have fooled me. I keep seeing innuendo as to how such a possibility is some supposed indictment as to how bad things are in Iraq.
Sirs, if Iraq was all peaches and cream why would any rational individual wish to have an occupational army there?
As an aside, what do my reasons for supporting the continued presence of American troops in Iraq have to do with you? At least I can honestly say that I do not have to stoop to partisan hackery to justify it.
-
Michael, you won't get a flat-out rejection of your critique of America from me. While I love this country deeply and profoundly, all things considered, my heart and soul are not empty of stinging criticisms of my own, which often mirror your concerns in outline but rarely in a full-bodied portrait. Our very roots are tainted by the treatment of Indians and the usurpation that followed, and by the scourge of slavery that was woven into a way of life for many and a convenient constitutional compromise (at first) by all others. The frontier mentality that won us the West still pervades our culture, having both salutary but also harmful effects, as "difficulties" (often other human beings) in our path of progress are simply so many challenges to be conquered on one's way to fulfilling his purpose. And that purpose, reinforced by a sanctified economic system exalting competition without much philosophical seasoning from humanizing principles like cooperation, equity, fairness and justice, for example, is deemed a sacred quest of its own. When these combinations, and others, are brought to bear on a problem to the exclusion of the redeeming, ameliorating or just plain virtuous things America has to offer (which I won't emphasize here), bad things can happen.
The focus here, of course, is Iraq. I disagree with you fundamentally that the invasion -- at the time the decision to go was made -- was anything but a close call. Unfortunately and regrettably its folly is apparent now, regardless of outcome. But at the time of decision, laboring under democratically-elected and democratically-tested precepts and responding to a unique, catastrophic event signaling an insidious danger lurking in the world, on a balance of all factors, though I would now vote not to authorize, the decision to go was intellectually and morally defensible. (I have sketched some of those reasons previously and will not now bother to repeat myself.)
Horrible things happened on the way to "victory." According to my personal set of values, there were (are they ever acceptable?) unacceptable civilian casualties, and I include even those countless unfortunates killed by the insurgency for it was the result of a fuse we lit. There was the shocking spectacle of prisoner abuse following hard on the heels of a top-down (though clueless as to this) culture of toughness. And there is the insult, if it can be called that, of our presumption of influence and our exercise of prerogatives in what is the domain of other men and women.
But, through the lottery of history, we are now the world's only military superpower, its most dynamic economic engine, its oasis of freedom if not sophistication, the world's leader in higher education, the seat of hope beyond all others, and so on infinitum, which not only creates our power but also a certain responsibility. And that, in an open and well-educate society, is a self-correcting enterprise, and, duly chastened but tough, the salvation of the hopes of humans on earth, so long as our turn at stewardship lasts.
-
domer, you're obviously a very smart and sensitive guy, and well able to think for yourself but I can't honestly for the life of me figure out how you can see the invasion of Iraq as anything other than a cynical pre-planned act of criminal aggression undertaken purely for geopolitical and/or geostrategic purposes. Like you, I don't think it's worthwhile at this point for either of us to set out our respective reasoning once again, but I do get the distinct feeling that you are willfully ignoring every single fact or deduction of logic that indicates the decision was anything other than an agonized soul-searching based on a consideration of the best available "intel" at the time, a.k.a. "the sirs explanation."
<<But, through the lottery of history, we are now the world's only military superpower, its most dynamic economic engine, its oasis of freedom if not sophistication, the world's leader in higher education, the seat of hope beyond all others, and so on infinitum . . . >>
But surely you must realize how temporary most of all that must be. If you were to graph the US's "predominance" from 1989 to date, I think you'd see a steady slippage in the percentage by which the US outstrips its rivals, either in the aggregate or against its lead competitor in any field. And although this isn't the thread to do it in, an analysis of any of those fields you mentioned would probably show the rate of decline increasing over time. I certainly place less of the blame on the Bush administration (which surely has to shoulder some of it) than I do on the rapid progress being made by your rivals, India, China, Russia, the EU and Brazil. But nevertheless, this pride in what must be largely evanescent accomplishments strikes me as largely irrelevant.
Where the U.S. has truly stood out, despite all of its obvious imperfections, was as a beacon of democratic freedoms, of respect for the rule of law and particularly international law as exemplified in the United Nations and its Charter. And you know, all of that is basically past tense and even as we speak recedes faster and faster into the past. I feel badly that my condemnation of the worst in the U.S.A. is seen as anti-American. I don't think that's a valid cloak any more when real, solid, albeit angry, criticism is voiced about America's role in the world. It's just not a valid response. In my worst moments, the answer could be, "God-damn right it's anti-American and well-justified at that!" but a truer answer would be the one I've already given, it's anti-fascist, anti-militarist Americanism, but it's NOT "anti-American." America's role under both Democrats and Republicans, at least since Viet Nam, has been horrendous, and that, more than any other fact, has to be taken into account and never lost sight of. Anything less is just an enabling mechanism for the Bushs and Cheneys and Rumsfelds to go on perpetrating their shit till the end of time.
-
Once perspective allowed, I have consistently held, and voiced, the opinion that GW Bush was either negligent or reckless in launching the invasion in the way he did. I reject corrupt motives, however, out of hand as not in keeping with the man's character, as not realistically capable of producing the results you allege were desired by the means used, and as not squaring with the presumptive seriousness and probity of a man in his position. What I do believe to be the case is a clear bias in favor of attack garnered from neo-con dogma and the open wound of the assassination attempt on his father. (This latter factor I take as being subconscious.) I think that Bush honestly but incorrectly believed that establishing a shining city of democracy on a hill in Iraq would be both fairly easy and would yield tremendous rewards as a beacon in the region for political change. I reject categorically and absolutely any and all (mindless) allegations of suspect motives. As for oil, it was and remains a strategic asset; Bush's interest in securing a beachead in the region where it is found, without more, is simply good geopolitics. Even so, standing alone as a concern, it would not either have justified or induced Bush to undertake the invasion.
I have no problem with the healthy competition among nations on the items you and I list. There is life after superpowerdom (or superstardom). The only real concerns are making sure that you do your best when it's your turn to carry the torch, and that you influence who your successor might be ... and continue the constructive pressure.
