Hey, newscrasher, can you say non-sequitorial logic?
When Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire” it was at a time when we had enough nuclear arms pointed at each other to wipe out all human life about 50 times over. And you’re criticizing people because it made them nervous? (And please don’t argue that it was only ten or twelve times over so, really, my argument doesn’t count.) Of course it made them nervous. And not just muddle-headed librulz either but a lot of folks morbidly addicted to breathing.
Dont’ forget that the Israelis were greeted as liberators when the first elbowed their way into Lebannon but that they were quickly regarded as occupiers and harassed from within until they evacuated.
We are now looking at a years-long committment and for what? To defend ourselves against a lot of weapons that nobody can find, the existence of which was based on evidence that was obsolete or cooked. Swell.
The Iraqis are free?
When are the next elections gonna be?
They are certainly free to die if they make sudden movements.
Very liberal euthanasia laws is all they got.
I think that there is one problem with that. More and more it looks like the Iraqi people are on the side of the guerrilla soldiers. The feared thugs are the Americans. Right now I think a better characterization would be that the Iraqis thought that they were getting a democracy from America and now feel that the Americans are the new dictator.
Can eurosnots without Monarchies like the Irish and French (who helped you and us with our countries monarchy issues) and Germans, Italians etc. stick our noses in
BTW I love going to SE Asia but after the Bali bombing I have to think again and friends of mine and posters here had to re-plan a visit to Morocco due to the bombings there. US policy and the hatred of Westerners (Not just the US) by Muslim extremists has a effect on all of us.
.
Bwahahahaha! The Democrats are going to run on national defense? After Clinton’s record going after the terrorists?
Is that Michigan I see voting red? Ooh, that’s a lot of electoral votes. Maybe you should have the convention in Atlanta, so you can at least get the hotel workers’ votes.
And in answer to your other question, no. Is your name Osama?
Yeah, that was uncalled for. Manny’s got much better legs that the CoulterBeast. (Nothin’ like endearing yourself to a mod when you see an easy one…)
The one question I would like to have settled in my own mind is who the hell these Iraqi guys are! The Bushistas seem intent on blaming Saddamites and B’aathists, but that seems pretty unlikely to me (an opinion based largely on ignorance, one must freely admit…). They’re using weapons that indicate some familiarity, some military training, but as Col pointed out, there are very large number of military vets in the general population…
I suspect a comparatively disorganized nativist reaction is at bottom here. Suspect, mind you. Thing is, if I’m right, the Bushistas will do everything they can to prevent me from finding out. The would rather wipe thier butts with cactus than admit that the trouble is coming from a nationalist guerilla front. If it is.
Kalashnikov, who invented the AK-47, “designed by a genius to be used by a moron”, did the world a big damn hurt. Theres millions of the goddam things, and everywhere there’s Bad Mojo, there the damn things are!
I’d like a cite or two that shows that, please. The last Iraqi poll I saw said that 76% of them wanted the U.S. to stay until either an interim or permanent Iraqi government was set up.
I think it’s a wild exaggeration to say that the ‘Iraqi people’ are on the side of the guerillas. Inasmuch as the guerillas may be led by Saddam or other members of the regime, with the intent of re-installing the loathed Baathist dictatorship, I’d say a better characterization is that the Iraqi people are terrified that the U.S. will leave and Saddam will return to power.
But if you can show widespread support for the guerillas, please post a cite.
Bwahahahaha, yourself. President Butch has just squandered I don’t know how much in the way of dollars and international good will (not to mention more than a few of American lives — bring 'em on, indeed) invading Iraq which, rather than increasing our security, has spurred Qaeda’s recuritment while leaving our ports, chemical and nuclear plants vulnerable to attack. So, yeah, it is possible to outrun him on national defense. Remember Kennedy and the missle gap? Helped beat Nixon (with additional assistance courtesy of Mayor Daily and the Cook County political machine).
As far as Clinton going after terrorists, two things 1) I remember a lot of Republicans bitching when Clinton bombed Iraq after the inspectors left on the grounds that it was some kind of unfair grandstand ploy and 2) it would be interesting to know what Bush knew about terrorists before 9/11 but the Bush administration keeps blocking investigators. If you want to know why this is important see the above paragraph.
By the by, I notice a lot of you war supporters eschew discussing who’s right on the facts in favor of speculative future vote counts presumably favorable to Republicans. May I suggest that this is not a good long-run strategy? If I recall, the Republicans had a pretty good run early in the last century right up to 1929 when their economic theories took a rather large hit. Like the Coyote, you can defy gravity only solong before it asserts itself and you leave yet another comical imprint on the canyon floor.
