Let me give you some helpful advice in case you want to spend more time on these boards, because this is not your average message board. On the SMDB, formal rhetoric and debate techniques are very important, along with having evidence to support your argument, a clear emphasis on critical thinking, and the courtesy to lay down an argument properly instead of just tossing around claims. Exhibiting lowered standards in these areas - particularly on oft-discussed topics - is considered sloppy and lazy.
If a Clinton supporter argues that Clinton didn’t lie or that it was somehow OK, then that is indeed idiotic, because it is simply not in the facts. I see little in this thread to disagree with this interpretation. However, as already argued, the Clinton affair was a partisan witch-hunt led by a partisan prosecutor who finally resorted to the technique known as the perjury trap to conduct his disgusting little exercise, whereas no one was hounding Bush into invading Iraq, no one trapped or forced him into it, etc. Any honest review of the two cases reveals the fact that Clinton hurt nobody, but the Bushite agenda has had significant deleterious effects on most aspects of American and even International life (recruitment drives for terrorism, increasingly radicalized populations, incredibly expensive adventuring, eroding rights and liberties, torture, wrongful detention, international strains, loss of influence, loss of credibility, loss of life, loss of good will, etc., etc., and all for invading a country that wasn’t in a position to threaten its neighbours, much less anyone else).
Extra-marital blojobs are a fact of life. I can handle the President getting blown by an intern, in fact good for him for taking the time to blow off some steam at the office instead of doing idiotic things like the moronic episode in which he carpet-bombed Serbia. Frankly, Clinton could have picked a hotter woman with more integrity, but taste is personal. I am disappointed that Clinton felt he had to lie and cover up his affair, and I won’t even go into what I thought of the witch-hunters, but let’s be serious here: besides the loose concept of some “lie” in common between the two cases there is very little else of relevance. So why keep asking about Clinton’s perjury, why keep setting up this strained equivalence between the two?
A Bush-exonarating agenda, obviously.
Having glimpsed at it I doubt that that article scuttles anything, but as I mentioned, try to present proper arguments instead of just tossing a claim out there. When the article is lengthy and consists of a lot of verbiage, or its relevance to the discussion is not immediately clear, consider quoting the relevant bits in your post so people know what they are reading.
I don’t want to ruin it for you with anything as crass as a link… all I can say is that it means shit in Cornish (and, I think, a couple other tongues), but to see the word in its proper context I suggest you go to the nearest bookstore and buy yourself some Stainless Steel Rat books (by Harry Harrison), preferably the ones written in the 60s and 70s (the ones written in the 90s aren’t nearly as good). You will thank me, I know.
Thanks, Abe, and I mean that. Somehow, I had begun to sense these things, but only recently; not from the forum stickys, which I did read, and certainly not from the two or three days I spent early on casually reading various posts on the board. These standards may previously have been either suggested or illustrated, but obviously not with enough gusto. It now occurs to me that having virtually no exposure to such debating methods puts me at such a critical disadvantage, I may never prevail in any contentious dialogue, simply due to an inability to put forward a proper argument. Definitely something to ponder… nevertheless, I really do appreciate the advice.
And, I appreciate that, too. As a matter of fact, you have no idea how much I appreciate that. If six months of matrimonial navel-gazing taught me anything about myself, it’s that I have a bit of a blockheaded streak to deal with. Often when I see what even I recognize as counterfeit logic, my automatic response is to set out to prove that I can be just as idiotic as the next guy, and with some success, I might add, as your notably restrained responses to me of late do clearly attest. Simply knowing that I’m not the only one who sees such rationalization as the work of an apologist in denial really makes my day.
Accepting everything you say about the Clinton affair as fact, I might counter that it’s a shame that it indeed required such an exhausting partisan political assault to get the guy to wake up and realize that he was the President of the United States, not just some high steppin’ hillbilly whore master dickin’ around down in the Ozarks. I understand that’s the way it’s done in Arkansas, and to be fair, a whole lot of other places, too, but by luck of the draw, I developed an entirely different set of standards and limitations that govern relationships between myself and my subordinates and women in general. I honesty believe that it would have never become a partisan issue if someone who Clinton respected had made it a behavioral one.
Reflecting back on your earlier admonishment against proffering indiscriminate claims, and re-examining what I’ve just written re: The Lewinsky Affair, it seems I’ve lapsed once again into throwing my unsubstantiated opinion around. Not that I expect you to lose a lot of sleep over my dilemma, but what the heck’s a guy to do, Abe? That’s simply the way I feel about it. I happen to love and respect women, and I detest men who prey on them, regardless of their political affiliation. I really believe that if George W. Bush had raped some co-ed instead of going AWOL, getting hammered and dancing on a pool table in Juarez, I’d have been clamoring for his impeachment, too. Sometimes it’s about character, which is what a man does when nobody’s watching, and it’s hard to document that. Now, I wonder how many fallacies I’ve crammed into those two paragraphs.
<cooling jets>
Please, Abe, I’m not related to Paula or Juanita or Jennifer or Kathleen, but if I were I’d beg to differ with you. You’ve helped me to illustrate that different set of standards and limitations I was talking about.
Now, logically, if I wanted to take issue with your characterization of the Bushite agenda, I suppose I should respond to each of your supporting examples. If, on the other hand, I decide that I cannot argue effectively against your negatives and choose, rather, to offer what I believe to be countervailing positives, does that 1) constitute a false rejoinder of some sort that violates the rules of debate, and if so, does it 2) relegate this dialogue to the realm of simple conversation? Either way, I can only do what I can do but will at least attempt to cite someone who agrees with me, hoping to borrow the credibility my opinions apparently lack.
It seems inarguable that one of the most obvious benefits to date of the War on Terror is that Saddam Hussein was deposed. The world is less one brutal dictator who overtly supported terrorism.
From an 11/04 article by Aaron Kline in WorldNetDaily:
Granted, it was distant cousins of Hamas jihadists who brought down the Twin Towers, but it stretches no one’s imagination, especially the Jews among us, to envision the havoc Saddam would have helped to cause had he been allowed to continue scamming the O.F.F. program.
And, no, we haven’t nabbed bin Laden yet, but he sure has had his style cramped a bit, and if late reports of Zarqawi’s demise turn out to be under-exaggerated, that’s just one more for the Good Guys.
It’s more than a laugh-line to say that the war has liberated 24 million Iraqis. Had Saddam remained, there would be no meaningful elections planned for next month. Even Kofi Annan’s recent remarks indicate he’s come to the table, even if it seems a bit late to some:
Much of the benefit of the war is measured by those events which surely would have but did not and will not happen. From a report by the United States Institute for Peace…
Although Libya had been planning to eliminate its chemical weapons programs for some time prior to the invasion of Iraq, it’s hard for even negativists to assert that the Bushite pre-emptive policy against the “Axis of Evil” had absolutely no impact on the decisions made by nations that sponsor terrorism, secretly or otherwise. Here the Sunday Herald makes the case:
And what of the other two members of that nefarious triumvirate? Talks do continue, do they not, with Iran? And even North Korea has agreed to return to the table.
According to a July 05 report by the State Department’s Multi-National Force – IRAQ, 628 Iraqi schools have been rebuilt or refurbished, nine of them in Fallujah. 102 others are currently under construction.
Subsequent to the discovery in Afghanistan of documents exposing the intent of al Qaeda to acquire nuclear weapons, there has been an increase in cooperation between nations intent on preventing that from happening. Although progress is slow, it is still progress. From a United Nations News Service article:
Evidently unaware that democracy is being brought to the Middle East at the point of a gun, Peter Baker wrote on May 8th in the Washington Post:
Not that we really need to worry or anything, but not all tax dollars earmarked for the War on Terror are being spent in Iraq. Folks in the border states (and that includes the ones that bump up against Canada, ay) can sleep better knowing that the president cares. According to US Government Info / Resources on About.com…
Some people feel that the War on Terror has encouraged congress to enact laws that should have been on the books long ago. People like Senator Max Baucus (D-MT):
You probably get the point… it’s not all negative… it’s not all bad. If you look hard enough, there’s usually an upside to everything.
Well, yeah, which is not in itself a bad thing, is it? No more so than a Bush-indicting agenda is bad or wrong or idiotic on its face. One other reason I keep dragging the Slickmeister in on this is that darned OP.
10-4
Cool! I Googled Harrison and read several of the reviews of his work. Sounds like he’s quite the sensation in the UK, sort of a Monty Python meets Tom Corbett, Space Cadet. I’m almost ashamed to admit that I barely have time to read the papers, let alone any good escapism. If I have any regrets for the pace of life these days, it would be that. As a impetuous youth, I had to spend 30 days in the Jefferson Country (LA) Parish prison for urinating and/or vomiting on Andrew Jackson’s horse, or some such felonious cagal, and had it not been for Mr. Bojangles incarnate and his rickety library cart, I might never have discovered Heinlein. As one who believes that everything happens for a reason, Abe, I am taking you at your word and ordering a gently used copy of “The Stainless Steel Rat” (1966) in paperback from bob9319 on eBay for the impressive sum of £1.99 (impressive, I say, for a 40-year old book), plus another £2.80 for schlepping it all the way to Arizona from Sheffield. If Jim Di Griz is half the man Michael Brant was, then I will thank you, indeed!
Well, my own view is that the president’s job is that of running the country, and what he does on a personal level is his business. His relationship with his family is their business, not mine. My concern arises from items such as the approval of laws that relax federal controls on “natural” remedies, or the carpet-bombing of an entire state for no good reason. Decisions that have a direct impact, as opposed to subjective reactions to someone’s personal life.
By my reckoning - and I have some exposure to the very powerful and rich - sexual indiscretion is the rule, not the exception. In the case of Clinton, the press played along with the Republican witch hunt in a manner that hadn’t occurred in the past. Clinton was quite tame compared to some of his predecessors, who nonetheless enjoyed a degree of immunity from the mass media:
In general, I want to point out that it is not my position that the Iraq war has had no positive outcomes. Its most obvious, as you point out, is that Saddam Hussein and his sons are no longer able to do as they please in Iraq. My contention is that the entire Iraq affair was handled in a moronic and dishonest manner, unnecessarily. I cringe to see Iraqis die in the tens or hundreds of thousands, US servicemen die in the thousands, UN and other organizations’ personnel die by the hundreds, and a fractured Iraq split along ethnic and religious lines (which was one of the first concerns of people observing this situation). An Iraq where terrorism is the order of the day, an Iraq that boosts sick ideologies such as al Qaeda, and so forth.
On the whole, a cost-benefit analysis of Iraq yields positive results only if today one assumes an optimistic outcome for the long term. From the farce of seeing the Leader of the Free World lose a truth-telling contest to Saddam Hussein, to the current White House attempts at revisionism (delicious to hear Bush ask people not to rewrite history!), this has not been a pretty (or competently handled) affair on any level.
The key is “countervailing”. The positives you cite would have to be quite sizeable to correct the present mess, but they strike me as too modest to tip the scales. Let me go through this quickly to illustrate what I mean.
No argument about Saddam and family being gone, but the claims of terrorism sponsorship are exaggerated (mostly by the White House). I addressed Saddam’s involvement in such matters in this thread starting from this particular post. Others have written more extensive reviews, but you may have to search for them.