-
Well, I guess you put your finger on probably the strongest factor in the "He wasn't lying" camp, the character of the President himself. I have to confess, as a matter of fact, that while I see him as reckless, negligent, arrogant, ignorant, glib and facile, I too had a hard time picturing the guy as deliberately lying to create excuses for a pre-planned invasion.
However, if he wasn't lying, I would think that once the deceptions and/or "mistakes" had been discovered, had he not been in on this from the ground floor, heads would have rolled. He gave his word, or his administration gave its word, for which he ultimately was solely responsible, that this was a crisis, that the weapons were there, that they posed an intolerable threat - - and based on those representations the country went to war, hundreds of thousands died and then: ooops! no weapons, big mistake, sorry. And then - - no heads rolled, no apologies to the nation, no outrage at the lies and incompetence all around that led them into this fiasco. There is the problem with the "He's not that knd of guy" argument.
-
I don't mean the following comments cynically. In addition to the "legally sufficient" reasons for war -- WMD and an intent to use them through terroist connections -- there were myriad "off board" (not legally sufficient) reasons for attacking, which I won't repeat. What I will say is that it was an easy transition from the prime argument to the ancillary arguments once things did not pan out, and the switch did not require a change of direction but a change in emphasis. All the while, it seemed to me, the international law issues that bore on the problem were murky (did violation of the legally-established "no-fly zone" constitute a cause for war; are constituent members allowed to take unilateral action to vindicate breaches of UN Security Council resolutions? and so forth), such that there wasn't a clarity of condemnation as criticism grew after the absence of WMD was confirmed. Further (and remember I'm not being cynical) every system of law is only as good as the enforcement giving it structure, which is true of international law, and, more than any other body of law, international law depends heavily on the inter-state politics upon which it is grounded and which often subsumes formal legal action.
-
<<What I will say is that it was an easy transition from the prime argument to the ancillary arguments once things did not pan out, and the switch did not require a change of direction but a change in emphasis.>>
OK, that's plausible, but even conceding it for the sake of argument, how could he possibly be so forgiving when the failure to validate any of the original publicly emphasized reasons for war bashes his credibility to bits? What kind of man would let his credibility sink on the assurances of subordinates whose job it was to provide reliable information? ESPECIALLY where the forgeries were so amateurish, especially where the flaw in the theory could have so easily been traced back to its single-source origin and that source's obvious interest in the outcome? If this were really an honest mistake, it was inexcusable - - yet no heads roll.
<<the international law issues that bore on the problem were murky (did violation of the legally-established "no-fly zone" constitute a cause for war . . . ?"
Of course not - - there was no emergency factor that prevented a full examination of casus belli by the Security Council.
<< . . . are constituent members allowed to take unilateral action to vindicate breaches of UN Security Council resolutions?>>
Not only is there no precedent for such action, it's logically absurd. Are individual members of the community allowed to take punitive unilateral action to punish breaches of the criminal code? Are directors of a corporation permitted to sue in their own names as individuals for wrongs done to the corporation? Can an individual Senator or Member of Parliament sue another nation for a breach of an international treaty obligation to his own country?
<< . . . every system of law is only as good as the enforcement giving it structure, which is true of international law, and, more than any other body of law, international law depends heavily on the inter-state politics upon which it is grounded and which often subsumes formal legal action.>>
But that's PRECISELY what makes Bush's actions so heinous. There IS no enforcement mechanism for the most powerful of the member states. The whole structure of international law was slowly and painstakingly built on trust and respect for law. When the primary founding member of the UN itself suddenly junks international law and returns to the law of the jungle, the effect on international law as an institution, as a viable alternative to the rule of force, is catastrophic. This has been a huge set-back for international law.
-
Domer,
I don't get the same feeling from Michael's posts that you describe.
I disagree with some of his thoughts, but I think he's worried about our country, mourns its dead and grieves at the situation our soldiers are in right now. It is ruinous.
I want our soldiers home. That part of the world is starting to blow up now.
We can get our troops out, or let them perish when it all blows up.
The country needs a lesson. A real hard lesson. It needs a huge kick in the ass.
MT does cheer for large scores on the enemy kill sheets. I expect he will do so untill these guys come to Canada .
-
<< . . . every system of law is only as good as the enforcement giving it structure, which is true of international law, and, more than any other body of law, international law depends heavily on the inter-state politics upon which it is grounded and which often subsumes formal legal action.>>
But that's PRECISELY what makes Bush's actions so heinous. There IS no enforcement mechanism for the most powerful of the member states. The whole structure of international law was slowly and painstakingly built on trust and respect for law. When the primary founding member of the UN itself suddenly junks international law and returns to the law of the jungle, the effect on international law as an institution, as a viable alternative to the rule of force, is catastrophic. This has been a huge set-back for international law.
The alternative may be to have no enforcement of any international law at all.
What is the alternative to America as world policeman?
Who else is ready?
When the US left the League of Nations it was instantly irrelevant and the USA was not the super power then that it is now.
-
<<The alternative may be to have no enforcement of any international law at all.
What is the alternative to America as world policeman?
<<Who else is ready?>>
That is why there is a United Nations. Very few people anywhere will accept the dictate of one nation. The United Nations was a collective that enforced law through a consensual mechanism that all member states had agreed to. The Security Council would decide on the use of force. The actions of the Bush administration showed total lack of respect for other member states by bypassing the Security Council to arrogate unto itself the unilateral use of force on a member state, thereby destroying decades of respect for law and collective security. This childish and ignorant course was a disaster for the rule of law.
It's absurd to propose that unilateral American action is a substitute for Rule of Law. It is basically a return to the law of the jungle, a negation of everything the UN stood for. What's the alternative to China as world policeman? No country or group of countries is going to allow any country not stronger than it itself is to act as world policeman. When Chinese military strength outstrips American military strength, as it inevitably will, you will not be able to argue that collective security through the United Nations is a better alternative to China as the world's policeman, because the U.S. itself rejected that ideal under the Bush administration. Rejected the very concept of a rule of international law.
I think we are seeing the same stage setting as happened before the Second World War, when the League of Nations folded because of the refusal of Germany, Japan and Italy to be bound by the rule of international law. The parallel between the actions of these fascist powers and those of the Bush administration is unmistakeable. Without law, chaos will inevitably follow. Today we see chaos in Iraq, due to Bush's lawless attitude, spreading to Gaza and Lebanon. Inevitably that chaos will spread and widen. It is beyond the power of any one nation to subdue for long.
