Gee, 5-HT, having some trouble hauling that big ol’ pile of evidence over here? Sure taking your time about it. Squeege, don’t distract the man, he’s busy.
And Sam, c’mon, who you kidding? Go back a month in the papers. Osama, Al Queda, Afghanistan. Today: war with Iraq, 24/7. Are you seriously going to suggest a dramatic change of emphasis hasn’t occured?
well, on that point, we agree. don’t get me wrong, I’m definately no fan of George W. I think the timing of this is certainly suspicious. but regardless, I think there is an serious issue that will need to be addressed sooner or later. If doing so gets the republicans some votes(note: I don’t think it will) in these midterm elections, oh well, the lesser of two evils and all that.
5-HT, you dont think that the “war gambit” will “get the Republicans some votes”? Why?
It has never failed, ever! Beat the drums, wave the flags and the people rally around the party in power.
Name me one time it didn’t work. Just one. Cause I could use the encouragement right about now. Right now, I don’t know whats worse: that they think we’re that stupid or that they’re probably right.
5-HT, I respectfully withdraw my earlier unkind comment.
It’s comparable to, say, bombing Iraq during an impeachment vote.
[sub]You will have to trust me when I say that I would have supported an invasion of Iraq at the time. I knew some limited bombing would just end the inspection regime. I supported ground troops in Kosovo, BTW. Fuck the wagging dog. Ah, you know what I mean. If not: This is not a political thing to me. But, oh lawdy, the irony.[/sub]
Seriously, when is not before an election? Like people are going to forget a major war before the next one in two years? We’ll still have troops in country then.
Aren’t you putting politics before security considerations? That is exactly what your gripe is, n’est ce pas?
WWI*, WWII,* Korea,* Vietnam, others. Until the nation is attacked, the nation is usually divided. Having troops in a war means people support the troops, not necessarily the politicians who sent them there. In the case of Vietnam, many people did not even support the troops by the late 60s.
But, I see you answered your own question: relax, the American people are not as stupid as you think. Imagine, we invade and lose a bunch of troops without finding any WMDs and have to stay in a rebellious Iraq in a region in turmoil for years. Those are some of the major Democratic predictions, right? How will the Ds do then?
*until: the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Chinese stormed across the Yalu River
Elucidator:
April 28, 2001. Four and a half months before the WTC attack.
Oct 17. Saddam starts Saber Rattling.
Nov 8. Colin Powell says that Iraq may be next target in the war.
Nov. 20 Bush administration starts laying the case for ousting Saddam.
Nov 21. A ‘high level’ adminsitration plan to oust Saddam begins.
Jan 30. Saddam is now officially part of the ‘Axis of Evil’
Feb 14. U.S. begins to poll middle east to gauge reaction to an Iraq invasion.
Or you can just go to the main search page at: http://www.newsmax.com/hottopics/Saddam_Hussein!Iraq.shtml
If you didn’t realize the Administration was talking about Iraq big time since right after Sept. 11, you weren’t listening.
The administration’s position hasn’t changed. The reason it wasn’t a hot item before is because the Democrats have disconnected themselves from the issue, so there has been no debate. But now the U.N. has spoken, and the pundits started batting it around and forming opinions, and the Bush Administration had to press their case.
On the other hand, if you want to claim that this administration is so cunning that it could engineer the Iraq situation’s timing down to the month starting from a year ago, then be my guest. But make sure you don’t call Bush an idiot after that.
squeegee:
I’ve heard some blather about how the Republicans are going to get killed, but no definitive polling to that effect. The polls I see show a typical mixed bag.
As for this, however:
**
Uh, Bush put Iraq in the “Axis of Evil” in January’s State of the Union address. He turned to it rather quickly after liberating Afghanistan from the Taliban, too.
Now, of Iraq, Iran and North Korea (and add Syria, Libya and whoever else you’d like to the list as well), anybody going to argue that Iraq is the least contained and controlled situation? With the most volatile and aggressive and neighbor-threatening leader?