As Annan said, the UN involvement in Iraq has hardly come “late”! Iraq has been liberated, no argument there. The question is, where was the plan for when the liberation was completed? There wasn’t one, just as there were no specific plans to secure the dreaded WMDs that the Administration claimed to know about (it took US forces 30 days to finally start securing the sites they claimed hosted WMDs or programs thereof, 30 days in which, had the weapons and materials really existed, terrorist suppliers could have had literally a field day). There was, as has been argued repeatedly, no plan for peace. And Iraq is paying the price of that oversight - indeed, the entire world is.
Hold on there. You cite this point from the assesment:
These items have little or nothing to do with Iraq! Saudi Arabia began to address serious problems on its soil only after suffering a series of critical terrorist attacks. Al Qaeda cells are being busted around the world thanks to international cooperation and diligent analysis of intelligence, of which the Iraq affair was not representative. On the other hand, if we look at a few more items from the report:
Which suggests to me the Bushites ought to have finished one (legitimate) job before tripping over the next (illegitimate) one.
Potential is the key word here, because so far potential is all that exists of these WMDs and state-sponsored terrorism. On the other hand, Iraq is now and has been since the end of the war a breeding ground for terrorism.
Options (of any kind, not just military) against legitimate targets would be far less limited had there not been reckless adventuring in Iraq.
Now, I think it is particularly worthwhile to quote in its entirety the section on the “Costs of Iraq” from that same report:
Further, see from here onwards in the afore-mentioned thread for a more detailed discussion of what went wrong in the Iraq war.
Of course, it is hard to deny that what motivated Qaddafi was in part concern that he may become a target just like Iraq. But, likewise, it’s really hard to claim that the war in Iraq was more than just one of many influences in Qaddafi’s decision. The man has been involved in a political reinvention for years, he’s extremely shrewd and knows how to play the game.
Lybia, if it did disarm primarily owing to the war in Iraq - which is doubtful - is what you might call an indirect benefit, since it has properly speaking little to do with Iraq per se, rather it is a reaction to a display of power. This display of power might as well have been applied intelligently and on a valid target in the first place, and still achieved a similar effect (or helped to achieve a similar effect, to be precise).
No connection to Iraq. Iranian officials are chuckling quietly because they know that another war would severely strain the US military, not to mention what credibility is left. North Korea, likewise, knows it’s unlikely in the extreme that its safety is compromised.
Iran wants to avoid referral from the IAEA to the Security Council. The US sits on that council, but what Iran fears at this point is the UN, not an over-stretched US military.
One victory in the reconstruction process. I hope 1) many more follow incrementally, 2) such edifices are not co-opted by emboldened Islamists, 3) overall peace efforts are followed as judiciously.
Afghanistan and al Qaeda. No Iraq, no Saddam Hussein, no substantial evidence of Iraqi terrorism links pre-war. One might argue that much the same result would be expected without the foolish intervention in Iraq.
And is this a result of the Iraq war? Not particularly: it is a result of involvement in the region, of various developments, of the unifying effect of terrorism, and of a multitude of factors including the possibility that (if it really was involved in the murder of Rafik al-Hariri, which seems likely) Syria went too far in retaining its fierce grip on Lebanon.
But let’s take a brief look at the items mentioned in the article. Successful elections in Iraq? Well yes, but that’s not the problem being faced. The problems of Iraq at the moment are a splintered population, fractious politics, poor infrastructure, a weakened economy, and, of course, terrorism and no defence against it. It’s great that a referendum on the constitution has passed, but there remain very serious and very pressing issues.
Look at the example of Egypt, where President Mubarak has said that coming elections will be more open: the only thing keeping Egypt from becoming another fundamentalist nation is the fact that the state severely restricts elections. That’s the reason Egypt is so restrictive (sometimes brutally so) in the first place! They’re actually helping the rest of the world - and significantly, the US and Israel - by keeping a more or less secular moderate government in place. Fundamentalism is an extremely powerful force in Egypt, and I am glad that to date it has been blocked from holding high office.
The article you cited also has some telling commentary on US involvement in general:
Sure, though budgetary analysis is another can of worms, particularly with this dodgy administration that misrepresented the costs of the Iraq war and other items. Globally speaking, there have been some encouraging news in the struggle against terrorism, I agree… there have also been disheartening news.
The above aren’t assesments, they are cherry-picked platitudes - in some cases quoted from a secondary or tertiary source! For a good review of the concerns evident at the time the Patriot Act was being worked on, take a look at this one on Slate.
Yes, one positive aspect of the Patriot Act is that it improves communications between departments, but there are valid criticisms against it.
I agree that there is some good with the bad. As noted earlier, I do not maintain otherwise, merely (if we want to boil it down to a very simple statement) that the incompetence and dishonesty displayed in the Iraq affair has resulted in less “good” than it has in “bad”. It is possible to justify the precise opposite point of view by assuming today an optimistic long-term outcome, but I don’t seek optimistic estimates - forecasts are only really useful IMO if they are realist or pessimist (to analyze worst case scenarios).
Harrison is one of the finest SF humorists you will come across, it brings me joy to spread the love. The first Rat book is the test pad for the Slippery Jim DiGriz character, so make sure to check out the other titles as well, especially The Stainless Steel Rat For President and The Stainless Steel Rat Wants You. A cagal-load of fun awaits you.
Agreed, unless what he does on a “personal level” is criminal. There are very clear laws against what a number of women in his employ have alleged.
Well, despite what your coterie of the rich and powerful have been laying on you, Abe, everybody doesn’t do it, and every one of them who says otherwise should say so in front of their mothers, and then be prepared to answer the age-old demand: “And what if all your friends said they were going to jump off the Bay Bridge…?”
Kennedy’s philandering notwithstanding, what Clinton had that Kennedy didn’t was victims. Marilyn, on her long list of complaints about JFK, never included inappropriate advances or forced sex among them.
Here we agree, again, on virtually everything, with but two exceptions. It seems to me that, by your own standards, “moronic” is rhetoric. You’re certainly entitled to that opinion, but you should be aware that that’s all it is. And “dishonest”, well… what war doesn’t involve some level of deceit? I can only go back to my earlier hypothetical: Even if I were to accept that Bush deliberately lied about the intelligence analyses he had seen, I would find those lies acceptable given the alternative scenario that, barring the persuasion those lies brought to the table, nothing would have changed vis-à-vis Saddam’s reign of terror; his game of WMD hide-and-seek; his shooting at our aircraft patrolling both No Fly Zones; the O.F.F. Ponzi scheme benefiting France, Germany and Russia. I would find those lies acceptable, Abe, because everyone else was allowed to lie and get away with it except Bush. Now there’s a case where a legitimate defense for lying is because everybody is doing it!
And that’s the crux of the issue - Optimism! Actually, I think that this entire recent uproar from the Left - everything from the failed Valerie Plame gambit (you remember her, Bob Woodward’s overt CIA agent?) to Congressman John Murtha’s shameful display the other day in the House to Hillary’s recently “evolved” position on troop withdrawal - is the equivalent an allergic reaction to optimism!
There is a definite sense of optimism out there among those who have taken the time to make themselves aware of the previously cited examples of the POSITIVE effects of the War on Terror, and I refer to the war in the broad sense of the global conflict that includes the battles fought in Iraq, not simply the narrowly-focused nit-pick “War Against Iraq” that the Islamic fanatics can’t seem to get beyond. There is a palpable belief out there, call it fear in some instances, on both ends of the political spectrum that we just might win this thing, and I think it scares the bejesus out of the president’s critics and the political Left in general.
The truth of the matter, Abe, is that despite the best efforts of the opponents of the war to cast the war effort in an all-negative light, the facts of the matter tell an entirely different story: The Iraqi security forces are growing, there are 700 more dead terrorists in Iraq than there were two months ago, the upcoming elections are on schedule, our traditional allies, like Great Britain, Germany and even France, are inarguably more sympathetic to a war against Islamic terrorism than they were three years ago, Osama bin Laden, and Zarqawi are less popular on the “Arab Street” then before we invaded Iraq, al Qaeda is in a vastly weakened position than prior to Afghanistan, Iraq’a Arab neighbors are more receptive to the notion of democracy, and not just in the Gulf, Egypt and Lebanon, but even in the West Bank! And finally, what you rarely heard while it was still Rather, Jennings and Brokaw doing the telling is that the United States has simply not had another terrorist attack as we begin the fifth year since September 11, 2001.
This brief excerpt from an ANTHONY H. CORDESMAN piece in today’s UPI News Analysis, not typically thought of as part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, says it nicely, I think:
You say that my positives need be truly “countervailing”… well, I submit that they are, and that they are becoming more so every day, and that fact is what’s bedeviling American Democrats.
Isn’t this really just nit-picking again? Certainly there were specific operations that could have been conducted differently, and some would argue they could even have been conducted better, but isn’t that really having it both ways. They either should never have been conducted at all, or they should have been conducted differently, but not both – it’s just not logical. I also don’t understand the criticism of weapons disappearing during tha 30-day period but the flat refusal by the president’s critics to even consider that even more and larger weapons could have similarly “disappeared” during the six-month run-up to the invasion while our troops were massing in Kuwait and the eager-beaver Bushites were rushing the United Nations Security Council and the US Congress to war. Where’s the logic in that?
Once again, Abe… it’s not only about Iraq. I understand why some would prefer to isolate Iraq from the global War on Terror, but that’s simply not the world we live in. Those cites were (are) valid for the point I was making, that the Bush administration’s aggressive, pre-emptive response to the threat of international terrorism wherever it occurs is an effective one.
No connection, other than the simple fact that neither Iran nor NK were even vaguely interested in “talks” prior to recent events, nor were the Western Europeans concerned about Iranian nuclear intentions, or the Chinese about NK’s. The Mullahs may be chuckling, but it’s not just Uncle Sam breathing down their necks. Again, in a vacuum it’s easy to nit-pick.
Me three.
Yes, they might so argue, but without intervention, how many more terrorists would have been trained at Ansar al-Islam? I remember when connecting the dots was a good thing. Now, we don’t even see the dots?
Ah HA! Now you connect the dots!
All of which are currently being addressed by coalition forces and the fledgling Iraqi government. Baghdad will not be re-built in a day, and to criticize it for taking longer sounds a little like that middle ground logical fallacy you brought to my attention.
Actually, there are those who consider that argument Mubarek’s excuse for not allowing more open elections, and they point to the government’s treatment of Ayman Nour, certainly no fundamentalist. He may have lost in what looked to the monitors like a fixed election, but even Al Jazeera considered him and his Ghad Party viable enough to give him an interview and precious publicity. Arab political analysts suggest that there might be enough support among the various liberal (democratic) parties, should they form a cooperative coalition, to challenge the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, Mubarak’s only real opposition:
I agree with you, though, that it appears Mubarak will hold on to power by squelching any movement that approaches the numbers necessary to challenge his NDP majority. Makes “Diebold” look like fiddlesticks…
Well, if what the majority of analysts are doing out there means anything, than I guess you’re right again. I suppose the only reason I keep coming back to bother you with this nonsense is to make the point that there are those of us who believe in staying the course, not as a political jingle, but as a means of survival… and I mean that literally. It’s another one of those sailing references, Abe, the certainty of which can only be attested to by those who have done it. The sea bottom is littered with the decomposing wrecks of those who lost faith in their compass.