BTW, plane, the US did not "leave" the League of Nations. The US was never a member.
-
The world certainly does not need any one nation acting unilaterally as World Policeman.
With Juniorbush in charge of the US, it has acted more like Buford T. Justice of Smokey and the Bandit than Ponch of "Chipps". It would be funny if not for all the people who have needlessly died because of the unneeded invasion and the inept bungling that followed.
Buford T Justice never killed anyone, even though many a good car was creamed as a result of his bungling.
East Timor and Bosnia were settled with multinational forces, and eventually this is what restored some order to Rwanda and Liberia as well. All war is odious, but a coalition is preferable to a single force, and force is not always required.
Slovakia, Macedonia and Montenegro became independent with no more than a large force on alert.
-
To get this discussion back on track, forgetting the whirl of unceratinty surrounding a novel, potentially disastrous threat coupled to an old, proven, vicious enemy, the invasion of Iraq was justified on international law principles, not even generously interpreted, because Bush -- and most responsible others -- truly believed that Saddam's regime had deadly WMD and were very inclined to use them through the agency of established terrorist groups. The problem was not the reason the Bush administration offered nor the procedure it followed to the fateful decision, but rather this: it was honestly (or negligently or recklessly) wrong. It was an error, not a violation of law.
-
To get this discussion back on track, forgetting the whirl of unceratinty surrounding a novel, potentially disastrous threat coupled to an old, proven, vicious enemy, the invasion of Iraq was justified on international law principles, not even generously interpreted, because Bush -- and most responsible others -- truly believed that Saddam's regime had deadly WMD and were very inclined to use them through the agency of established terrorist groups. The problem was not the reason the Bush administration offered nor the procedure it followed to the fateful decision, but rather this: it was honestly (or negligently or recklessly) wrong. It was an error not a violation of law.
Where is the proof that He was wrong ?
We still do not know.
-
Excuse me if I speak with brutal frankness: what a f$&#ing moron.
-
<<truly believed that Saddam's regime had deadly WMD and were very inclined to use them through the agency of established terrorist groups.>>
That was one of the hypothetical outcomes they claimed to believe could result from Saddam's possession of WMD. However, as I understood their rationale, they claimed to believe that Saddam did have WMD. They claimed that because he did have them he might at some point in time - - any point in time - - give them to a "terrorist" group to use on America.
As far as I know, they did not claim that they believed that this was about to happen. In any event I do not believe that there is any provision of international law that permits pre-emptive attacks except in the clearest case of imminent attack. Speculation of what might happen without any basis in fact is clearly not the kind of justification required for use of force. There was absolutlely no legal justification for the attack on Iraq.
-
On more than one occasion, the US has threatened other countries with major mayhem if its will was not satisfied. Did this give the USSR, Egypt, Panama, Grenada, Haiti the right to invade the US and depose its government?
The fact that none of these countries had the ability to depose the president of the US is moot. I am talking about ther right to do this.
Iraq was obviously NOT a threat to the US. Even if it did have the weapons that were alleged, it had no means of delivering them to the US, and everyone bloody well knows this.
There was ZERO justification for invading Iraq, particularly as it was done: with no plans for occupation or withdrawal.
-
Iraq was obviously NOT a threat to the US. Even if it did have the weapons that were alleged, it had no means of delivering them to the US, and everyone bloody well knows this.
And just as much as bloody well everyone knows, the U.S. & Bush were never referencing the threat of Iraq using them on our soil. Against our soldiers, in Iraq, plausibly, but NEVER in reference to some actual attack by Saddam on U.S. soil. Did I mention "never"?
But by all means, produce the quote(s) that prove me wrong. Not quotes that can be taken completely out of context, or so vague they could be said to be referencing an imminent attack on Rancho Cucamonga. Actual quotes
I know I won't need to hold my breath
-
And just as much as bloody well everyone knows, the U.S. & Bush were never referencing the threat of Iraq using them on our soil. Against our soldiers, in Iraq, plausibly, but NEVER in reference to some actual attack by Saddam on U.S. soil. Did I mention "never"?
But by all means, produce the quote(s) that prove me wrong. Not quotes that can be taken completely out of context, or so vague they could be said to be referencing an imminent attack on Rancho Cucamonga. Actual quotes
I know I won't need to hold my breath
President Bush, March 6, 2003:
"Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possesses weapons of terror. He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists -- terrorists who would willingly use weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries. Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people.
"If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction.
"We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. I will not leave the American people at the mercy of the Iraqi dictator and his weapons."
Later, in answer to a question:
"Saddam Hussein is a threat to our nation. September the 11th changed the strategic thinking, at least, as far as I was concerned, for how to protect our country. My job is to protect the American people. It used to be that we could think that you could contain a person like Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us from his type of terror. September the 11th should say to the American people that we're now a battlefield, that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist organization could be deployed here at home.
"So, therefore, I think the threat is real. And so do a lot of other people in my government. And since I believe the threat is real, and since my most important job is to protect the security of the American people, that's precisely what we'll do."
Later, in answer to a question about the then upcoming war with Iraq:
"If I thought we were safe from attack, I would be thinking differently. But I see a gathering threat. I mean, this is a true, real threat to America."
While there may not be a precise and literal quote of saying Saddam was going to send WMD over here with ICBMs (although there may be something like that out there that I just didn't find), clearly the point was that Saddam Hussein and his regime were a direct threat to the United States.
Source for the quotes is whitehouse.gov (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html).
-
You did catch the qualifier "in context", right Prince? No one said Saddam's WMD weren't a threat. What Bush & his administration made crystal clear was the threat of those WMD finding their way into terrorists' hands, which would then have been a "direct threat to this country". Want a do over? I'm serious. WHERE is there some quote that references Saddam's imminent attack on the U.S.?? Not the threat his WMD posed, which was not being argued, but his plans to use them on us, right here in the good 'ol U.S. of A??
-
You did catch the qualifier "in context", right Prince?
Uh, yeah. That's why I posted the comments in context and provided a source to the webpage where I found the quotes. You did catch that, right Sirs?