If it helps any, I’ve been debating with Sua on what the hell Ritter is about for a couple of months in various threads – meant to pull it al together under one distinct thread but hadn’t got around to it. Haven’t even got time to get into this debate (either) but thought I’d post this as the best example I found of Ritter explaining his apparent change of position on Iraqi WOMD.
I’m quoting myself but…
Here’s a nice little contradition from 1998:
Congressional testimony, September 1998:
Statement to Congress, September 1998:
Oh, and for the record, I strongly oppose the administration’s short-sighted saber-rattling. An invasion of Iraq in the foreseeable future would be just about the worst thing America could do to the middle ease. Yeah, yeah, we get rid of the asshole Hussein–and simultaneously piss off one billion Muslims who are already convinced we’re the biggest bullies on the block. It’s fucking stupid. Nevertheless, Ritter has no credibility.
Anyone who thinks war and politics are not connected at the hip is deluded. Politics in this case are generally Foriegn Policy issues, but since when has Foriegn Policy been completely unconnected to Domestic Strategy? Never, that is when. Why Iraq now? Asset utilization. With the first effort in Afghanistan (and anyone who thinks that should not have been first, take two steps forward), it would have been dangerous to split assets and hit Irag at the same time. Afghanistan is at a point where forces can be removed, and now we are looking at #2. Back almost a year ago, there were many statements (Axis of Evil) that said Afghanistan was not the end of the line in this campaign. That this was going to last a while. Well, it is going to. I had my doubts the American public would stomach the effort after the initial shock and anger subsided (for the general public, not for specific people, mind you).
I agree with you, minty.
I can honestly say that on the question of WOMD, I don’t believe any of the protagonists (from Clinton/Allbright, though Ritter and Butler to Bush and Saddam) retain any credibility whatsoever. The whole UNSCOM mission is so contaminated by the manipulative bullshit of so many that it’s utterly pointless trying to discern what went on, what resulted and where Saddam is now – lets not even get into the ‘war on terorism’ (sic) bullshit and how the hell that has anything to do with Saddam.
Ritter is no better or no worse than any of them. It’s an utter self-serving, fabricated fiasco. IMHO.
But, but, but, it would be very nice indeed if it did get Inspectors back into Iraq …but only if the mission was not shot through with a self-serving US agenda. The UN really has to have learned the lessons of before and stand resolute against manipulation from both Saddam and the US.
Well, now we’re getting somewhere!
LC, well stated, as usual. One cannot fail to note that you freely admit to being British. As much as one must admire your frank openess, nonetheless, the fact remains the Britain is the very home of …Neville Chamberlain!
Having thus disposed of your arguments, I will move on.
Sam, I am reluctant to go much further into the issue of the timing of the Iraq magilla. If I read you correctly, you contend that the emphasis on Iraq is entirely a matter of misperception: the Bushistas have maintained the same level of concern/engagement all along.
I can’t seem to find the quote I’m looking for. Something from a high level political apparatchik for the Bushistas to the effect that “one doesn’t bring out a new product in August”. Did this fellow not get the memo?
I am reminded of Anne Richards (who does not have a funny accent) on Larry King and her prediction that (paraphrase) “You’re not going to hear anything from the Republicans but war, war, war. No Social Security, no prescription drug issues, they intend to run on Iraq.”
I think it would be wonderful if it didn’t work. They wrap themselves in bunting, wave the bloody shirt, and bloviate about how much they support “our troops”. And it doesn’t work.
It would also be wonderful for GM to announce an SUV that runs on toxic waste and emits lilacs and rose petals. And about as likely.
Sheesh, 'luce, do you think you drop the empty rhetorical flourishes and sarcastic ad hominem bullshit and, ya know, engage in some discussion on the issue for a change?
Well, sheesh, Minnie, you think you could go pound burdocks?
What the hell brought that on? You posted some good documentation, I applaud it (“Now we’re getting somewhere”) and all of a sudden you’re flinging turds?
Tell you what: I’ll do what I do, you read it or not. My name is right there up top, easy call to make.
It’ll be hard, at first, but somehow I’ll find the strength to go on.
Um, London_Calling?
**
And what, exactly, is the U.S.'s agenda there? What would it be in Iraq, other than to disarm and render toothless the region’s worst aggressor?