Can’t wait… got confirmation of my American dollars being changed into British pounds by PayPal today. I thought that the Euro would be involved in there somewhere. Anyway, they said the book would be shipped straight away via Royal Mail Airmail.
Y’know, now that I think about it, this doesn’t sound quite right. We’re rural here and we don’t get mail delivered to the door. As a matter of fact, mail sent to our street address usually gets unceremoniously returned as undeliverable. We only receive physical deliveries by UPS or FedEx or other similar ground delivery service. Do you have any idea if Royal Mail Airmail will turn their parcels over to UPS or to the US Postal Service, or haven’t you a clue and I should start tracking this package now before it’s too late?
But allegations without supporting proof are a dime a dozen. And, in the end, we are talking about a woman (or women) who (AFAIK) willingly went down on someone else (or whatever other act is involved). There’s no crime in that.
Not what I said. I said that among the rich and powerful sexual indiscretion seems the rule rather than the exception, which, I might add, is biologically consistent with mammal behaviour. It’s true that in a more puritan sphere (such as American politics) this fact is played down quite a bit and participants are expected to show restraint, but the point I am driving to is that it’s not as big a deal as hardcore moralists who have been trying hard to hijack the Republican party would have you believe.
Heck, In Asia sexual indiscretion is often the cornerstone of negotiation and deal-making: Karaoke, hostess bars, prostitutes, etc. in combination with alcohol help to build confidence between two [male] parties and smooth out the process. It’s quite funny to have clients come over from overseas (esp. the US), because they are always eager to get to the partying, and as soon as they meet a couple of night girls the majority lose it completely and tend to become animals. This is becoming a major sidetrack, the point is that you can blame Clinton for engaging in behaviour you subjectively disapprove of, but (assuming he didn’t force any of these girls) there is nothing you can actually hang on him beyond the fact that he was having affairs you personally disapprove of.
What victims? Excuse me, but I do not follow the tawdry politics of personal life, I tend to stick to the relevant issues. Clinton (and everyone else) could be having sex with triplets for all I care.
Not really. It is a convenient one-word summation of the gross incompetence and appallingly poor judgement that we are discussing and that I have repeatedly demonstrated. But sure, I use it for emphasis, you are right.
Obviously. But, as already discussed. Even if you want to spin things round and around you cannot apologize for the fact that, as David Simmons put it (and I already quoted it once):
“If you, or your agent on your behalf, say that there is “no doubt” that something is the case when you and the agent know that what you are saying was surrounded by many qualifications as to its reliability, that’s an intent to deceive.”
Even being completely charitable, as you seem intent on being, the above dishonesty remains very much in evidence. Sheer incompetence cannot account for the plans to go to war that predated the most recent round of UN weapons inspections, nor can they account for the constant shift of position in the run-up to the war, where the Pres had a hard time nailing down a reason for war that would stick (also detailed in the threads already linked).
We’re covering ground already extensively addressed. To recap: there were ongoing systems and procedures to deal with the problem that Saddam allegedly posed (and, indeed, there were investigations to determine whether Saddam posed a problem at all!), but all of those were cut short by Bushite actions. How do you know “nothing would have changed”? That is certainly not suggested by the history of Iraq since the first Gulf War.
There was, as has already been asserted and demonstrated, no hiding game (or at least zero reliable evidence indicating any such game). The most charitable explanation (also already addressed) for the Bush camp was that, last century and after the first Gulf War, Saddam wanted outsiders to think he had WMDs in order to project a greater image of might than he could in fact command. However, an honest and informed review of the available evidence collected since shows clearly a distinct lack of WMD programs, materials, and initiatives, and, in fact, there are records of several tons of materials located and destroyed (check the linked threads).
Absence of evidence of WMDs is not evidence of absence of WMDs (i.e., WMDs that should be there but aren’t), although this is another fallacy the moronic Bushites tried to cram down the public’s throat when they insisted on seeing proof of the non-existence of various “unaccounted” materials (!).
Well, hardly a momentuous reason. The US armed forces can certainly take care of themselves and, after each incident, follow proper channels of complaints (such as the UN). No basis for invading a country.
Not to mention US and UK businesses and individuals, and contacts also in Italy and other states that were pro-war. The above is a good example of hypocrisy. France, Germany, and Russia had goddamned valid reasons quite distinct from profiteering to oppose the harebrained US initiative in Iraq. Those reasons are all discussed here in this thread and in the various others linked.
And it’s quite telling how many Bush apologists are ready to wag their fingers at the UN OFF program, yet gasp with outrage when it is suggested that the reason pro-Bush American businesses won every major reconstruction contract in Iraq was government-business collusion for higher profit.
You jest, yes? Because to hear you referring to the Plame affair as a “failed gambit” suggests you are arguing in bad faith. Let me point out yet again that the Plame investigation is (unlike the Clinton hunt) not a partisan affair, though you have the usual number of idiots who try to portray it as such. Aside from that, Libby’s trial is yet to come (February I believe) and Karl Rove is one of the persons still under investigation. As for John Murtha, if the “shameful display” you are referring to is this one, then I must point out that he is making sense and isn’t being shameful in the least. I don’t agree with him (on pulling troops from Iraq) but he is not wrong in pointing out that US troops are “a catalyst for violence” in Iraq. Hilary’s arguments are, likewise, fairly sound. It looks like you’re fishing around for anything at all to deride.
If it makes you comfortable to think so that is great, but let’s leave these wild speculations aside and focus instead on real issues supported by real facts.
Complete rubbish. Are you reverting to your previous tactics?
You quote someone who deliberately chooses to focus on report-on-report improvements, as opposed to taking a longer view - that’s always an invitation to be suspicious. I agree that, finally, things appear to be improving in regards to the Iraqi armed forces. But that’s about all we can say at the moment, since neither the US forces nor the apparently growing Iraqi forces seem to be slowing down the insurgency in any meaningful manner. On the other hand, taking the longer view I mentioned earlier will highlight various shortcomings in the process:
And note that this article (unlike the commentary you quoted) breaks down the numbers to provide a clearer picture, pointing out when the FPS is included in the overall force count.
It is therefore hardly surprising that such stories as this one made the rounds, since they presented rather accurate information. What is really surprising is that some people will go to great lengths to believe that such stories were fashioned out of thin air for some malicious left-wing or democrat or anti-Bush conspiracy.
Those are insurgents - not necessarily terrorists. Let’s not use the methods of the Administration here, shall we? Quibble aside, there are also more dead civilians and US and Iraqi forces today than there were two months ago. And there are by some counts upwards of 100,000 more dead people today in Iraq than there were two and a half years ago, ignoring death by natural causes. Along the way we’ve seen the use of objectionable weapons, torture, deceit, and other niceties. I hardly think 700 dead insurgents, most of whom are misguided and brainwashed foot-soldiers (think: endless supply), are enough to countervail anything in the bigger context.
Firstly, remember that opinion columns, especially those of spin-wankers like Oliver North, are hardly reliable cites. Secondly, as I said before, it’s not all bad news. The upcoming elections are important and so far it seems they will go more or less smoothly, yes, but don’t hang your hopes of resolving the many issues of the Iraq Affair on a set of elections. A democratically elected government will not stop the insurgency, nor will it legitimize the use of falsehoods by the White House to Americans (or the world for that matter).
More nonsense. If you can point towards one single event that changed the opinions of Western states towards terrorists (as if they needed changing!), that event is 9/11. Iraq had absolutely bloody nothing to do with attitudes to terrorism, in fact the US Iraq initiative has probably produced more terrorism than other contemporary developments (as already argued and cited in previous posts). It looks like in seeking these positives you use a classic case of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy, in which it is asserted that just because A preceded B, A must have caused B.
Read your own links: these developments have nothing to do with Iraq. Your hand-waving about Germany and France doesn’t even have anything at all to do with the so-called War on Terror! In France the Arican/Muslim riots were economically and societally motivated.
And? Will you develop an argument, or are we just looking for unrelated favourable developments so that we can, without any basis, attribute them to the Wisdom of the Chief in Iraq?
Let’s take a brief look at your cite, with some of my emphasis:
In other words, popular support for terrorism (note this says nothing about terrorism itself) may be down in spite of the Bushite Iraq dream, not because of it. This is the same fallacious argument you have no doubt heard before: “Smoking must be OK for you because that French lady smoked a pack a day for 90 years and lived to be 120”.
I must also note that you’re not doing your credibility as a poster in Great Debates any favours when you link to a compendium of cagal like frontpagemag.com. Just about the one item of value on that piece of crap is the ad for conservative T-shirts (the girls are hot).
Afghanistan, not Iraq. Iraq actually boosted al Qaeda membership (details already provided). As for al Qaeda, thankfully they turned out to be as idiotic as the current White House and ended up shooting themselves in the foot: as your link says: “the brutal terrorist operations carried out by the al-Qaeda network in Iraq, hostage taking, execution of hostages and showing it on satellite channels has undermined its reputation and eventually resulted in many Muslims throughout the world turning their back against this organization. In other words, al-Qaeda strategy to gain the support of Muslims has suffered of a drastic setback.”
Al Qaeda did the damage themselves! Reminds me of the idiocy of the actions of the White House in squandering the political capital delivered by the 9/11 tragedy.
The Gulf is home of surprisingly effective “benevolent dictators”, or moderate despotism, some of which have shown very progressive thinking since long before the Iraq war (think of, for example, the emergence of free media [al Jazeera] or royal endorsements for the struggle of women’s rights). I’ve said it before: you do not want to see the result of a free and fair election in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. I don’t know if you are at all familiar with these countries (I’ve lived there), but think back to the nationalities of the 9/11 hijackers; there’s a reason they were primarily Egyptian and Saudi. The reasons are actually multiple, but chief among them: popular opinion that is substantially unfavourable to the US; and Islamic fundamentalism on the rise (a particularly sad case for Egypt, a country I love).
It is not hard to imagine what perils lie ahead. From the pages of history we have a dire warning: when the autocratic shah was ousted, the path was paved for elections; shortly afterwards the goddamned mullahs abolished democracy and subsituted it with the Council of Guardians, and the number of fanatics in power in Iran has been growing steadily ever since.
Actually, we have heard as much, and we are aware of it daily, I think. Indubitably, this is positive. Equally indubitably, it has nothing at all to do with hare-brainded policy towards Iraq. And, while the US has been lucky to date, you can’t say the same of other countries, such as, say, Spain and Indonesia, which have been explicitly targeted.
This is the same piece you quoted earlier, I already addressed it. Not to claim it is factually wrong, but it is misleading: the focus is on report-on-report improvements, it is not an analysis of the overall trends over time (which are less encouraging).
Dishfunctional, I don’t know if you are flailing around for arguments at this point (it sure looks like it), but you spent almost your entire post so far hand-waving about “positives” that have little or nothing to do with the specific Bushite Iraq policy (which I criticized and which you have tried to support).
As I said it’s not all bad news; it is, however, a batch of news the overall trend of which ought to arouse some concern (rather than happiness) in observers, unless we are talking about completely unrelated facts (such as the lack of another 9/11 since Saddam was toppled). Elections in Iraq are encouraging (and are attributable to Bushite Iraq policy) but they haven’t taken place yet and we don’t know what they will lead to - we do strongly suspect that Islamism will feature much more prominently in Iraq’s politics than it did under Saddam.