No one said Saddam's WMD weren't a threat. What Bush & his administration made crystal clear was the threat of those WMD finding their way into terrorists' hands, which would then have been a "direct threat to this country". Want a do over?
Um, okay. I'll try this one again: "Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people." Not "will then be a threat". Specifically, "are a direct threat".
I'm serious. WHERE is there some quote that references Saddam's imminent attack on the U.S.?? Not the threat his WMD posed, which was not being argued, but his plans to use them on us, right here in the good 'ol U.S. of A??
I'm glad you're serious. 'Cause I was joking. No, not really. You're splitting hairs, Sirs. The President called Iraq and Saddam Hussein a threat to America. And as I look back at the thread, I don't see where anyone was accusing the President of claiming imminent attack on the U.S. from Iraq. If you do, please show me the the quote, in context and nothing so vague it could be referencing a claim of something other than imminent attack.
President Bush did acknowledge that Saddam Hussein might attempt an attack through terrorists. March 17, 2003:
"Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it. Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice.
"Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed."
Again, the clear point here is that we were under the threat of an attack by Saddam Hussein. Via terrorists, yes, but an attack by what was then the Iraqi government nonetheless. This whole bit about Bush not claiming imminent attack is a lot of smoke. Bush claimed the threat was direct, and clearly, it was not. Bush assured us time and again that we had intelligence that "leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Apparently, there should have been some doubt.
I am more than willing to concede that President Bush acted in good faith on what he believed was solid intelligence. The reasons why he thought that I might question, but I'll concede that he thought so anyway. President Bush said there was a threat, and that threat now turns out to have been, for the most part, a large bluff. And imo, criticizing the administration for not knowing it was a bluff is not unfair.
-
Sirs claimed:
And just as much as bloody well everyone knows, the U.S. & Bush were never referencing the threat of Iraq using them on our soil. Against our soldiers, in Iraq, plausibly, but NEVER in reference to some actual attack by Saddam on U.S. soil. Did I mention "never"?
Prince responded with a quote from President Bush:
Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people.
Sirs qualifies, justifies, etc
Want a do over?
Perhaps if you used some other form of English Prince. Apparently that quote was too complicated and left far too many loopholes. Taken in context it appears that "Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country" really means something entirely different.
Prince Responded:
I am more than willing to concede that President Bush acted in good faith on what he believed was solid intelligence. The reasons why he thought that I might question, but I'll concede that he thought so anyway. President Bush said there was a threat, and that threat now turns out to have been, for the most part, a large bluff. And imo, criticizing the administration for not knowing it was a bluff is not unfair.
Very well said.
Also note Bush's reference to September 11th. Though of course he never explicitly ties it directly to Saddam Hussein like in a children's book. "See Saddam handing the bad guy a box cutter." It is still interesting to see the reference when discussing the threat of Hussein and Iraq.
-
I have always understood Bush's position, from the context of my having lived through the times, to be that we had to guard against use of Iraqi WMD on our soil through the agency of a terrorist group cooperating clantestinely with Iraq. Sirs is an ass.
Michael, as is often the case, makes some very trenchant comments. The question of timing is essential: WHEN would the feared attack be launched? One has to consider in this regard preparation time, which subsumes the very practical problems of how to transport the weapons, the need to train and install the agents, and then to plan and execute the attack. To a large extent, these activities already came under the watchful eye of CIA, FBI, state and local law enforcement, tangentially the Department of Defense, and squarely the nascent Department of Homeland Security. This array of defenses raises the damnable specter of a redundant war, if not one aimed at a spectral threat.
Further, and crucially important, on known intelligence the "remedy of war," especially as it's unfolded, is grossly disproportionate (causes human death and suffering exponentially greater than that "expected" for us) to the harm an attack WITHIN THE REALM OF RATIONAL PREDICTION could inflict on us.
The national debate at the time never progressed this far.
-
The national debate at the time never progressed this far.
Of course not.
It got stuck on "Republicans are Nazis who stole the election."
-
I'll agree to that characterization, which is undoubtedly true at least parodically, if you agree that the administration "debate management" was a bit "fascistic."
-
I'll agree to that characterization, which is undoubtedly true at least parodically, if you agree that the administration "debate management" was a bit "fascistic."
What debate management? When were there any "debates" to "manage"?
-
Which makes my point.
-
Which makes my point.
Well, not really. The "Republicans stole the election" actually started out as "Republicans are GONNA steal the election" months before the election ever happened. There has been no effective debate in this country since '98. The media seems to be saturated with the right wing and left wing equivalents of Knutty, effectively stifling any discussion.
-
So nice to know I have likely the most arrogant egotistical fan, here in the forum. Thanks Domer
-
Perhaps if you used some other form of English Prince. Apparently that quote was too complicated and left far too many loopholes. Taken in context it appears that "Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country" really means something entirely different.
I guess. I notice the lack of a quote from Sirs. Anyway, I don't get the hair splitting as defense here. Saddam Hussein was presented as a direct threat that we had to deal with right away or live with the consequences of an attack. Iraq was, as I recall, a "terrorist state", i.e. allied in some way with the terrorists. The case was attack Iraq or we will be attacked with a weapon of mass destruction. Imminent or not, the case was the same. And it turned out to not be true. What has irked me all along about this is that we should have known better. I'm not saying there was an intentional ignoring of evidence, but we should have known what the reality of the situation was. We got duped. Imagine if the situation were inverted. Imagine that instead of overestimating Iraq's capability, we had underestimated it. My point being that we did not accurately know the situation we were getting into. And now, U.S. troops may be in Iraq indefinitely. Yes, we still have troops in Germany and all that, but we shouldn't. Our troops ought to be here, in the U.S.
Also note Bush's reference to September 11th. Though of course he never explicitly ties it directly to Saddam Hussein like in a children's book. "See Saddam handing the bad guy a box cutter." It is still interesting to see the reference when discussing the threat of Hussein and Iraq.
