Why did G.W Bush wait so long to say anything about Iraq?

Great Debates
21

If you can’t understand that killing several thousand representatives of such threat, destroying what physical infrastructure, freezing their assets, capturing their leaders, whether in their original country of safe operations or elsewhere and chasing them around the world isn’t a diminishment, then I can’t help you – you possess more ignorance than I have ability to cure. Or, as I suspect, you are trolling, ala december.

Is the threat posed by al Qaeda gone? Of course not – heck, they struck Bali. But it would truly take a fool to think they’re as strong now as they were or that they wouldn’t be stronger if we hadn’t rousted them in Afghanistan.

22

Quite likely. To cure ignorance, one must be in possession of facts. You are in possession of the Party Line. Which may, for all we know, be correct. Or it may not, our sources of independent verification are non-existent.

We don’t know d for diddly-squat about Al Queda. Your bald assertions of effective action are based on nothing more than the self same assertions from the Admin. Apparently, you find this utterly convincing, no further questions need be raised. It is a charming faith, really, and I am loathe to undermine it with churlish questions about facts.

I hesitate to strain your already exasperated patience, but have you any facts beyond the spoon fed nuggets supplied by that very paragon of perfect candor, The Man Who Fell Up?

23

Indeed. And find an audience willing to receive them.

Someone who claims that we only know that the Taliban has been ejected from the government of Afghanistan because Bush said so is not in that class.

Ignorance is one thing. Willful stupidity is another.

Regards,
Shodan

24

Truer words ne’er spoken, Shodan Manny seems to be unavailable at the moment, but you have stepped up, ever loyal. But in your haste to be pithy and succinct, you have neglected to deliver those facts, those independent sources of verification, that would resoundingly prove my cupidity and ignorance.

Supply them at your leisure, be expansive, bring the entire weight of these independently attained facts to bear, drown my feeble protests under a deluge of facts from unimpeachable sources. I await, as Mr. Twain has it, “with the calm confidence of a Methodist with four aces.”

25

Such a high ratio of invective to fact in that post - always a dead giveaway. Just a couple of quick ones to help restore your independence of thought:

  1. Where is Osama and when do we get to see his body? You seem content to leave the leader alone while taking out some of his organizations, and calling that success. Isn’t that simply buying into Bush’s Dilbertesque approach of redefining one’s objectives to match what has already been done?

  2. Do you really, fundamentally, live in less fear of terrorism now than before the Bali bombings and the release of the latest tape? If you’d rather not answer that, then how about: Why is the “color” of the threat level as decreed by the administration in whom you place your faith not any lighter now?

26

The U.S. government has NEVER defined success or failure of a given conflict by the capture or killing of a specific individual. It’s just too damned hard. Look at how many Nazis managed to escape Germany - some who lived out the rest of their natural lives without capture.

If Bin Laden vanishes into a safe house in a city with several million people, and communicates with no one other than through a single trusted lieutenant who brings him food and carries out coded messages to be delivered through blind cutouts, HOW would you recommend the U.S. find him? Clairvoyance?

The truth of the matter is, fugitives are generally only found when they make a mistake, or get tired of hiding and reveal themselves. If Bin Laden does neither, the U.S. may never find him.

You guys that keep attacking the Bush administration NEVER provide alternatives. If they are so stupid for allowing Bin Laden to remain free, please tell us how you would go about finding him? Just what should the Bush administration do that they aren’t doing now?

The way I see it, the Bush administration is doing an excellent job on the war on terror in general. They have captured several high-ranking al-Quaida people, and apparently are getting them to sing like birds. They have broken up a number of cells in the U.S., and a number of attacks have been thwarted. They’ve shut down many of the money sources. They have gotten cooperation from governments like Syria and Yemen. They’ve hit people who thought they were safe, like those six al-Quaida guys in the car who got hit by a hellfire in Yemen. That’s forcing them all to keep their heads down, and limiting their ability to travel and coordinate.

The fact that there are still attacks is not a sign of failure in the war - no one, and I repeat NO ONE thought that terrorism would be eliminated in a year. There will be terrorist attacks for decades. You can’t stop that until you make wholesale changes in the culture that breeds it.

27

I leave this to be shown by your own posts.

Although you probably meant “stupidity”, not “cupidity”.

Regards,
Shodan

28

Given the options of “put up or shut up” you have chosen wisely, Shodan. Covering your weakness with a veil of contrived disdain might fool someone. Not me. But someone.

29

Good one. Most of the words are right, too.

What gave you the impression that the disdain was contrived?

Regards,
Shodan

30

You.

31

For the record, no. I decline to find link after link of independent news stories, all widely circulated at the time, regarding the dispersal of al Qaeda. If you doubt the administration, perhaps you could do a search at the Associated Press, or CNN, or the New York Times, or any of the literally dozens and dozens of news sources, including al Jareeza, an organization sympathetic to your buddies, that have reported on this.