I am surprised that you fail to mention the single most important development following the Iraq invasion: the requirement that every third name on submitted political party lists be a woman, and the minimum 25% female political representation level. This is the single most relevant and potentially region-changing change that has come about from the Iraq affair. I say this because, while a similar attempt had little impact in a severely misogynistic and patriarchal society like Afghanistan, in Iraq the environment for women’s rights is far more favourable.
Of course it isn’t. When I nit-pick, you will know it because I will usually point out that I am nit-picking. What I commented on was the unbelievable foolishness of rushing to war on the grounds that Iraq may give (non-existent) WMDs to terrorists, coupled with the various US claims about having “precise” intelligence oin the whereabouts of these items, concluded with the 30 days in which no one tried to secure any of these putative materials/weapons. This is not nit-picking, this is gross negligence or, more likely, another indication that the WMD justification for war was so much nonsense.
It is pure logic. Pure. Let me spell it out. WMDs are claimed. Any claim requires a fair measure of support in order to be verified, after which it may be taken seriously. The support for this claim was either lacking or highly suspect. Efforts to collect real support for the claim were deliberately killed (UN inspections) on the grounds that time was running out and all the rest of that horseshit. One of the paramount fears and alarmist claims was that terrorists might be armed with WMDs by Iraq.
Everything fine until now. We know that the US and UK made a claim that they failed to support, but which they put considerable emphasis on. Then the invasion happened.
Logically, one would expect the US and UK to rush to secure the WMDs they had been trumpeting about, lest in the post-invasion chaos some terrorists or Baathists or whoever make off with them (which is precisely what the war was intended to avoid). You understand this logic is predicated on the assumption that US and UK claims and fears about WMDs were genuine; the fact that the sites with all these putative weapons were left alone for such a long time suggests either sheer incompetence, or dishonesty (in making the claim in the first place).
Look, this is becoming laughable. Read your own assertion: note the words you yourself emphasized, "Wherever it [international terrorism] occurs". The only items remotely resembling terrorism we have evidence of in post-Gulf War Saddamite Iraq is the state’s oppression and mistreatment of certain political, religious, and ethnic groups. There was no international terrorism in any meaningful way.
As I said, the projection of force can be aimed any which way, even assuming that Saddam’s ouster automagically turned all these lions into lambs (which is funny by itself) there was no specific need to go after Iraq. I’d feel a lot safer if, say, Iran or North Korea had been addressed instead of Iraq. In fact, Africa is a continent brimming over with candidates for invasion, I would have happily supported a well-rationalized invasion of, say, Sudan.
Are you missing the picture as you peer at the dots? Ansar al Islam was a terrorist group, you are correct. It was in Iraq, you are correct. What you neglected to look into was where in Iraq Ansar al Islam was. Your own link tells you: in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq, along the border with Iran". This is a Kurdish area protected by the no-fly zones. It might as well not have been another country, for all the control and influence Saddam had over it.
Well, it’s been two and a half years and the problems are mounting. I don’t necessarily want to be pessimistic here, but I think a healthier rate of progress was hoped for by all parties involved.
Omitted discussion on Egypt, it’s a far more complicated picture than I have time for here. Sadly, after spending considerable time in Egypt, I support Mubarak’s tyranny and repression. It’s disgusting, yes, but the alternative at the moment could well be worse.
Great analogy, poor reasoning. It reminds me an awful lot of the fallacy of sunk cost. Sometimes it’s better to change course to avoid sinking or getting lost - particularly if you find that the lying charlatan back in port sold you a bum compass. At any rate, I am not an advocate for an early withdrawal of troops, if that is what you are referring to. I am of the firm opinion that US military involvement is necessary at this stage - I just wish this stage had been avoided entirely.
Sorry, I know nothing about the mail systems, but I hope you enjoy Harrison.
Well, Abe, I suppose “flailing” would be a relatively gracious description, given some of the alternatives you surely considered, but I must ask you again to recognize and acknowledge that I’m not just focusing microscopically on Iraq to the exclusion of all the other events in the world that are related to the global War on Terror. I repeat: it’s not just about Iraq. One thing that seems to be forgotten here (not here in this thread, but “here” in the forum sense of the adverb) is that George W. Bush did not start this war, and he was one of the first to tell us all that he might not be the one to end it.
If in the discussion of a war, any war, one is limited to such a narrow focus as to eliminate the consideration of all except one battle which, granted, has been as predicted a long, hard slog, then that seems to be an unfair handicap, one that does not lend itself to a full and honest examination of the status of the conflict. This is not a war in or against Iraq, nor should the war and discussion of it be limited to campaigns there. One cannot simply zoom in on that country, become submerged in events at the pixel level, and dismiss the bigger picture. I “flail about” for far-ranging events to support my position, Abe, because the war itself is far-ranging. Perhaps I need to polish my presentation, work on developing a more homogenized argument that ties its seemingly un-related elements together into more easily digestible fare, but I’ll have to beg your indulgence in the meantime and ask that you allow me the latitude to step outside Baghdad for air.
And this should not be considered a deal breaker. It wasn’t until the last decade or so that special interests began to demand that this American democracy be truly secular, and somehow we managed to muck through a couple hundred years. Not even the least optimistic of the negativists are predicting a wholly fundamentalist regime, let alone a radical one.
You’re absolutely right. Iraqi women won’t have as far to come to enter the 21[sup]st[/sup] century. Afghani women, although immensely better off than they were under the Taliban, still have to deal with the region’s worst oppressors – Afghan men. It’s no secret we struck a Faustian bargain with the Northern Alliance, but along with the power shift came the bright light of international scrutiny. No, it’s not yet time for a Susan Basha’ir Anthony, but with a little bit of luck and an enlightened hadith or two, it won’t take 140 years to reach parity.
Or, there is the alternate possibility that they feared, as did I at the time, that the WMDs and / or proof thereof were either being hidden or removed, and when the WMDs weren’t used by the Iraqi Army to defend itself during the invasion (I realize you never expected any to be unleashed, Abe, but I remember a whole lot of other people breathing a sigh of relief), well, the urgency sort of drifted away… just as the WMDs could have drifted away, to Syria, to Iran, or to some God-forsaken stretch of sand dunes and spider holes in Saudi Arabia, for Pete’s sake. The “logical” problem I was referring to was that it seems OK for everyone to conclude that there never were any WMDs because they were not found, yet no one will entertain the notion that the WMDs could have been removed during the six-months or so of jaw-boning the UNSC that it took the Bushites to “rush” us into Iraq. I just don’t see the intellectual honesty in that position. We know he had them, and he never proved that he destroyed them. WMDs don’t just disappear.
I’ll not quibble over your use of the word “meaningful”, but I’ll note that you did. So, having agreed that there was at least some connection to international terrorism in Iraq, whether it be in Kurdish Iraq or inside the Sunni Triangle, why, given Bush’s cited remarks to the world, should it be a surprise to anyone that we would invade? The world knew that Bush was looking for a place, a battlefield, an “OK Corral” where he could call out al Qaeda, and the world knew Hussein to be a belligerent, cheerleading antagonist at the very least, and looking at the geography of the region with Iraq being sandwiched precisely dead center between Syria and Iran, two immensely more subtle but no less treacherous proponents of pre-invasion, anti-Western activities and sentiment, how could this come as a surprise to anyone? When he said, “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists,” I believed him. He didn’t say, “Either you are with us 95%…”
Or Somalia. Sudan doesn’t really have a convenient adjacent allied staging area, nor does NK, since I think we’ve just about run out our welcome in Japan (Okinawa) and South Korea. And, oh yeah, there’s that China thing. No, I think it was almost a coin toss between Iran and Iraq, but bad blood won out and they called Saddam’s number. One point we agree on, though, is that it took (is taking) a whole lot longer to turn the majority of Iraqis against the terrorists than it seems anyone in the Pentagon expected. The “Battle to Win the Hearts and Minds” seems to have been severely hampered by a distinct lack of know-how and/or follow-through.
Sure, but if you’re looking for dot to connect, and we know he was, well there it is. I never said Bush had an iron-clad case that would hold up in The Hague, just that he did the right thing, right(ly) or wrong(ly). (Didn’t I say that? If I didn’t, I’m saying it now.)
Agreed, and still is being hoped for. That’s the key. When the hope dies, it’s over.
How interesting that you’ve lived there. We’ll have to exchange notes later. Not that I lived there, or anything, but when I lived in Los Angeles, I dated an girl in ‘78 whose father was a former British diplomat stationed in Egypt and whose mother was an Egyptian. The relationship lasted long enough that I had a chance to meet the folks. Although I was the typical American horndog buffoon, their quiet sophistication somehow impressed me, a spark that eventually fuelled an interest in things cultural and “foreign”. The mother, though very polite and thoroughly westernized, never looked directly at me, and she seemed to be bearing some great, private burden of grief, which Isis explained away as her mother’s “attitude”. They were Coptics, but Isis said all that really meant is that they weren’t Muslim. Not being particularly religious myself, I didn’t really care at the time. Our relationship never became serious, so we split up but remained friends. I married a little more than a year later, and ran into her again in early ‘80. She said she and her family were returning to Egypt since things had “calmed down”, meaning peace with Israel, I assume, and you know what happened the next year. I never got the letter she promised to send.
I love my wife and I love my life, but I don’t think I’m much different than other guys who, in quiet moments, think how things might have been if they had gone differently. I have to confess that I’ve thought of Isis many times. My brief experiences with her and her family (can’t remember the last name) has made me listen up every time Egypt is mentioned in the news, and I can’t help but wonder how long their welcome lasted after they returned, if long at all.
Ouch!
You take my meaning correctly, and I would be lying if I were to say I didn’t agree with you entirely. I would only add to your wish that we had never been attacked on 9/11. Ah, for a different stage with different players, different exits and entrances, and one man in his time playing different parts…
It’s late and I’ve wandered badly. Happy Thanksgiving, Abe.
But this has already been extensively addressed in this forum, and it’s been argued in this thread as well. The war you are talking about, the “War on Terror”, is a war only in the loose metaphorical sense. The war in Iraq is a very real war that had nothing to do with the war on terror.
We are not forgetting about the bigger issue as you suggest, rather we recognize that the two issues are almost entirely unrelated. You disagree, and have tried to show that WoT = War in Iraq, but I’ve already shown how easily the arguments you brought forward were removed from circulation. For example, your strongest “link to terror” in Iraq was Ansar al Islam; you cited it, and I immediately showed how this organization was operating in Iraq under the protection of the No-Fly Zone and the Kurdish populations that rule that area with the blessing of the US. This might as well have been an entirely different country from Iraq, as I already mentioned. Saddam wasn’t “harbouring” or aiding these alleged terrorists at all, yet that is the strongest link you put forward to date. And it’s not strong.
On the contrary, a full and honest examination now requires you to demonstrate that the initiative to rush to war in Iraq was somehow relevant to the War on Terror. I know Bush and his henchmen like to claim that Iraq was central and relevant, but we’ve already seen how the foundations of their arguments were entirely absent. I pointed out the various techniques employed by the White House and supporters to insinuate or outright lie about the evidence pertaining to “terror” and Iraq, and their pattern of publicly associating terror, Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and 9/11 in order to build a false picture for the undiscerning public. This material is in earlier posts in this thread, complete with multiple citations.