See if you can stay off the grassy knolls on this one. (Not that you have. That was pre-emptive. :))
elucidator: Hey look, the Democrats could have forced this debate any time they wanted to. The Bush administration has made absolutely no secret of its desire to topple Saddam.
There was an editorial in the New Republic this week, accusing Democrats of ‘abandoning’ their responsibility in the Iraq debate. And it’s true. The Democrats have been cynically sitting on the sidelines for political reasons. Because defense issues tend to favor Republicans, and a majority of the country support Bush. So the Democrats reduced themselves to answering calls for debate with vague demands for more ‘information’. Like Maverick in Top Gun, they refused to engage.
But now the debate has gone past them, and they’re going to have to scramble to catch up. They were hoping this whole issue would simmer until after the election. Didn’t work out that way, and it’s their own damned fault. They could have had a national debate on Iraq back in February.
What a coincidence: As I’m typing this, Scott Ritter is on CNN. And guess what? He’s changed his tune. Now he’s saying that he has been telling the world that Iraq is potentially dangerous all along, and has never changed his position. He claims that what he wanted all along was the return of inspectors to Iraq, and that ‘the job is certainly not done, and everyone knows it’. He claims that he’s simply been against war without proof.
Hear that? It’s the sound of someone backpedalling as hard as he can.
What brought that on, dear fellow, is that you claimed we were “getting somewhere,” then followed it up with nothing but empty political rhetoric. I hate that shit when the dittoheads do it, I hate it when lefties do it, and I hate it when anybody else does it. Put some facts and analysis on the table, not
'Cause frankly, you’re making my position look bad by association with your nonsense.
Sam Dead on. The Dumbocrats have behaved in a cringing and cowardly fashion and if you’re waiting for me to defend them, you’ll get old doing it.
Be that as it may, and it is, the Bushista’s IMO (I’ll omit the “H”, 'cause I aint got no “humble”) are taking a time honored tactic. There is no chance I’m going to believe that they havent got an eye on November. We fall for it every time, we will again.
The President will have his war, I don’t doubt that for a second. And the US will win, I don’t doubt that either. It won’t be our blood spilled in the sand, it will be thiers. If God shall cease to avert His eyes, someone who sneak up and give Saddam a 9mm headache and render this whole thing moot.
We will be any safer? Marginally, if that. But untold numbers of Iraqis will keep breathing.
And who speaks for them?
As for Mr. Ritter, I have CNN on too. In response to posts by LC and, uh, some other guy, my opinion on him is growing rather darker, and his appearance here hasn’t helped. The case isn’t closed, but I am mindful.
First, for the OP, Ritter is a Sophist and bald-faced liar in the purest sense – he’s just not a very good at either. He has done a complete 180 from his 1998 positions (I will not cite, others have done so) and now has the audacity to backpedal from those.
This intellectual shrub of a man is rapidly approaching a full 360 as everyone involved realizes he is completely and utterly full of cooked lentils. Let’s be fair by the way, in his debate with Butler on CNN, Ritter came off looking like a crack-baby.
As for the political implications of a war with Iraq, I have to agree that it’s pretty much self-evident that the President and the GOP in general have ratcheted up the rhetoric recently. They have certainly discussed (repeatedly) Iraq and regime change before (as did the Admin of President Bubba) but the level of that discussion has risen quite a bit of late. The Democrats are equally guilty of this, they just got to it a little later (that, and they whine more.).
The spanner in the works is the Dubya speech to the UN. In his remarks to that vast, flaccid, soon to be a League of Nations assembly he pushed back his own time table. By conceding that the UN should at least have a chance to act before becoming irrelevant (TOO LATE), he has more or less guaranteed that any military action will not occur before the mid-term elections. General Powell and the doves at State will need to forward proposals to the Security Council and the entire process will need to roll over a few times. I actually see this as the last act of politicizing the proposed war – it takes a plank out of the Democrat attack – they can no longer accuse Bush of dangerous unilateralism.
War is politics, and politics differs from war only insofar as it is better dressed.
But good god people, Ritter is a buffoon!