ElvisLives escalates the lie, as expected. The administration has never defined getting Osama as success, and we’re still going after him. Including in Afghanistan. He knows both these things, but chooses to lie in defense of terrorism.

Do I feel safer? Son, I live with a target on my back every morning. That’s why we’re still going after them. Sorry if we kill your friends.

32

So, facts are too tiresome for your debating style, but slurs on your opponents loyalties are just the thing. But your just warming up, aren’t you?

No facts, no cites. Just slurs and slanders.

Republican, I assume?

Perhaps you should pass your moderator’s hat to someone who knows the meaning of civil debate.

33

elucidator…

Let me see if I’ve got this right…

You concede that Osama bin Laadin was not the principal target of the operations in Afghanistan.

You concede that the Taliban regime has been ended.

You concede that the terrorist training camps have been destroyed.

You concede that the Al Queda organization has been scattered and forced into hiding.

And you concede that the leadership of Al Queda is being placed under arrest at a reasonable pace.

So now all you want is “factual” proof that an organization which is hiding in caves and using tape recorders for communications is somehow less dangerous that an organization which was able to operate openly and with the support of a sovereign nation?

And if I fail to offer “factual” proof of this then the only reasonable conclusion is that President Bushs foreign policy and the war on terror are a failure.

Is that the gist of it or have I misunderstood something?

34

Zig, I haven’t, so far as I know, conceded any of those points. I can certainly accept the proposition that the Taliban is no longer in power, and such threat as a bunch of theological goat farmers may have presented to the US has clearly been neutralized. Which is to say, whoop-de-fuck-a-doo.

Was Osama the principal target of the operations? Well, he sure was when they started. For a while there, Our Leader did considerable swaggering and terse sound biting as to precisely that. It was rather later that more sophisticated guidelines for measuring success were introduced.

I suppose the terrorist training camps are destroyed. I am assured such by my government. As to whether this poses a crippling loss to our enemies, I frankly don’t know. More to the point, I don’t think anyones else does either. After all, what sort of facilities do you think are required for training in the use of the box cutter?

As to whether Al Queda is scattered, I assumed that was a given. They are all over the place. They were, therefore, scattered to begin with. And as to their being arrested, or hounded, thats all to the good. It was precisely that approach that persons like myself had first recommended. You seem determined to believe that such arrests are necessarily the result of military action in Afghanistan, I suggest they might just have easily been ratted out by thier brother in law.

Trouble is, we don’t know much. Our military men learned a great lesson in Viet Nam, regretably, they learned the wrong one. They learned to keep the snoopy damn reporters as far from the action as humanly possible. They learned that letting the people back home find out on a daily basis what was being done in their names is not a very good idea. There are no war correspondents, we know what we are told. We are told what they want us to know.

I do know odd bits, odd things like pictures of captued Al Queda ammunition dumps, stocked with heavy mortar rounds, presumably to attack very, very slow aircraft. I do notice a distinct lack of numbers: how many here, how many there.

In such conditions of designed ignorance, any certainty is suspect. Clearly, Our Leader would have us believe we have triumphed, just as clearly, you are convinced. I am doubtful. I am more inclined to believe it a failure, given the original terms of engagement we were offered. At any rate, it is difficult to justify its cost to the Afghani people themselves. The same warlords occupy the same positions, but with the extra benefits of several millions of US dollars. I’m hard pressed to see that as an improvement.

35

elucidator,

You are a total idiot. To quote your own posts.

You do realize that OBL planned the WTC attacks from Afganistan with the help of the Taliban. So your assertion that the Taliban is “a bunch of theological goat farmers” doesn’t hold water. Do you really think that the Taliban did not support OBL? If you really believe that then please explain why the Taliban would not give OBL to the US? Bush made it clear to the Taliban, give us OBL or we will attack you. The Taliban learned that Bush meant buisness. So do you believe that taking down a government that supported OBL is trivial?

Next, are there Al-Queda in other countries? Yep, they are everywhere. Bush has made it very clear that the war on terror would take years and cover the globe. At the same time many countries are finding and arresting terrorists. Apparently that doesn’t mean anything to you. Cutting the money supply and cutting off the main base of Al Queda apparently doesn’t matter.

And, last, when did Bush claim that, as you put it,

A cite would be nice. Bush has never claimed that the war on terror was over. In fact he said that this war is going to be a long fight.

You need a reality check. Idiot.

Slee

36

Sleestak I really cannot claim to be a total idiot, the competition is fierce.

The Taliban as evil genius, plotting Fu Manchu like in the dark recesses of Kabul. Perhaps. The guys we bribed to fight them aren’t exactly a bouquets of nosegays either. But if the Keystone Kops meets the Inquisition way in which those clowns attempted to administrate that portion of the country that was under their control is any indication of thier intelligence, we have little enough to fear from the likes of them.