The US still has not shaken off the Puritan and fundamentalist patterns it was saddled with early on! But I was talking about Islamist influence, and you seem to be talking about Islamic influence. There is a substantial difference, since Islamism invariably seeks to have undesirable impact on government, legislation, society, etc. It definitely ranks as a Very Bad Thing[sup]™[/sup].
Ah, the phantom WMDs that no amount of spy planes, orbital surveillance, turncoats, weapons inspectors, intelligence agencies, and various other entities professional and amateur could prove existed?
You can’t talk seriously about removing or hiding what you have not even established exists.
But this is not the thrust. The thrust is that it took 30 days for the US to start securing these oh-so dreaded WMD sites that were of such grave importance that we had to invade Iraq right now to secure them before they fell into the hands of terrorists. There is no good reason why these dangerous weapons and materials should have been left alone for an entire month for any Johnny-Come-Terrorist to cart away.
The logical problem you allude to is a mirage of your own making, indubitably catalyzed by reading too much Abe. My response is simple: there is no requirement to account for items that do not exist. For, you see, the WMD claims were never proved, contrary to what imbibers of Bushite propaganda were led to believe. WMDs were merely suspected, and attempts to establish concrete knowledge about these WMDs were deliberately cut short before completion (weapons inspections).
You cannot seek to prove the non-existence of something, you instead try to prove that something does exist, and if you fail utterly many times then you conclude (provisionally) that the thing you are looking for might not exist, or that you have no idea how to look for it. If you can’t prove or infer existence for a thing, then its default state is non-existence.
What your alternative is saying is that, because it is impossible to prove that the weapons were not smuggled out, it must follow that they were. For this you must assume that the weapons existed in the first place (no evidence), and that they were carried away or hid by dastardly agents (no evidence), and that they are now somewhere entirely different (no evidence).
Relying on sequential assumptions is a multiplication of unknowns and leads to broken reasoning. That is the problem of logic in this matter, not the one you pointed out.
I therefore regret to inform you that I must officially list another fallacy in your employ: argumentum ad ignorantiam. If it is not immediately clear why I am bringing this up, consider that your alternative explanation requires that a proposition is true (WMDs existed and were smuggled out) on the basis that such preposition has* not* been proved false.
Mind you, it is possible, if the WMDs existed, that they were carted out before the invasion (even though there were weapons inspectors in-country and quite a lot of surveillance from above, enough to pick out alleged “chemical weapon mobile labs”). It’s possible.
Hey, it is possible that pink unicorns exist. Yet I will not argue for their existence based only on suspect testimony. I’d ask for proof. Which is why people who employed the critical thinking method tended to be resistant to Bush and gang’s propaganda – which is what I entered this discussion saying (remember, I linked to an old thread with much the same thrust as this one, and you explained that away by saying that I was focusing on negativist analyses).
WMDs do disappear in the sense that their constituents break down and have to be disposed, that the WMDs are found and destroyed by inspectors (UNSCOM), and so forth. But I quote the above sentence because its certitude disturbs me. What do you know that I don’t? I am asking for concrete information.
What??? We are talking about Ansar al Islam? If we are, I completely reject the above argument for the reasons already given. The US (through the unfortunate Powell at the UNSC) claimed that Iraq was harbouring a terrorist network linked to al-Qaeda. The network was allegedly led by Abu Musab Zarqawi and was located in a region controlled not by Saddam Hussein, but by Ansar al-Islam, way up north near the Iranian border, away from Saddam’s reach and influence.
The Ansar al-Islam camp, with alleged poison and chemical terrorist training facilities, was visited by journalists shortly after Powell’s briefing: no evidence of terrorists, chemicals, explosives, or anything else to arouse suspicion. Just ruined buildings.
The US petulantly whined that al Zarqawi, an al Qaeda operative, had ties to Saddam Hussein, but they were unable to demonstrate any evidence to support this claim (Zarqawi himself as well as the cleric leading Ansar al-Islam denied such links, and we know AQ and Saddam were bitter enemies [AQ being precisely the kind of Islamist bullshit Saddam repressed most of his life in power]). The claim of a link between AQ and Iraq was of such poor quality that not even the staunchest US allies and co-conspirators in Iraq affair, the UK government and UK intelligence services, could agree with the US claims. These claims remain, to date, memes repeated mindlessly by the Chief Execrable and his minions.
Once again, there is nothing new here, no novelty value at all. None of these things should come as surprises unless, as I may have hinted before, one has been fed on a steady diet of Bushite propaganda for the past few years. Which, if you live in America, is not just a possibility but a likelihood (though it is heart-warming to see the nation start to wake up and ask questions after a couple years of snoozing).
The world knew no such thing, and had it known, it would have had something to say about “cowboy diplomacy”, reckless endangerment of large civilian populations, lie-through-your-teeth wars, illegal regime change, and the like. And even if that were the case, why choose a battlefield that would require the elimination of the one element that regularly rebuffed and defeated AQ? Why choose attack possibly the greatest enemy of al Qaeda in the region? Did Bush want to spread al Qaeda ideology where it had not taken hold? Because that is precisely what he did (as already argued and linked).
Furthermore, Bush was warned that an invasion of Iraq would radicalize Muslim populations, energize anti-American sentiment, and drive new recruits into the arms of Al Qaeda. He proceeded anyway, thereby expanding AQ’s theatre of operations quite substantially (a whole new country, size L). Now, I am pretty sure Bush didn’t do this on purpose, but rather because he and his administration of cronies are ethnocentric, America uber alles, mentally deficient ignoramuses with little or no understanding of cultures beyond their own.
Getting back to your position:
The world also knew him to be toothless and powerless outside of his own country. No one regarded him as a threat, just a defeated tyrant. And in his own country weapons inspectors were hard at work to ensure that he remained harmless and toothless. Are you now claiming that Saddam Hussein was Dubya’s fall guy?
Post hoc rationalizations. At any event, we have been discussing whether there was falsehood in the claims of the US administration, and I have shown several times that there were. As I said there is no novelty value in this, it is well established that dishonesty was the central reason why the Iraq war occurred. Attacking Iraq required an urgent sense of panic and alarm and that is why the Bushites constantly juxtaposed 9/11 and Saddam Hussein in their rhetoric.
What you now seem trying to do, after other attempts have failed, is suggest that, yes, Bush was dishonest, but it was for a good reason. I reject this thinking completely. The invasion and post-invasion management of Iraq was incompetently and foolishly handled in addition to moronically justified. I am not looking for, as you called them, Monday-morning quarterback apologist commentaries on what happened, I am strictly interested in the facts. There was dishonesty and incompetence. It is wrong in the extreme to apologize for such gross negligence and deceit; it is incumbent upon everyone (whether you liked Saddam or not) to hold responsible the perpetrators of such deceit and incompetence (particularly when it is so expensive for absolutely everyone involved).
You believed a bunch of cagal packaged up in some emotionally-appealing rhetoric; no facts, no logic, no real arguments in sight; it was all designed to have a gastro-intestinal as opposed to cerebral impact. Incitements to tribalist thinking. “With us or against us” is just another fallacy (the false dichotomy I pointed out earlier). It is entirely possible for someone or some state to be with Bush (against terrorist attacks like 9/11) yet be against the methods Bush employed (i.e., a grand PR move like declaring “War on Terror”, invading Iraq, eroding civil liberties at home, trampling all over the Charter of Human Rights in Cuba and Iraq, failing to plan more than a few days ahead, etc.).
Just an example of somewhere that could really use a clean-up.
Why Iraq? You first claimed (like the administration) that Iraq was involved in terrorism, which I have shown to be a grievously false conclusion. You then shifted position, arguing that (rather than explicit terrorism from Iraq) the reason was the overall War on Terror, but that neglects to consider that Bush was warned about ensuing instability in the region, increasingly radicalized populations, and the fact that terror was not a charge that would stick easily to Iraq. What Bush has done has not helped the War on Terror in any way at all.
Aye, part and parcel of my complaints against the drooling aberrations that make up the current White House.
What’s more, a civil war is now virtually inevitable. This won’t be an explosive civil war, but the kind that creeps forward and is on you before you know it, and woe is you when it does – think of Lebanon or the ex-Yugoslavia. You see the same elements, including the hardening of division lines between groups that have been friendly for decades (see NYT article below), increasing segregation, regular inter-communal homicides, the turning to extremist ideologies, ethnic cleansing, and so forth. Think of Afghanistan, where the tough men toting guns rule; what is to prevent that from happening in Iraq, when the only thing that Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds can agree on is that they want the Americans out? (This is an excellent and informative opinion piece, recommended reading)
(There was an excellent article reporting on these problems in the New York Times, November 20, titled “Sectarian Hatred Pulls Apart Iraq’s Mixed Towns”. I no longer have the paper and it’s available online only if you pay to retrieve it from the archive, stupid online policy.)
This is horrible. Horrible and depressing. There are no systems in place in Iraq (military or civil or even ideological) to resist the slide to civil war once the US forces leave, if they leave “ahead of schedule” (though a schedule was never set, and goals were never written down). Yet all the major factions of the entire nation seem unanimous in wanting an end to the US bungling in their country. One hopes for the best, but one has learned – particularly with this cretinous White House – to expect rather less.
Did you? Believe me, Bush’s case for war wouldn’t hold up anywhere where people have brains, the Internet, and the skills to use both. It worked in the US primarily (but not only) because of two critical factors, one of which was beyond the control of anyone: 9/11 and the overdrive in White House propaganda machinery. 9/11 allowed Bush to set the stage and let his machinery accomplish the task (panic, impending doom, lack of safety, your Strong Leader must protect you in ways that not even the ocean can, and all techniques employed, such as demonizing administration sceptics, false evidence, either-or fallacies, etc.). It becomes really quite alarming once you study the methods employed to fool the majority of a nation and capitalize shamelessly on a horrible tragedy like 9/11.
I am glad to see we have agreement on a critical point, but 9/11 still has no relevance to invading Iraq, nor has it had any beyond what Bush pounded into viewers’ brains with his various speeches.
I manage to forget about Thanksgiving every year, but to you too, belatedly.
The debate swung from Libby-Plame to Bush-Iraq but still remains securely moored at the Clinton axis. This is highly commendable; at least noone has compared Iraq to Chappaquiddick yet.
As far as lies are concerned, I always tend to consider extenuating circumstances. Was there a good cause to lie?
Clinton lied because he was set-up. As soon as he was asked a question about ML he knew it was a trap and he had to make a split-moment decision how to get out of it. He had a good cause. Excused.
Bush lied because he knew that the time has come to remove Saddam. Good cause. Excused.
Well, the facts speak for themselves. I think it’s important to avoid the suggestion that Bushites and Clinton’s lies are somehow equivalent, given the dramatically different impact that they had, their level of premeditation or, for that matter the reasons and reasoning behind them. Hence my argument that I see little or no equivalence between the two cases.
You may excuse Bush based on your personal feelings, but what evidence-based argument (that hasn’t already been raised) do you propose to support such an excuse?
I can accept the argument of extenuating circumstances, but Iraq was not a high priority task, nor was Saddam Hussein; the entire exercise was falsely presented as high priority when it was in fact an optional affair. Sure, Saddam is gone and (even though he was not a threat) that’s good, but the current situation (impending civil war and the several other problems already argued in this thread) is not exactly better than a contained and pressurized Saddam.