And, no, my name isn’t Osama. It’s Mosama, you knucklehead.
Thats really just my opinion. On the other hand when you look at the guerilla attacks I think it is an easy thing to conclude. For one thing power and electricity are still not at pre-war levels. So you might just find Iraqis liking the good old days when they had power and electricity.
Secondly we keep on pushing democracy back over there. I am sure they don’t like it when we cancel elections. How long are they going to wait before they decide that we have no intention of holding elections?
Mostly it looks like the various government agencies have deemed this investigation a low priority compared to their other work, and are taking their time getting the relevant documents to the investigators. It’s not unusual civil servant behavior, although Bush could speed things along if he made it a higher priority. It doesn’t reflect well on Bush, but it’s hardly damning evidence of obstruction.
Your opinion is based on… what? There are some attacks in Iraq, and therefore the Iraqi people must support them? I hope you can see the logical fallacy in that.
Here’s an article that has a pretty reasonable explanation of what’s going on:
That’s been my read of the situation as well. There is a core of ex-Baathists who were in a privileged position in the Saddam regime, and they are fighting back. Considering the atrocities they committed before, many of them probably have nothing to lose, because they will be jailed or killed if other Iraqis get their hands on them. The only chance they have for survival is to get the Americans to leave and get the Baathists back in power.
That may be a significant number of people. The Fedayeen Saddam was made up of thousands of the trusted people in Saddam’s empire, and they are probably all facing criminal prosecution if captured. And they almost all faded away when Baghdad fell.
Throw into the mix an unknown number of foreign fighters, terrorists, and the like. Stir in some agitation from Iran. Sprinkle with a dash of Ansar al-Islam survivors from up north, and that’s what you’re looking at.
I get no sense at all that this is a popular guerilla uprising being fed by the population at large. And that’s a good thing - it means the U.S. has a good chance of getting a handle on it. It also means that finding and killing Saddam and his closest people is a huge priority.
Sam Stone why do you think that the Iraqis aren’t getting their hands on these ex-Baathists? Why do the guerilla forces attack US troops and then get away without Iraqis stopping them?
The thing is these guerilla warriors are moving freely through the Iraqi population. They are attacking our troops and then fading back into the general population. If the population doesn’t support the attacks they don’t seem to be trying to stop them either.
Seems to me that if Sam is right, and the Untidyists currently making such trouble have no popular support amongst everyday Iraqis, then they will quickly be annhiliated by the offer of $25,000 bounties.
Excuse me, jr8 but this is September 11th we’re talking about here. Please do not try and hand me this pathetic jazz that it’s all just standard-issue government inertia, we’ve-got-more-important-things-to-worry-about cr*p that’s holding up the works. What could possibly be more important than finding out what mistakes were made in our failure to prevent the single worst foreign attack ever on mainland American? If it was me I’d drop everything to get the material out. It would be grossly unpatriotic not to, correct? Unless of course I had something to hide.
And, by the way, aren’t you forgetting that President Bush didn’t even want an investigation in the first place but caved in to public pressure and then put Henry “Coverup” Kissenger in charge until it became clear that that particular insult to the national intelligence wasn’t going to fly either? Heck, they still won’t let us find out who attended a lousy energy policy meeting chaired by Cheney. The Bush administration’s passion for secrecy is, by now, well known and firmly established.
Your desperate attempt at denial would be comical if this weren’t a literally deadly serious issue.
I remember when we had to drop everything, break Secret Service confidentiality and threaten people with jail in order to find out about bee jays in the oval office. It would appear that compared to that September 11th is just so much applesauce.
Whoops. After reviewing earlier posts, it seems that jr8 is not the wing-nut I took him for. I still find his explanation for the delays in the 9/11 report a worthy venue for skepticism but I take back a good part of the tone. My sincerest apologies. I hope some day to forgive you.
You’ve obviously never been a civil servant. You don’t release any more information than you’re forced to, in case somebody uses it to blame you for something. The bigger the scandal being investigated, the more likely blame will be handed out, and thus you (the civil servant) had better make sure it isn’t you that gets it.
Which is not to say there isn’t more to it than that (and there almost certainly is), but government inertia is a mighty powerful force to overcome.
Yup. That bit is entirely Bush’s responsibility.
“Denial”? I’m merely reminding you of Hanlon’s Razor.
Which also has a lot to do with the populace’s priorities, I’m afraid. Sex trumps all other subjects, no matter how serious. It’s completely irrational, but there it is.