I think we're going to see that sort of thing no matter who is President. All sorts of military actions around the world now have a convenient excuse, that September 11, 2001, proved we are not safe from international terrorism. Boogidy boogidy boo! Yeah, I think we need to take terrorism seriously, but I think it's now another card in the deck of needlessly aggressive foreign policy. And Democrats who "need" to look strong on national security are going to use it. Fear of this and that is all I seem to see from most politicians these days. Fear of vast numbers of criminal immigrants using up all our resources, or fear of poverty or fear of terrorists or fear of fatty food, on and on. I wish the government would stick to the whole bridge building, water testing stuff and stop trying so hard to protect us all from life.
-
Prince (& Js) the copious amount of quotes you so graciously provided reference the point I was making, about taking quotes out of contect and/or providing quotes so vague, that you could argue an imminent attack on DC itself. The quotes repeatively document that threat the WMD were, which again, has never neen at issue.
You have YET to show ANWHERE some quote that provides the threat of an imminent WMD attack, BY Saddam/Iraq, ON U.S. soil. Please, if I missed it, highlight it for me. :-\
-
Still an ass.
-
Still an ass.
Hmmm. And you were on such a roll with your plethora of gems recently.
-
I don't appreciate the scolding. Were you polite and dainty during your Navy days. Sometimes its best to dispense with pseudo niceties, "political correctness" (?), and to speak plainly and directly. The son of a bitch is being an ass.
-
No scolding intended.
I had been enjoying your new found clarity.
-
Prince (& Js) the copious amount of quotes you so graciously provided reference the point I was making, about taking quotes out of contect and/or providing quotes so vague, that you could argue an imminent attack on DC itself. The quotes repeatively document that threat the WMD were, which again, has never neen at issue.
The quotes were neither vague nor out of context.
You have YET to show ANWHERE some quote that provides the threat of an imminent WMD attack, BY Saddam/Iraq, ON U.S. soil. Please, if I missed it, highlight it for me. :-\
Again: I don't see where anyone was accusing the President of claiming imminent attack on the U.S. from Iraq. If you do, please show me the the quote, in context and nothing so vague it could be referencing a claim of something other than imminent attack. Good luck.
-
I don't see where anyone was accusing the President of claiming imminent attack on the U.S. from Iraq. If you do, please show me the the quote, in context and nothing so vague it could be referencing a claim of something other than imminent attack. Good luck.
Let's try again then, for better clarity as to the point I've been trying to make.......You have YET to show ANYWHERE, some quote by Bush & Co. that references the pending threat of a WMD attack, BY Saddam/Iraq, ON U.S. soil. Please, if I missed it, highlight it for me.
-
Let's try again then, for better clarity as to the point I've been trying to make.......
In other words, no, you can't find a quote.
You have YET to show ANYWHERE, some quote by Bush & Co. that references the pending threat of a WMD attack, BY Saddam/Iraq, ON U.S. soil. Please, if I missed it, highlight it for me.
Wow. We've moved all the way from 'imminent' to 'pending'. We didn't move very far, did we? Okay, let's play. I don't see where anyone was accusing the President of claiming a pending attack on the U.S. from Iraq. If you do, please show me the the quote, in context and nothing so vague it could be referencing a claim of something other than a pending attack. Good luck.
That said, who gives a good gorram whether President Bush said an attack from Iraq was imminent, pending, or even impending in exact words? He argued the case, and again I quote, that "Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people." Not "could become a threat" or "someday he might be" but that Saddam Hussein was a threat right then. And I notice that we didn't just bomb weapons factories. We went to war with Iraq and deliberately toppled the government. I don't know what part of "Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat" would be unclear. I am willing to give President Bush credit for a number of character traits, but subtlety isn't one of them.
Now, if you really want to argue that we went to war with Iraq without Iraq and/or the then government of Iraq being a threat to the U.S., then by all means, go ahead. I won't stop you. If you do, I'm pretty sure you'd be undermining the case that we needed to go to war. That could be your plan, but I kinda doubt it.
-
Prince (& Js) the copious amount of quotes you so graciously provided reference the point I was making, about taking quotes out of contect and/or providing quotes so vague, that you could argue an imminent attack on DC itself. The quotes repeatively document that threat the WMD were, which again, has never neen at issue.
You have YET to show ANWHERE some quote that provides the threat of an imminent WMD attack, BY Saddam/Iraq, ON U.S. soil. Please, if I missed it, highlight it for me. :-\
Sirs, I'm going to be honest but not demeaning or sarcastic, the quote Prince provided is both in context and is not vague. It is in context because he provides the full text and it certainly is not vague. Even if it were, that would be an issue with the speaker, in this case President Bush, not the individual providing the quote. Allowing politicians to take a mulligan because they speak vaguely is demeaning to the people (and an old political trick).
The only thing missing here from your criteria is the component of time. Everything else is there.
Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people.
Notice the terminology. His weapons. Direct threat. This country. Our people. Four very succinct phrases all of which are very powerful. If you say them to yourself and emphasize the first word in each, you can imagine how strong that message is.
Now, think about the time component. He could have added, "maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon." Though I don't think he could do a very good Bogey. He could have said, "we don't know when or even if these attacks will ever take place." But see how much that weakens what was such a strong statement?
You've said yourself that if you are building a case for war, you wouldn't parade around the contradicting evidence. If this was a good faith war effort, and we need to believe that it was, then that's understandable.
Yet, to say that Bush did not claim Iraq and the WMD were a threat to this country, and even an immediate threat is simply falling into bizarre semantics. If anything, leaving the component of time to the imaginations of the people is probably the most powerful way of making the point.
-
I think we're going to see that sort of thing no matter who is President. All sorts of military actions around the world now have a convenient excuse, that September 11, 2001, proved we are not safe from international terrorism. Boogidy boogidy boo! Yeah, I think we need to take terrorism seriously, but I think it's now another card in the deck of needlessly aggressive foreign policy. And Democrats who "need" to look strong on national security are going to use it. Fear of this and that is all I seem to see from most politicians these days. Fear of vast numbers of criminal immigrants using up all our resources, or fear of poverty or fear of terrorists or fear of fatty food, on and on. I wish the government would stick to the whole bridge building, water testing stuff and stop trying so hard to protect us all from life.
I completely agree with you there (with the exception of the bit on poverty ;) ). In fact, Democrats may even be worse about it than Republicans when it comes down to the rubber hitting the road. Historically this tended to happen with the Cold War where Democrats felt they had to prove themselves as anti-communists whereas the Republicans were already tough on communism hence "only Nixon could go to China." I know that my Democratic Congressman wrote some horrible stuff on immigration and the "criminal immigrants" and missed my vote in 2006 (he didn't need it, but it was still my vote).