I don’t excuse Clinton. He is an extremely intelligent individual and I don’t see how he could be so dumb as to think that such a secret could be kept.
I’m not sure what 500000 for a few months has to do with the present situation where it’s going on, what? Three years of constant drip, drip, drip attrition?
The limitations I was speaking of was really the inability of an army to handle a guerilla war adequately. The guerillas can’t win in direct combat but they don’t have to, do they?
We’re back to the microscope, Abe, complaining that we can’t find any smoking gun… just a bunch of carbon atoms here, some manganese over there, a few traces of silicone and sulphur, maybe a little phosphorous and aluminum, but they’re scattered all over the place, and there’s this fine particulate gas wafting about, but, sorry, no smoking gun.
It’s one thing to say that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but to say it has nothing to do with the War on Terror defies all reason. Ansar al Islam cannot be summarily dismissed as irrelevant, as if it never existed, and neither can Salmon Pak. It’s been said with absolute certainty that Saddam Hussein *couldn’t conceivably have cooperated * with bin Laden on something as mutually advantageous as a Holy Jihad against The Great Satan, but his Sunni Baathists seem to have no difficulty getting along with al Qaeda today to try and blow up voting booths. This is not only an illogical proposition, it is implausible. I fear that rather than reaching a common ground of understanding on these issues, we are getting further and further apart.
You have used the term “critical thinking” on more than one occasion to describe the thought processes you insist must be used to determine the sense or senselessness of the war. I grant you that such finite reasoning must surely have its place in a world filled with nuance, inaccuracy and confusion, but I don’t think I’m cut out for it, Abe. I seem only to be getting bogged down in minutia, the stuff that indecision is made of. I am uncomfortable with uncertainty and, frankly, would rather act and be wrong than falter.
I find that such thinking serves me well only and especially if I want to find reason to criticize or withhold support, for I sense that I would always be able to ferret out imperfection or illogic. In this case, these are grave and momentous issues that I simply do not want to oppose.
I find that as I try to employ this method, I catch a glimpse of how easy it would be for me to become so single-mindedly fixated on un-dotted “I’s” and un-crossed “T’s” that I could forget the threat of being swept from the face of the earth by those who were never taught this fine art of “critical thinking”. That’s when I discover that my survival instinct is much more dominant than any other motivator in life.
Believe me, Abe, I really hate to give up, but one of us has to. You’ve made it abundantly clear that you do not see any justification for this war, more that you don’t even see it as a war at all, and you’ve done so with eloquence and patience that I hardly deserved. From what you’ve told me, though, I can’t help but worry. Beyond your certainty of the Machiavellian manipulations of the Bush administration, I really don’t know what you think is going on in the world.
What I know is what history suggests: When radical convictions of the malignant type that drive today’s militant Islamists are left unchecked, people die and nations fall. In four short years, jihadists have brought down the World Trade Center and attacked our Pentagon, killing 3000 innocent civilians. They have drawn us into war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and brought about a dramatic re-shuffling of Western loyalties. Despite the instability of the Middle East being blamed conveniently on George W. Bush’s United States, it has been Islamo-fascism eating at the very foundations of their societies for generations. I count our own country alongside Spain as nations having had Islamic terrorists change the outcome of a recent election. We have re-designed and re-deployed the greatest military force in history in response to Islamic fundamentalists, and Muslim countries around the world have begun to look within themselves, to their mosques and madrasses, in an effort to identify the source of and squelch this deadly fanaticism. An inability to flourish in their own homelands has caused many of these militants to spread themselves out into the non-Muslim nations of the West in such concentrations as to exert influence by way of social disruption and coercion. They are not trying to be assimilated into these host nations, Abe, they want to change them from within, to convert them, to defeat them in the name of Allah in their twisted jihad against the West.
Right now, I believe that we are particularly fortunate, as are England and Australia, to have leaders who clearly see militant Islam as a fundamental and immediate threat to all of Western civilization, and who recognize that they must act and act decisively. Unfortunately, other world leaders disagree. Critical thinkers, no doubt, as must be most of the populations of the world. Majorities, however, are often wrong… in significant numbers. I still hold on to hope that our policies will prevail in Iraq, and that a fledgling democracy springing up from the stench of Saddam will embarrass the radical movement and diminish its appeal to alienated Arabs it now attracts.
Should we fail, however, either as a result of incompetence or loss of will, subsequent predictable events, I fear, will make us long for the days of high-sounding, irrelevant polemic. There is still hope if it’s the leaders of the countries of the world who come to a Churchillian understanding of their responsibilities, if they arrive at their senses and lead their respective peoples in this fight against fanaticism. But God help us and all olive-skinned races if the people beat them to it. Despite all the irresponsible and fatuous claims against our troops in Iraq, their critics will soon discover that trained American soldiers are ten thousand times more discreet, more discriminating and more culturally sensitive than Caucasian Joe Six Pack and his .44 Magnum, or Jacques de Trés Monts et Le Protector will be when all trust in government is gone and the only option left is every man for himself.
So, I guess the appropriate cliché here is that we shall agree to disagree. I don’t like that, Abe, and I know you detest me for quitting. But it’s really like this: If you are wrong, it could mean the end of democracy as we know it. If I am wrong… well, that’s just not an option - they eliminated that as a possibility on 9/11.
So we attack their credibility and their reason for being. If there is no plausible assurance of a caliphate as an eventual reality, no one will fight.
Dishfunctional, you keep shifting to slightly different arguments and I keep going at them, with the result that the discussion has meandered quite a bit. In your latest post you seem to say that you have a visceral involvement in this topic. I will try to show, again, why a visceral response is misleading.
The point I was responding to is that the stated purpose of going to war in Iraq was bogus, and was built on bogus claims. The fact that (pre-GF2) Iraq was being contained (via various measures) renders the arguments of urgency provided by the Bushites even more bogus.
If Iraq was important to terror, and if the war in Iraq was part of the war on terror, the Bushites simply needed to demonstrate as much instead of relying on a host of dishonest techniques and materials to trick their audiences. But the Bushites failed to satisfy critical observers before and after the invasion. As far as we can tell, the decision to invade Iraq was not one that had much to do with the War on Terror. If it was, I rather wonder why the State Department had to fluff up their [so badly, or why various war architects (Wolfowitz et al) had to work overtime to demand (from the State Dept and Intel agencies), magnify, and fabricate offences.
Of course not, no one is claiming anything of the sort. But I can only repeat yet again (is this the fourth time?) that Ansar al Islam was in a remote Kurdish Safe zone of Iraq not under Saddam’s control, in fact well beyond Saddam’s reach given that it was protected by the northern No-Fly Zone and USAF and RAF bombers. Ansar al Islam is an extremely weak item with which to attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq on anti-terror grounds, and just shows how desperate the Bushites were to get this war in the air regardless of Saddam’s cooperation with UN weapon inspectors.
Salmon Pak, well, let’s see some real arguments, evidence, and citations showing that it was a concrete component of the decision to invade. And, in order to keep the argument coherent, let’s leave out the sort of idiocy spouted by Laurie Mylroie and similar advocates who have been consistently unable to prove their wild claims.
But it’s true that Salmon Pak may have been a terrorist training facility. I wonder why, then, Bush and co chose to scream about aluminium tubes, uranium from Africa, al Qaeda ties, etc. rather than bring forth concrete and legitimate evidence, if such really existed?
It’s not been said at all. What has been said is that AQ and Saddam were enemies, and that to date little evidence has emerged to support the arguments of the likes of Mylroie and Woolsey, who allege direct AQ-SH partnership prior to 2003 and in apparent contradiction to our information on the relations between the two.
Of course it is possible to imagine a link between AQ and Saddam, but our imagination is not under test, what is being tested is a an argument (the Administration’s) that so far lacks satisfactory substantiation.
By the way, what you mistakenly seem to think I am doing (claiming that there is no cooperation because it is “inconceivable” for there to be any) is known as the argument by lack of imagination, a variant of the argument from ignorance linked earlier. I am well aware of this particular logical pitfall, and you will note that I do not rely on it to prove anything, I mention the mutual enmity of AQ and SH as relevant given the US administration’s weak evidence concerning links between AQ and SH.
If such is the case, what is so strange about it? Any port in a storm, necessity makes strange bedfellows, etc. It is rather futile to look at the current Iraqi mess and claim that dynamics that to all appearances emerged after the US invasion must have been in place prior to the invasion. Such an argument (stated or implied) requires pre-war evidence (or post-war evidence that pertains to the pre-war situation).
Everything else is self-congratulatory hand waving, which Bush and his lieutenants are becoming legendary for.
One starting point in honing critical skills is the good habit of requiring evidence to validate arguments, as opposed to validation by political bias, patriotism, fear, belief, obfuscation, distortion, confusion, conflation, cherry-picking, alarmism, arm-twisting, fabrication, etc. The sceptical method – hugely important and easy to use – only requires one to say, “prove it” when presented with a claim. Iraq was involved in 9/11? Prove it. Don’t give me proof-less “expert” testimonials from Laurie Mylroie or similar agitator idiots, give me the evidence.
You are mischaracterizing critical thinking, which is a higher-order process involving analysis and criticism and not just a tool to nitpick or withhold support. Don’t expect evidence-based arguments that are wrung through the critical still to take a back-seat to momentous issues in a place like the SDMB. And, anyway, it is my firm opinion that momentous issues more than any other require evidence-based arguments and sound critical skills.
Well, originally I was irritated by the broadcast of claims previously refuted, but on occasion I can be a nice guy, I promise.
Bit of a broad question! I must stress though that “my certainty” is not the issue here, rather the focus is the argued dishonesty and incompetence of the administration (which the OP asked about in context with Clinton’s own dishonesty).
Yes. I would not downplay such a danger. But what is Bush’s solution? He doesn’t have one. He hopes that setting up a democracy in Iraq will magically change the religious climate of the region, but there are already-stated problems with that goal.
Afghanistan, yes, it can be argued, but certainly not Iraq. The motive force in the Iraq affair was provided almost entirely by the US and UK – a point I have supported rather well, I think. No one “drew” the US and allies into Iraq, it was definitely a push all the way.
Explaining the various problems in MENA is a tall order. The current problems and instability in Iraq, on the other hand, are unequivocally (though not solely) the result of G.W. Bush’s United States. First by falsehood, then by incompetence, Iraq has been turned into a – well, into the situation I characterized earlier at length. Not to say Iraq was paradise on earth before that, of course, but it is rather hard to deny that Bush and co are responsible for a messy and poorly-rationalized invasion and regime change.
Islamofascism (or Islamic Fascism) doesn’t have a clear definition, with some claiming that it is an apparent contradiction in terms (aside from the issue that no one calls themselves fascist). It is often considered a controversial neologism, and is used frequently by critics of Islam as well as ideological/political idiots (read: neocons) who seek to frame discussions to their advantage. In most cases where this neologism is used, one might as well use the less controversial (but still not problem-free) “Islamism” (or “militant Islamism”).
And I must point out again that militant Islamists received a considerable boost thanks to Bush’s reckless actions in Iraq. Once again, this is argued in previous posts and the threads I linked, but here is a link to a news summary: [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1331362,00.html]Thinktank: Invasion Aided Al Qaeda](]2001 Overview Of State-sponsored Terrorism[/url).
