I’m becoming more convinced each day that the greatest threat to our government is not secret plots, but conspiracy theorists.
Whackos vote, intrigues do not.
Speaking for the whacko caucus, I would merely direct your attention to the astonishing failure to scramble anything more dangerous than eggs on the morning of 9/11.
Is it some infantile determination to ward of the congnitive dissonance?
I know the truth is disturbing, but there’s a cliff out there, honest…
It’s like the whole country has discovered 22% thc dank all at once and they are down with methodman-- “I would have saved my country from the fascists, but I got high…”
I don’t call you a disgrace to America for opposing Bush or the war - please show some common courtesy and respect my right to hold a different opinion.
You are making false comparisons. Clinton was investigated for lying under oath and abusing the powers of his office. The investigation was not about the policy decisions and intelligence efforts concerning Yugoslavia.
Nor am I calling for the government to censor itself. What I do advocate is that during a national security crisis, the government fulfill its responsibility to defend our nation - which entails not compromising our policy making and intelligence gathering resources. There is absolutely no precedent to hold an investigation into such areas after Congressional approval for military action had been given and before the conclusion of a war. There is a ver good reason for not establishing such a precedent now: the highly politicized nature of such investigations.
And some people will pull their tinfoil helmets tightly over their ears and eyes so that they cannot see the evidence that fundamental Islamic radicals have declared war on Western Civilization.
If you want to see how well appeasement has worked, read about the recent bombs found in Spain.
[QUOTE=wonderwench]
And some people will pull their tinfoil helmets tightly over their ears and eyes so that they cannot see the evidence that fundamental Islamic radicals have declared war on Western Civilization.
why so they have, ww, so they have. That’s why it was an EXTRAslick move to oust the most secular regime in the whole damn neighborhood.
We got some bright fellas, over there in the office of special masturbation. D.of D.
Saddam was a state supporter of terrorism - there is more than enough evidence that he sponsored suicide bombers in Israel and harbored fugitive terrorists within Iraq.
Here’s an interesting piece comparing Iraq and Vietnam - and a good rationale for why we need to stay the course.
Wolfowitz and Perle, daily fighting racial stereotypes…
Proving you don’t have to be smart to be jewish…
How incredibly witty - and absolutely pointless.
:rolleyes:
not all terrorists are islamic fundamentalists. You sound suspiciously like our pitifully confused dear leader. You must learn to tell one towelhead from another, if you wish to navigate the dangerous shoals of middle eastern intervention.
My, you are a nasty little brute.
Not all terrorists are fundamental Islamic radicals - but the latter have declared a jihad against Western Civilization, and the U.S. in particular. If you think that they are not a far bigger to our national security than other terrorist groups, then you sorely need a smack with a cluestick.
Wonder, the criterea for invasion that you suggest apply to just about every state in the Middle East. Whatever support the fanatics got from Iraq was a trickle, in comparison to the fountain of cash bursting from Saudi. This applies equally well to the notion of “harboring”. We hardly know what kind of people are residing within our own borders and how they got there, you think Saddam was smarter?
Let me get this straight.
You are comparing our situation, strategically and geopolitically, in Iraq FAVORABLY with vietnam? And suggesting that the lesson of vietnam is “full speed ahead”?
And to support this view you cite de Borchgrave, a tired and undisputed hack?
We are in so much deeper shit with Iraq than we ever imagined in vietnam, and vietnam was a catastrophe.
quite so, my fetchingly wasp-waisted super hero, but what has that to do with poor, socialist, secular, let’s let the bitches drive and vote, saddam?
elucidator,
You raise a valid point about SA. Not every situation, however, requires military intervention. I think we are all in agreement that diplomatic and economic relationships should be leveraged first. SA has been torn between fearing AQ or the U.S. most - weighting AQ more heavily. The War in Iraq has changed that somewhat. It is in our interests for them to fear the U.S. so that they withdraw support for AQ.
I read an interesting article in American Thinker which theorized that SA has declared a secret war on George Bush. Some interesting food for thought.
We are in Iraq - like it or not. We cannot undo that fact. The Vietnam comparison is cautionary. Cutting and running now will make Iraq a failure - in a self-fulfilling prophecy maneuvre.
Oh my. The Saddam question is multifold.
- 12 years of defying UN resolutions which settled the 1991 Gulf War, and to which the U.S. was an interested party.
- A record of using WMDs on his neighbors and subjects.
- A record of supporting suicide bombers in Israel.
- A record of harboring terrorist fugitives within Iraq.
Last December, I attended a small fundraiser for Diane Feinstein. It was the day after Saddam’s capture was announced. The Senator was quite open with us is a Q&A session regarding the War in Iraq. As a member of the Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee, she said that the data on the WMDs was quite compelling, especially the chemical ones. The big concern was that the chemicals could be quite easily smuggled into the U.S. via terrorist cells.
So, what is a government to do? This is not a criminal case in which guilt must be proved against a reasonable doubt. This is national security. The nature of intelligence is imperfect - and judgement must be applied. When Congress saw the information, much of it still confidential, the war was approved. Do we now undermine our ability to prosecute a successful war by compromising our intelligence gathering ability? To do so defies common sense.
To be fair, Al, your “poor, socialist, secular” rings of “Holy Roman Empire”, three up, three out. Iraq may have been poor, but Saddam damn sure wasn’t. Besides, power’s the same as money, only better. Maybe he was a socialist, maybe Hitler was as well, sorta kinda.
And if “cynical” means the same as “secular”, well, maybe. I have no doubt that if supporting al-Queda surreptitiously had some advantage for him, he would have done so. As it was, he was sure to be blamed for just about anything. I figure he probably knew that. Paranoids are cagey.
I would bet that if Saddam knew about 9/11 in advance, he would have dropped the dime, ratted them out in a New York minute. Anonymously, of course. Last thing on Earth he needed was that, Allah can take care of Himself.
So, if that’s “secular”…
define cutting and running.
we have a reverse midas touch in iraq. everything we touch, even the well intentioned, will turn to shit because of the fundamental injustice of our aggression.
We need to give Kofi a blank check (and I mean BLANK), a quarter of a million soldiers, maybe start with a thousand dollars to each living iraqi just for having caused so much chaos.
The German Resistance continued to battle Allied troops for three years after Germany surrendered after WWII.
A totalitarian regime is not going to roll over and die peacefully. It’s death struggles are intended to take out as many of the enemy as possible - and to perhaps resuscitate itself.
The current situation is exacerbated by the AQ support of the remaining Baathists. Surprise surprise! AQ wants Iraq to stay a totalitarian cesspool.
The Bushies appear to be committed to a June deadline for transition to an Iraqi government, supported by U.N. involvement. So, looks like you will get what you wish.