Indeed, 9/11 will be a tool for the politicians for a long time to come. Fear has been a trademark of politicians in all forms of governments, probably since the first tribal chief was crowned in some East African plain and there really was a lot to fear!
-
Fear has been a trademark of politicians in all forms of governments, probably since the first tribal chief was crowned in some East African plain and there really was a lot to fear!
Really?
To hear some people (here and other places), Bush invented the concept...
-
Can one be delusional , paranoid and detached from reality , but really threatened ?
Our recent experiences include the crash at Lockerbie, where a leader of a state attempted to use anonymous terrorism as a means of harming the USA.
Is the arming of catspaws while maintaining a plausible deniability an unlikely scenario?
Saddam Hussein had a history of developing WMD and also a history of supporting terrorists , should a president have been confident that these two things would salways remain seprate issues?
-
Can one be delusional , paranoid and detached from reality , but really threatened ?
Our recent experiences include the crash at Lockerbie, where a leader of a state attempted to use anonymous terrorism as a means of harming the USA.
Is the arming of catspaws while maintaining a plausible deniability an unlikely scenario?
Saddam Hussein had a history of developing WMD and also a history of supporting terrorists , should a president have been confident that these two things would salways remain seprate issues?
Are you asking if the situation was feasible? Sure.
You need to remember though that this lumping of terrorist groups into one big category is irresponsible. Not all of them are radical religious terrorists. The Baathists had a very poor relationship with the radical religious Islamic terrorists. Just ask Saddam's pal Assad, who fought bitterly with religious terrorism in Syria. Also, don't think that the Shi'a groups would ever have forgotten the Iraq/Iran war and who received the first doses of Saddam's actual WMD (and who received the brunt of Saddam's torture and brutality).
So, would Saddam really simply hand over nasty chemical or biological agents (even if he did have them, which he did not) to a radical religious Islamic terror group?
I think that deserved a lot of questioning by the experts. To simply default to a "yes" answer was to accept a hell of a lot of very debatable assumptions. And I know, here comes the "always err on the side of caution" response. But if we're honest, the intelligence agencies make those decisions everyday and they don't always err on the side of caution. Neither does the administration (any administration). Risk management means you have to take some acceptable risk, and I'm not sure the above question was looked at or put to the American people in a responsible manner.
-
<<That said, who gives a good gorram whether President Bush said an attack from Iraq was imminent, pending, or even impending in exact words? He argued the case, and again I quote, that "Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people." Not "could become a threat" or "someday he might be" but that Saddam Hussein was a threat right then. And I notice that we didn't just bomb weapons factories. We went to war with Iraq and deliberately toppled the government. I don't know what part of "Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat" would be unclear. I am willing to give President Bush credit for a number of character traits, but subtlety isn't one of them.>>
That is one sharp and direct rebuttal to sirs' nonsensical claims that the Bush administration did not fear-monger, did not make ludicrous claims that Iraq posed an actual rather than a potential danger to the U.S.A.
The same could be said for Condi's argument about not being able to afford to wait till the smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud. The unmistakeable inference to be drawn from that remark was that failure to take immediate action (the only action then beng advocated by the administration being the invasion of Iraq) would lead to nuclear strikes on U.S. soil. Of course, as sirs has tried to do, you could parse the sentence and find, for example, that no one specified where the mushroom cloud was going to be, but in the context of a debate over war or peace, Condi obviously being on the war side, that "mushroom cloud" was obviously intended to maximise the downside of not invading, and could only refer to a mushroom cloud directly over the heads of the non-invaders and their loved ones.
However, I think it's misleading to comment solely on what Bush said, what Condi said, etc. The manufacturing of consent is a broad-based and sophisticated effort that of necessity goes beyond what members of the government themselves were quoted as saying. You have to look at the MSM campaign, led by the New York Times and particularly Judith Miller. The Times was obviously giving voice to the administration through anonymous and/or "leaked" information from government sources directly or indirectly, and the failure of the administration to deny any of the pro-war lies of Judith Miller and the Times is as much a part of the campaign as what Bush and his handlers did say for the record.
-
Prince (& Js), I simply need to reference the quote you keep providing as the supposed smoking gun, to again make my point..."He argued the case, and again I quote, that "Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people." Not "could become a threat" or "someday he might be" but that Saddam Hussein was a threat right then."
ONE LAST TIME, SADDAM'S WMD WERE A DIRECT THREAT TO THE U.S. That never did answer my question though, did it.
ONE LAST TIME, NO WHERE IS THERE ANY REFERENCE/QUOTE OF SADDAM PLANNING ANY SORT OF ATTACK ON THE U.S. That was the question I asked. There have been numerous quotes made by Bush and co that put your quote into a more accurate context, that those WMD of Saddam in the hands of terrorists, could use them on the U.S., which was the "direct threat to this country"
THAT has been the point all along, and Bush made that point, WAY BACK WHEN
-
Frankly, Sirs, your argument in this thread makes no sense. Bush argued that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the U.S. And you can jabber about context all you like, but the context makes quite clear that Bush was arguing Saddam Hussein himself was a threat to the U.S. As I pointed out before, we did not merely bomb weapons factories, but we went to war with the country of Iraq and deliberately targeted the then government of Iraq. So again, if you really want to undermine the case that we needed to go to war with Iraq, I won't stop you, but you're not eroding anyone's position except your own.
-
Saddam Hussein had a history of developing WMD and also a history of supporting terrorists , should a president have been confident that these two things would salways remain seprate issues?
Of course not. As I said before, I am more than willing to concede that President Bush acted in good faith on what he believed was solid intelligence. The problem is that the intelligence was obviously not solid. Saddam's government having a history of developing WMD was a good reason to keep an eye on it. It was not, however, grounds to assume that he was doing so again in 2003. Yes, we had lots of intelligence that Bush and his administration assured us was solid proof of Iraq's WMD development programs. But again, it was obviously not solid. It was a hollow construction that was apparently built with deceptions and assumptions and suppositions. (By deceptions I don't mean Bush lied to us. I mean other people presented things that were not true in a way that deceived the intelligence agencies.) In other words, we was had. That should not have happened, and I find I am not willing to excuse it. Good men and women were put in harm's way without an accurate picture of what the real situation was.