I agree. Without 9/11 I think Bush would have been voted out after his first term, assuming other things had gone more or less as they have. Aznar in Spain made a critical decision a few years ago: faced with the options of siding with the US in an attempt to (among other things) shift westwards the focus of transatlantic political power in Europe, or of fulfilling his democratic mandate or otherwise pursuing a course of greater caution, he chose the former. He paid for it and was easily defeated come election time. Part of the reason for his political elimination was his original decision to ally himself with Bush against Iraq and the UN no matter what the evidence (and his own people) demanded. His foolish and cowardly response to the Madrid bombings then sealed his fate (he immediately blamed Etta for the Madrid attack [shortly after having announced that Etta had been virtually defeated!] in an attempt to evade criticisms for his hugely unpopular support of the Iraq war).
Something similar (minus the attacks, I speak here about voters’ enforcement of political responsibility) seems to have happened in Poland, and might have happened in Italy (both early supporters of adventures in Iraq) if anyone in fact understood what the hell goes on in Italian politics. Were Italy endowed with a less corrupt political system, I think Silvio Berlusconi might finally have been dislodged from his seat in power. Now we will have to wait until next year’s elections while Mr. Slick continues his suspicious activities and croons his songs (look out for his Christmas CD this season).
If you are talking about the assault on Afghanistan, yes. First the horror of 9/11, then the attack on the Taleban and the pressure applied from multiple quarters helped to reduce the tolerance of President Musharraf of Pakistan for Wahabbist and Islamist festering sores in general. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, took few meaningful or overt actions against militant Islamism until faced with a series of terrorist attacks on their own soil (somewhat understandable, given that the House of Saud is between a rock and a hard place). Afghanistan was a bold move by Bush and (not counting problems in execution and follow-up) to most intents and purposes the correct thing to do.
None of the above elements for the case of Afghanistan may be claimed for the case of Iraq. Or, at least, none have been successfully defended, since they have been claimed en passant.
Even the “redesign” of the fighting force came under intense criticism, but that’s another matter.
That’s militant Islamism for you. Saddam was no such creature. I must also point out that insurgent and terrorist organizations like Al jaish al islami fil Irak (The Islamic Army in Iraq) and many others were founded in Iraq after the 2003 US led invasion. Thanks, Mr Bush, for making us all so very safe and destroying all those “terrr-ist” outfits. Children can sleep soundly at night, now. You make the sun to shine, Dear Leader[sup]*[/sup].
[sup]Gratuitous mention of my favourite North Korean song.[/sup]
Almost every leader everywhere recognizes militant Islamism as a threat. This is certainly not the domain of the West, and it most certainly is not the historical domain of the US, UK, and Australia. For goodness’ sake, it wasn’t that long ago that militant Islamic warriors (the mujaheddeen) enjoyed support and even honour in the “West”. They went on to form such smash hits as the Taleban.
You know who really recognized militant Islamism as a threat? The people who have been dealing with it a whole lot longer than the West has. The House of Saud, who defeated the ideological ancestors of al Qaeda, the Ikhwan (by some Saudi standards, the Saud family is moderate). The often-criticized repressive and pseudo-despotic government of Egypt. And, yes, even Saddam Hussein and his Baathists.
I just heard on the radio that the previously banned Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has enjoyed a five-fold increase in parliament seats in the current election, which isn’t even over. That’s enough to shift the balance of power significantly, and, while it is fairly certain that Mubarak’s National Democratic Party will remain the number one slot, this is indicative of long-term political changes that I do not find comforting.
The Brotherhood’s slogan, of course, is “Islam is the solution”, which sums up their goal of making their take on religion the absolute authority in the affairs of men; they have been an important force in global Islamism for much of the 20th century, though thankfully today they reject violence (at least publicly). Isis and her family, if they are still in Egypt, will certainly not be looking forward to the re-Islamicization of their country (which has been under way, informally, for a couple decades).
Islamism was an issue for Egypt long before the majority of people in the West even had a name for the problem. Therefore an emphasis on what Bush thinks or envisions when he looks at the world strikes me as pointless, given his ignorance, arrogance, and especially his handlers.
They must act decisively, but not idiotically. With sound information, to varying degrees of self-defence, honestly, in respect of international covenants and relationships, and with consideration of possible outcomes. You see, any cowboy, any bully, any criminal, any congenital moron is capable of acting decisively; more is expected (but, in the case of Iraq, not delivered).
No they don’t. Why would they? Who are these disagreeing leaders? Disagree about what? Rushing in madly to invade countries you have no business invading? Or fighting against terrorism? The two are by no means one and the same. Or something else?
Absolutely. The fallacy of the majority, incidentally, is a significant weakness of the democratic system. Democracy in an environment of poor critical thinking, I have argued before, is not so much an effective means of determination as an effective means of distributing responsibility… At any rae, you will find that critical thinkers are not “often wrong”. They’re not always right, but in the long run they are much more likely to be correct than any other group. To demonstrate precisely that point I posted a link to the old pre-invasion discussion when I entered this thread (as you see we have come full circle here too).
Yes, I hope so too as indubitably everyone does. But it disturbs me to have to rely on “hope” and “faith” and similar wishful emotions, particularly when we are faced with problems of our own making arising from incompetence and/or corruption and/or dishonesty, etc.
As I pointed out earlier, the signs are not good for Iraq. You seem to be hoping along the lines of German unification – no walk in the park by any means but with solvent economic systems and populations accustomed to democratic principles, with no religious or ethnic factions to etch lines of division and inter-communal hatred. I, on the other hand, see the characteristics of the Balkan and Lebanese civil wars in current Iraq, as already argued and cited in my previous post.
I hope for one outcome, but prognosticate a likelihood of its opposite occurring.
Of course, that means precisely not signing up with the Bushite Fanatical Agenda of Mindlessness, since (as we have seen in Iraq) that tends to result in more problems than solutions, especially as regards terrorism! Clearly this is tongue in cheek, but it illustrates my point.
Overall I think you are drawing the conclusions that comfort you, rather than the conclusions that might reflect reality more accurately. I would counsel avoidance of that trap, it can be particularly insidious - not to mention painful to extricate yourself from.
Yes, we have drifted, but if the OP doesn’t object, why should we?
Sorry for the delay in responding, Abe… family, business, it’s all a great conspiracy to keep me from defending my “visceral involvement in this topic”, as you put it. It’s much more than that, actually. It’s not limited to any one organ (like the brain, obviously) or even one group of organs… it’s literally every cell and fiber of my being. Remember, I told you that for me this is less about critical thinking than about that survival instinct I spoke of. I don’t limit my desire for self-preservation to just my gut, you see.
That’s fine, if “contained” is all that you want. There comes a time when continuing with a rather flaccid containment just doesn’t send the right message.
By “bogus” I assume you mean to those who needed further convincing. Remember, I’m one who feels we took too long to invade Iraq, that too much time was wasted, and that all these claims of “bogus” reasons for war are bogus themselves. No less a great and respected defender of embattled leaders than Ramsey Clark agrees that sometimes a tyrant (or a president?) must act with speed and determination:
Who doesn’t think that Flight 93 was originally intended to take out the White House? The primary difference between Saddam and Bush, of course, is that Saddam started his war, so why, I might ask, can’t Bush get the same consideration as Saddam? No need for an answer, Abe… sarcasm off.
This is a joke, right? The press at all levels the world over is allowed to “cherry-pick” the news, sifting for the negative and discarding the positive, allowing the public see, hear and read only what editors decide is worthy or right based on their world view, but the president has no such latitude? Bush did what he had to do so we could do what had to be done.
Asked and answered, Abe. That’s the way it’s done. See any issue of the New York Times – try to find something pro-war, or pro-Bush, for that matter… or pro-conservative. Actually, I can save you the time – don’t bother, they’re not there. Not that there are no pro-war stories or pro-Bush interviews or pro-conservative background pieces that could have been published… it’s just that, in their infinite wisdom, newspaper editors are free to selectively manipulate which facts we the people get to see. Rather ironic, wouldn’t you say? And as I’ve indicated previously, it seems to me that one of the main reasons critical observers were not satisfied was because critical observers are rarely if ever satisfied, almost by definition.
None of this fussing over “proof” matters one whit. It’s all nit-picking on a global scale, legalistic wrangling with the sole intent of requiring the victim of an attack, the United States, to meet an impossibly high bar before responding. I’m sorry, but post 9/11, any burden of “proof” became almost non-existent as far as I’m concerned. It’s war. You either stay Clinton’s course… and possibly die, or strike back… and possibly die. Given that choice, I prefer the latter. I know you are probably chafing at what you see as a false dilemma, but sometimes it really is that simple.
As I’ve already indicated, radical Islamists declared war on us, and anyone, Islamist or otherwise, foolish enough to openly choose sides against us deserved the consequences of that choice. Call it Cowboy Diplomacy if you want, but it will be the survivors of this war who will write its history… and will choose the descriptive adjectives in the process. The survivors may also, I might add, have a lot to do with influencing a major re-write of whichever sections of arcane international law prevent this nation from responding as vigorously as we see fit when attacked. Like any game that assumes that everyone will abide by the rules, there should be one last rule that says all the rules go out the window as soon as any other player starts changing them or making up new ones in the middle of the game. And if you’re wondering how in the world I could ever arrive at such a thought, consider that I live in Arizona, a Red State, that permits all law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm in public. You’d be amazed, Abe, at how peaceful life is for the openly armed citizens in this part of the world. An “equalizer” and the willingness to use it works every time it’s tried.
Again, more irrelevant technicalities and an artificial threshold of “proof” that is no different than moving the goal posts. If there ever was behavior that would qualify as “hand-wringing”, this non-stop, A to Z argument against anyone doing anything to poor, old, toothless, already contained Saddam Hussein should certainly hit the mark. To listen to you, Abe, one would think that there is no reason, claimed by the administration or otherwise, that would mitigate all this indignation aimed at the United States. How about considering that maybe “little” evidence was all the evidence needed by those making the decisions at the time? No, it was not enough to satisfy critics, but who’s surprised by that?
One good reason to reject all of this “no connection” nonsense is that much of it came from supposed allies who wished to continue conducting business with the already contained Iraq, allies who enjoy cozy business relationships with Iran to this day, another country where men are hanged in public for being a homosexual and women are stoned for adultery - this from countries whose media continue to disparage Bush for his vice president’s former ties to Haliburton. Gimme a two-faced, double-standard, mammy-friggin’ break. If for no other reason than this alone, Bush has all my support for not cow-towing to these European cowards, thieves and rank hypocrites.
By the way, I don’t hold the citizens of these countries any more responsible for the actions of their leaders than I do American citizens for the actions of ours. We are all influenced entirely by our respective media, which jealously enjoy the same right to selectively distort the facts that they (and you) deny the Bush administration.
Well, you’ve given me much more credit than I deserve. I knew of no such fallacy, and even if I had, I doubt that I would have accused you resorting to it. It just seems odd that with Saddam out of the way, the Iraqi Sunnis, many of whom surely are Baathists, seem to have gotten beyond whatever moral, cultural and/or hygiene barriers supposedly prevented them from cozying up back during Saddam’s heyday. To suggest that because Saddam didn’t control Northern Iraq, he should be off the hook, doesn’t in any way explain why the whole country itself should be ruled out as a target for American retaliation. If that area was “out of control”, then that’s just more reason for an attack.