Many Afghans, as you may know, welcomed the Taliban as thier salvation from brutal thugs and warlords. They were sadly mistaken, to be sure. No doubt they are tearfully grateful to be handed back to the same brutal thugs and warlords. Happily stuffed fellows, brimming over with American cash.

One question kind of missed: if the Taliban had ordered bin Laden to surrender himself, what reason have we to believe he would have complied?

Lastly, my use of the word “triumph” referred to Afghanistan, and that only. You have firmy refuted a position than exists only in your imagination.

It boils down to this, you believe what you are told, I doubt it. You say I’m an idiot, and I know better. As a general rule, the one who resorts to abuse is the one with the weaker argument. Happily, this is no exception.

37

The general in charge in Afghanistan stated publicly that progress was stalled. This is an important statement as Pentagon officials are not usually so candid. Specifically he stated that the change in the enemies tactics was not being matched by US flexibility. I think such statements should be taken seriously.

And anybody who doesn’t think the capture of OBL is central to the US goals is missing the obvious. He is the nominal leader of our enemy. Bush declared that we would get him “dead or alive.” That is the statement the public will remember. While it is very difficult to find one rich and resourceful foe in the world, it is possible. We have captured many of his lieutenants. The American people expect OBL. A decade ago, we expected this same crew to deliver Saddam Hussein.

38

If you’re going to ask for facts and cites then it would be helpful if you would, at the very least; make it clear which points you disagree with.
I have already provided a link to Bushs speech on Oct. 7, 2001 where he outlined our goals in Afghanistan without mentioning Osama Bin Ladin. You didn’t respond to this link so I foolishly assumed that you found it to be convincing, but here’s another link to the Peoples Daily from November 15, 2001 where we read:

"Bush “will not rest until the objectives are accomplished, and those objectives are the destruction of al-Qaeda and the elimination of the Taliban and their ability to harbor terrorists,…”

Let me explain why I feel that these “goat farmers” did, in fact, pose a threat to the U.S. If you’ll recall, in 1999 the U.S. demanded that Afghanistan hand over Osama Bin Ladin on suspicion of involvement in the embassy bombings of 1998. That’s just short of one year prior to the World Trade Center attack. The Taliban regime chose at that time to defy the U.S. and the U.N. Security Council and to suffer fairly extreme sanctions in order to protect Bin Ladin. You will find this discussed here at the World Socialist Web Site in an article dated November, 1999. It is saddening to think about how many lives might have been saved if not for the protection of these “goat farmers”.

Then, following September 11, the Taliban again chose to protect Bin Ladin even when faced with the prospect of military action. You say that I am determined to believe that the arrests which are now taking place are the result of said military action; actually I believe that some arrests would have taken place without any military action. But I find it difficult to believe that “police actions” would be as effective as they presently are if the Taliban were still in place. Being ratted out by a brother in law doesn’t do the police much good if the suspect is hiding in a country that is ready, willing and able to them.

I am also convinced that our military actions have sent a message to several nations in the area that cooperation is not entirely optional. I honestly can’t imagine Iran cooperating (BBC) if something hadn’t put the fear of God into them. And I doubt that that something was the police.

Forgive me if I don’t bother to offer any proof that the training camps have been destroyed. Perhaps it’s your turn to actually offer some proof that they are still operating. I’ll agree that we cannot possibly know exactly how “crippling” the loss of these camps is. That is too vague a question. But if Al Queda went to the trouble and expense of establishing these camps then Al Queda must have believed that they had some value. Based on that alone their destruction must represent “some” loss even if we can’t define how much.

And I believe it’s fair to say that we’re talking about a great deal more than box cutters. From the Middle East Review of International Affairs:

Not to mention that those weren’t box cutters they were using in Bali.

I honestly have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Being enigmatic doesn’t really help your argument (IMHO).

Nonsense, Bush hasn’t claimed victory and if I convinced that we had “triumphed” then I would support stopping the whole business immediately. The fact is that I think we’ve barely started.

Not at all. A different set of warlords are in charge with the extra benefits of several millions of US dollars and with the US looking over their shoulder while in a position to take action should these warlords get too far out of line. Neither of us can predict the future, but I see this as a great opportunity for Afghanistan. I simply hope that we, and they, make the most of it.

39

No he didn’t. You may be right that this is what people will remember because this is the way it was played by the media. But lets look at what Bush actually said on September 18. 2001:

First he stated:

“Osama bin Laden is a prime suspect and the people who house him, encourage him, provide food, comfort or money, are on notice.”

He then went on to say:

"I want justice. There’s an old poster out west that says, as I recall, 'Wanted dead or alive………There’s no rules. It’s barbaric behavior … they slit throats of women on airplanes in order to achieve an objective that is beyond comprehension………But we’re going to smoke them out………”

There is no question (in my mind at least) that Bush would like to “get” Bin Ladin. But the success or failure of the war on terror doesn’t hinge on one person.

40

Take that to the Pit, Mr. Moderator. Here, board etiquette demands a cite, or a retraction. What’s it gonna be?