And now we have apparently committed to indefinitely maintaining troops in what is sure to be, if it isn't already, the best possible training ground for terrorists to learn urban combat and the tactics of getting terrorist attacks past strong security. I have heard some people say that history will vindicate President Bush and his choice to go to war with Iraq as part of the "war on terror", but I don't agree. I think a huge mistake has been made, and continuing it is like trying to correct shooting oneself in the foot by doing it again.
-
Frankly, Sirs, your argument in this thread makes no sense. Bush argued that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the U.S. And you can jabber about context all you like, but the context makes quite clear that Bush was arguing Saddam Hussein himself was a threat to the U.S......................
.....................(now, let's complete the context to make that statement accurate), since the potential of his offloading WMD to terrorist cells/groups, was the direct threat to this country being referenced. Amazing what context can do
As I pointed out before, we did not merely bomb weapons factories, but we went to war with the country of Iraq and deliberately targeted the then government of Iraq.
In order to remove that threat, as accurately referenced in my above clarification. Simple at that. ::)
-
(now, let's complete the context to make that statement accurate), since the potential of his offloading WMD to terrorist cells/groups, was the direct threat to this country being referenced. Amazing what context can do
I was going to say that it's amazing what ignoring context will do. The President said specifically that Saddam Hussein was a direct threat, and you keep insisting that he didn't mean that. Apparently based on some sort of non-sarcastic, non-satirical, straightforward yet magical context that erases the meaning of words. But hey, if you really want to argue that we went to war with a country that was not a direct threat to us, okay, I'll accept it. You've convinced me that we had absolutely no grounds for war with Iraq and removing their government.
(No, you haven't, but I wanted you have that moment.)
-
(now, let's complete the context to make that statement accurate), since the potential of his offloading WMD to terrorist cells/groups, was the direct threat to this country being referenced. Amazing what context can do
I was going to say that it's amazing what ignoring context will do. The President said specifically that Saddam Hussein was a direct threat, and you keep insisting that he didn't mean that.
NO, NO, and again NO. He meant it, in the vane that Saddam's WMD were a threat, IF they're allowed to fall into the hands of terrorist cells/organizations. He & his administration have made that crystal clear since the get go. This effort to continue to omit that which makes your selective quotes more accurate tells me more about how feeble your foundation is in making said accusations
-
NO, NO, and again NO. He meant it, in the vane that Saddam's WMD were a threat, IF they're allowed to fall into the hands of terrorist cells/organizations. He & his administration have made that crystal clear since the get go. This effort to continue to omit that which makes your selective quotes more accurate tells me more about how feeble your foundation is in making said accusations
Sirs, I find your argument here amazingly fantastical. You are basically making an argument of delivery.
Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people.
The context only qualifies this statement insofar as it discusses the method of Saddam Hussein's weapons being delivered to this country. Nowhere does President Bush say that the likelihood of Hussein attacking us is less than if Hussein had a missile or airplane within striking distance of the United States. He maintains his words above: "direct threat to this country." (Which is factually incorrect, because if he needed an intermediary to attack, it would technically constitute an indirect threat but its a speech and who's counting?)
There is no room for debate in that statement. In fact, you seem to argue that very point when you make the following claim:
In order to remove that threat, as accurately referenced in my above clarification. Simple at that.
It seems to me you want your cake and you want to eat it too. You want Iraq to have been a direct, as close to an immediate threat to this country as possible, but you don't want President Bush to have made a case that Iraq itself was an immediate threat to the United States where the war was primarily based on Weapons of Mass Destruction (which it was) because that tarnishes both President Bush and the entire invasion of Iraq.
I think that is why your argument is so awkward Sirs, and I mean that not in a disparaging way.
-
It seems to me you want your cake and you want to eat it too. You want Iraq to have been a direct, as close to an immediate threat to this country as possible,
NO, no cake here, and again that's NOT what Bush was referencing in CONTEXT. It was Saddam's/Iraq's WMD that were, in the hands of the right people who might use them
....but you don't want President Bush to have made a case that Iraq itself was an immediate threat to the United States where the war was primarily based on Weapons of Mass Destruction (which it was) because that tarnishes both President Bush and the entire invasion of Iraq.
NO, no eating here either, as Iraq's WMD was a threat (read; NOT immediate, NOT imminent, simply a growing threat), and following the events of 911, we no longer had the luxury of waiting another 12+ years of inspectors being led around at Saddam's wishes and hope upon hope that he wouldn't offload or sell any of the WMD that the vast majority of the global intel, and prior administration as well, concluded he still had.
Why this continued effort to mutate the clear and concise explainations of Bush and this administration, as well as the repetition of that point I've been making, is beyond me. For folks as twisted as Brass & Tee, I can see, but for folks as rational as Prince & Js, I'm completely baffled :-\
-
The US will NEVER WIN an Iraqi Civil War. Ain't gonna happen. It can't be done, and won't be.
The voters will NOT allow this to go on for any f*cking 40 more years, no matter how brave Petreus might be.
The goal of Juniorbush and his despicable handlers (because he is just not bright enough to come up with this, and those who are are cfreepods like Cheney or worse that no one would ever elect) was precisely this: to monger an endless war that would generate revenue for the Military Industrial Complex just as the Cold War did. If we allow them to do this, we are morons.
The Arab world wants to be LEFT ALONE. If we leave, it could be dicey for a few years. But if this goes on, it will be much worse.
And once more: Israel is NOT a state of the US. It is an unwelcome colony whose interests are mostly quite different from our own.
Perhaps miraculously, I find my self in partial agreement here with XO....sigh.
XO: The US will NEVER WIN an Iraqi Civil War. Ain't gonna happen. It can't be done, and won't be.
Me: I concur. Winning a difficult guerrilla war is indeed a dicey proposition and it is not clear to me our military is structured to win this TYPE of conflict.
XO: The voters will NOT allow this to go on for any f*cking 40 more years, no matter how brave Petreus might be.