And I would submit, ad nauseum, that there was pre-war evidence. Not enough for the critics or the press, but enough for those whose responsibilities and sensibilities required that they take action.
To what end? So they can simply say that the evidence is not enough or that the witnesses are idiots? Or better yet, so they can simply ignore any evidence that doesn’t fit the world view of the critics one is trying to persuade. Tell me, where is the incentive for a supporter of the war to apply critical thinking when the press ignores Senator Lieberman while amplifying every word from Congressman Murtha? At some point, one must realize that no matter what is presented, the deck is stacked, the die is cast, minds are made up, and the rest of those clichéd reminders that it’s really up to you to make the tough decisions and go it alone.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not dismissing critical thinking as having no value other than helping one arrive at negative conclusions, although it is extremely well-suited for that endeavor. I am just saying that that has been my experience. It seems to be the perfect tool to apply to an ostensibly simple situation in order to make it appear more complex, if that is one’s intent. And it also seems to be a process applied very selectively. In situations such as a declared war, I might argue that critical thought should be given no more credence than, say, thought motivated by nationalism or fear of defeat. It seems to me that war has always been a battle of thought as much as tactics and weaponry, but the prevailing thought has to be that of those responsible for the outcome, not those who would influence world events to the disadvantage of a political foe, particularly if we are speaking of a domestic political bias in a hostile press. In other words, let leaders lead, then let history decide whose thought processes were superior.
I’ll admit to a bit of hyperbole there, not that that’s necessarily a bad thing, but I do wonder, sometimes, if you can’t see that the larger threat is terrorism, not any perceived dishonesty by the Bush administration. As to the comparison with Clinton, he was trying covering his own lecherous ass. Bush is trying to save Western democracy.
Sure, there are problems, but that doesn’t mean he has no solution. If having no problems is the measure of whether or not a solution is worthy of consideration, then no one has one, and his is as good as it gets! This is exactly what I meant when I said that the application of critical thinking can and does lead to inaction. If the only plan that could have been put into action was one which everyone would have had to agree had no problems associated with it, then all of our cities would be smoking piles of rubble and those of us who survived would all be bowing toward Mecca.
A push, I’ll grant, but only in the sense that it was a response to the Coalition’s decision to take proactive steps against an emboldened terrorist movement, a point I feel that I have addressed and supported as well - in order to take a step, one must decide where to put the first foot. They decided Iraq, and for good (enough) reason, with good (enough) results, despite all the caterwauling to the contrary.
In case you’ve only seen the cherry-picked and manipulated facts offered by the major dailys and TV networks and haven’t heard the other side of the story, we are not bogged down in Iraq, we are bogged down in the press. We are not going to pull our troops out because defeatists are demanding it, we will be pulling them out when the job is done, which could be quite soon, it would appear. We are not going to “set benchmarks for the transfer of authority” because John Kerry now is for something that he once said would never happen, but we will continue to adhere to the gradually evolving time line which will achieve precisely that, the one which the president has consistently laid out, the one which has been progressing exactly as projected, electing a national assembly and approving a constitution, and, in about a week, the one which will attain one more benchmark decried as impossible by all but the administration’s supporters.
They are indeed responsible for Iraq being in the condition it is in, and for the United States being in the condition it is in, and they should get credit for both. I say credit because few can disagree that, if things go as they appear to be headed, Iraqis will be infinitely better off than they were pre-invasion, and except for having to suffer increasingly polarized political rhetoric, the average American is better off as well, and despite the boost your cite alleges our presence in Iraq has lent al Qaeda, we remain domestically untouched by them.
Frankly, since The Guardian published that report, I’ve seen the impact that the invasion has had on al Qaeda characterized by the Washington Post in an entirely different way:
Granted, the context of that quote was to illustrate that the composition of the “insurgency” is now more Iraqi than foreign, but the point remains – if the numbers are to be believed, then either al Qaeda is husbanding their resources in some location other than Iraq, placing themselves and the host nation at great risk, or we have seriously diminished their numbers since that think tank piece in ‘04. Critics of the president’s policies may imply daily that the United States is not winning this war, but you don’t hear them claim that al Qaeda is not losing it.
I can’t argue with your assessment of Berlusconi, but Poland may have swung leftward more as a result of public malaise than policy. Last I heard, Reuters had Poland planning to begin withdrawing their troops along just about the same timeline as ours, beginning in mid-2006. I would instead point to Germany’s recent rightward shift as a more likely result of what to expect as the likelihood increases of a much more successful outcome in Iraq than, say, former Chancellor Schroeder anticipated. I speculate, however, as it is too soon to gauge Merkel’s commitment to “improved” relations with Bush.
You are, of course, correct, since many things were predicted as outcomes of Saddam’s defeat, and this was not one of them. It can now be suggested, however, that there could be a domino effect in play here, and as dominoes have different face values, so do the events that have occurred in a more-or-less sequential order. Nothing in the Middle East happens in a vacuum, and the deflation of Saddam’s “super” ego can be seen as one in a series of events that simply would not have happened when they did had the US not invaded. I don’t believe these events can be said to be accidental or coincidental, in the sense that they might have happened anyway, nor can the invasion be called an insignificant incident preceding these developments. I see a distinct pattern that I believe will be born out by history. I also believe we will all live long enough to see it written.
Yes it is, and I mentioned it not as an ostensibly positive development, just as an illustration of significant things that had occurred in response to Islamic Fundamentalism.
But who’s to say that Saddam wouldn’t have been next on bin Laden’s hit list? With the Taliban in tatters and Musharreff walking a virtual tight rope, don’t you think those vast, open spaces south of Iran’s nearly 1000-mile border with Iraq would have looked inviting to a recently-evicted terrorist? Would those kids be sleeping any better with visions of sugarplums dancing in their beheadings?*
[sup]*Gratuitous slap at terrorists’ favorite passtime.[/sup]
You’re the one who noted that necessity makes strange bedfellows, Abe. I’m not denying that we all deal the devil at times, and I’m certain that even a reputable resource would tell much the same story, but your use of Wikipedia raised an eyebrow on this end. Is it really necessary for them to place scare quotes around Iraq’s “democratically elected” president when defining what the Mujahideen in Iraq oppose? We know the terrorists deride democracy, but must Wikipedia follow suit? Nevertheless, your point is well taken.
I’ve never shied away from the pathetic truth of the matter that, despite Clinton’s claims to have “worked hard” against terrorism, we were asleep until 9/11. Before the Twin Towers fell, I saw the various attacks against American interests as separate incidents, the only common thread being that our government seemed to want to minimize them. If I held any anger, it was not toward any entity that I perceived as our enemy, but at our government which I perceived as negligent. But that was in the day when any and every criticism of Clinton was branded a partisan political attack, and as such, could be (and was) ignored, especially by the American press. Sort of a reverse parallel universe when compared with today, wouldn’t you say? The only similarity was that the press was then, as it is now, immune to charges of “lying” when it selectively manipulates the facts and tells the public only that which it wants the public to know. Only a president “lies” when he does the same thing, and only a Republican president, at that.
As I consider the duplicity of the president’s critics, it occurs to me that one might easily argue that it is more acceptable, even expected, that a president would massage the facts to support a position. That’s what partisans do, in local politics, in Congress and in the White House. That is not what a free press is supposed to do. Lincoln, another Republican who suffered bad press, begged of his critics: “Let the people know the facts, and the country will be safe.” All the facts, ma’am, not just the cherry pickin’s. The “watchdog” press is supposed to be neutral, objective, impartial and unbiased. How else to fulfill their impassioned argument that “the public has a right to know”? To do as is being done today is to buy into Lenin’s dictum: Truth is Partisan. If we all believe that of the press, then what chance does democracy have? There can be no doubt that the public has been misled, but not only and not mostly by the president.
To the contrary, given the tendency of America’s citizens and elected officials to be totally and comfortably self-absorbed, to the exclusion of such horrific events as took place in Rwanda, I think that Bush’s awakening to the world around him, even if late in coming, is a blessing. It’s good to have an American president once again fully engaged in re-shaping the world at a time when it needs it most.
As you know, I share your concern for everyday Egyptians, for reasons that pertain to the matters we discuss here and for reasons previously discussed. Although Ayman Nur’s circumstances are frankly disappointing, the NDP’s stabilizing hold on parliament does seem secure for the next five years, at least, if they can just keep the lid on their intimidation, vote suppression and corruption. I, too, take heart, not only in the MB’s eschewing violence so far, but of their clear acceptance of some fundamentally democratic ideals, specifically moderation and compromise with the regime and with other opposition parties. This is astounding to me, and I’m just a casual Cairo-watcher. While historically they may not be secular democrats, they certainly have begun to act as such, and as The Bard said, if you wear the mask long enough, you become the mask. I hope he was right.
As I mentioned above, I’m in favor of scrapping any “international covenant” that restricts us from responding as we see fit to terrorism. New game, new rules. Further, I feel that that is the most moral position one can take. Defeating terrorism, although costly in lives of soldiers and innocent civilians in the short run, saves countless more lives of the terrorists’ innocent victims in the long run, and that is our moral duty, not adhering to some politically correct ruling handed down by an authority that sees terrorists as freedom fighters. As far as I’m concerned, the failure to make that distinction cedes any moral authority “international covenants” might ever have had, and the UNSC should be unified in re-codifying the rules of engagement when murderous, nationless, terrorists unencumbered by “international covenants” are involved.
They, meaning the then-leaders of France, Germany and Russia, most specifically, disagreed with Bush, and you know it. As nations, they may have come around of late, but during the run-up to the invasion, they couldn’t have acted any less allied than they did, and for none of the high-sounding reasons you’ve alluded to. They disagreed on invading Iraq because of off-budget business concerns and the O.F.F. subterfuge, plain and simple. They had not been attacked, therefore it was not their problem… yet.
It’s not my intent to be mean, Abe, but I’m not surprised by your view. You are nothing if not consistent, as I noted early on in this thread. There is no doubt that there exists a possibility, even a certain probability that what you predict may come to pass. Nor is there any doubt that that is the safer forecast. It’s much easier to predict doom and, in its absence, claim excessive caution than it is to defend a rosy estimate that never quite materializes.
I suppose it does, but we are not yet done counting problems and solutions to see which are the greater.
Thanks for the warning. I’ll take it to heart, Abe. I will say one more positive thing about critical thinking, though, so as not to leave you with the impression that I am utterly mindless for life. Your persuasiveness has made me examine a number of loosely-held beliefs that I had coming into this discussion. That examination has subsequently resulted in my rejecting several of them as either false, unnecessary or inadequate. For that I must express my appreciation. You should find reason for hope here, in that one positive experience with critical thinking just might be enough to lure me back from time to time. Ultimately, as you have seen, those rejected viewpoints have been replaced with what I feel was all along the underlying, more fundamental set of core beliefs which begin and end with a sense of democratic exceptionalism that I doubt can be shaken by any injection of logic. Sorry, but that’s my reality. I cannot really expound more fully on this yet, as I’m just now developing an awareness of it, but I’m certain I’ll have a chance to flesh it out soon, if not here, then in some other thread where nothing is taken at face value.