Me: As I have indicated in earlier posts, I believe "let's delay air traffic while I get my hair done" Hillary will be our next President. I predict if this occurs, that she will immediately pursue procedures to extricate us from Iraq. A REAL withdraw, within months. The Democrats have accomplished a major purpose of theirs with the voters, namely we need to get OUT!
XO: The goal of Juniorbush and his despicable handlers (because he is just not bright enough to come up with this, and those who are are cfreepods like Cheney or worse that no one would ever elect) was precisely this: to monger an endless war that would generate revenue for the Military Industrial Complex just as the Cold War did. If we allow them to do this, we are morons.
Me: Naw, I have never believed this. I still believe President Bush honestly believed there were WMD and so acted accordingly.
XO: The Arab world wants to be LEFT ALONE. If we leave, it could be dicey for a few years. But if this goes on, it will be much worse.
I do not know whether they WANT to be left alone, but sobeit anyway. As UP and I have presented: let's get out of there and let the dice fall as they may.
XO: And once more: Israel is NOT a state of the US. It is an unwelcome colony whose interests are mostly quite different from our own.
Me: I totally disagree with this statement, primarily for religious reasons. No surprise there!
-
I was going to say that it's amazing what ignoring context will do. The President said specifically that Saddam Hussein was a direct threat, and you keep insisting that he didn't mean that.
NO, NO, and again NO. He meant it, in the vane that Saddam's WMD were a threat, IF they're allowed to fall into the hands of terrorist cells/organizations. He & his administration have made that crystal clear since the get go.
So... President Bush meant that Saddam Hussein was a direct threat in the vein of the possibility of being an indirect threat... That is approaching the opposite of crystal clear.
This effort to continue to omit that which makes your selective quotes more accurate tells me more about how feeble your foundation is in making said accusations
Making what accusations? President Bush said Saddam Hussein was a direct threat. That was a clear part of his argument for going to war with Iraq. I'm not making this up. It's all there, shining with contextual glory, in his speeches. Your continued effort to deny this does nothing to help your argument.
-
So... President Bush meant that Saddam Hussein was a direct threat in the vein of the possibility of being an indirect threat...
Close. His (Saddam's) WMD WAS a direct threat. How you get to "indirect"....well, I know why, though the how is problematic
This effort to continue to omit that which makes your selective quotes more accurate tells me more about how feeble your foundation is in making said accusations
Making what accusations?
Implying that Bush supposedly was arguing Saddam himself was preparing some attack on the U.S. THAT accusation
President Bush said Saddam Hussein was a direct threat. That was a clear part of his argument for going to war with Iraq.
Almost. The part that made it clear was also in referencing how his WMD in the hands of terrorists was the direct threat. And no, I'm not making that up either. If you absolutely need me to, I'll endeavor to go find a bunch of those quotes as well. Ones that I know you must be aware of him making, but if you absolutely need me to, I will. After doing so, then what?
-
Close. His (Saddam's) WMD WAS a direct threat. How you get to "indirect"....well, I know why, though the how is problematic
Not really. It's easy if you've been paying attention. I keep pointing out that President Bush said Saddam Hussein was a direct threat, and you keep saying the WMD getting into the hands of terrorists was what President Bush really meant. Which would have made Saddam Hussein an indirect threat. This isn't rocket science. Why you continue to insist that the President meant what he said because he really meant something else, I do not know. I get that you think this pretzel reasoning makes some point, but I've forgotten what that point might be.
Implying that Bush supposedly was arguing Saddam himself was preparing some attack on the U.S. THAT accusation
Wha? Sorry, I'm dizzy from watching all the mental gymnastics. What you see as an implication on my part (making it an inference on your part) is now an accusation, but President Bush saying Saddam Hussein is a direct threat is somehow not an implication that Saddam Hussein might attempt to attack the U.S.? Wow. That's amazing. I don't know how you do it.
President Bush said Saddam Hussein was a direct threat. That was a clear part of his argument for going to war with Iraq.
Almost. The part that made it clear was also in referencing how his WMD in the hands of terrorists was the direct threat.
Um, no. The part that made that clear was President Bush saying that Saddam Hussein was a direct threat.
The part that made it clear was also in referencing how his WMD in the hands of terrorists was the direct threat. And no, I'm not making that up either. If you absolutely need me to, I'll endeavor to go find a bunch of those quotes as well. Ones that I know you must be aware of him making, but if you absolutely need me to, I will. After doing so, then what?
Yes, I am sure you can find plenty of quotes touting the supposed WMD as threats. No one is denying that the supposed WMD were touted as threats. You, on the other hand, seem to be in denial the President Bush also said plainly and clearly that Saddam Hussein was a direct threat. And really this is about as far as this conversation can go. You're intent on undermining one of the reasons we had to go to war with Iraq, and I'm tired of trying to convince you otherwise. So have at it. I'm done.
-
XO: And once more: Israel is NOT a state of the US. It is an unwelcome colony whose interests are mostly quite different from our own.
Me: I totally disagree with this statement, primarily for religious reasons. No surprise there!
==============================================================
TOTALLY disagree?
So Israel is a state of the US? Have you seen the new flag? 50 five-pointed stars and one six-pointed one.
Israel has no separation of state and church.
Israel has segregated the people to the degree where Arabs are issued different license plates and may not travel on the better, faster Jews-only roads.
Israel has no constitution. None. No one in Israel has any constitutional rights.
Israel is an unwelcome colony in a hostile part of the world. It would have made more sense to locate it in Bavaria, or to have given the Jews some American state. I do not want my taxes to support apartheid. Not in Israel or anywhere else.
But c'mon, you don't totally disagree. You want the US to annex Israel as a state?
Jesus isn't coming back. Face it.
They'd have to give up on their apartheid.
-
It would seem Prince, that you're hung up on the notion of whose WMD belonged to whom. I understood perfectly that the reference to Saddam's direct threat was specific to his WMD. You seem to be implying that the WMD I've been consistently referencing is some nebulous weaponry, disconnected from Saddam. Reading in context demonstrates clearly, to me at least, the direct threat to the U.S. is Saddam's WMD in the wrong hands. And the quotes that you yourself acknowledgeare out there reinforce that position, yet you keep going back to these few quotes as if that's all that was said on the matter.
Out of context to the totatility of what was said, regarding who was the direct threat to the U.S. and how so. Tee & Brass I can understand. You and Js........ ???