Has Bush ever said that intelligence was not faulty on Iraq? I don't see this as any great revelation from Bush.
Posted by avaroo at December 14, 2005 12:56 PMYeah, more verbal poopoo from the numbnuts.
What I find more intriguing is the continuing press verbiage about the kerfluffle with McCain over prisioner treatment.
It is typically headlined as something like "McCain at impasse with Bush over torture." Which basically reads as McCain=anti-torture, Bush=pro-torture. The Bush administration being in the position of having to defend a pro-torture policy is delightful.
Posted by snark at December 14, 2005 01:06 PMThe Left again goes lock-step with the media, and doesn't even realize that this isn't even news in the least. Here is Bush saying the intelligence was wrong in October 2004:
"The Duelfer report makes clear that much of the accumulated body of 12 years of our intelligence and that of our allies was wrong, and we must find out why and correct the flaws."
Posted by Seixon at December 14, 2005 01:14 PMYet if the intelligence was wrong, then can we presume that those in the administration involved in that faulty intelligence that are still around will be booted?
Presidential Medal of Freedom, baby!
Posted by dj moonbat at December 14, 2005 01:15 PMExpect more and more information to be coming out of the FBI and CIA into the press. I'd imagine there are a bunch of front page stories coming out now because Jr. is trying to blame them for his own failures.
Uh, a lot of people already figured out that something was wrong when no WMD's were found.
He'll start walking backwards on the policy soon. After the Iraqi's vote to establish a theocracy then he can start backtracking on that.
Bush is a clown. Sad thing is said Clown is going to be in the oval office for a while longer. I guess the GOP likes being laughed at.
Posted by Ga6thDem at December 14, 2005 01:20 PMPresidential Medal of Freedom, baby!
No no no no no.
There's a big misunderstanding.
Bush didn't give Franks, Tenet and Bremer the "Presidential Medal of Freedom".
He gave them the "Presidential Medal of Fiefdom"!
Sillies.
Posted by snark at December 14, 2005 01:20 PMThe bad intelligence eminates from the skull of George W. Bush. That is the bad intelligence that told him he could get away with this deadly charade. Now that he sees he cannot, he's engaging in a reptilian slither away from his own responsiblity. Fact: this is Bush's War, from start to finish (whenever that will be). He *used* the faulty intel. period.
Posted by T2 at December 14, 2005 01:29 PMBush got a bump in the polls after he "took resposibility" for the failure of the federal government during Katrina. Remember that pained speech where he could barely get the words out? I put this on the same level: pandering.
Posted by ann at December 14, 2005 01:35 PM"Pandering" You betcha Ann. Actually, I find nothing new here.
"Victory will be achieved by meeting certain objectives: when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq’s democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can protect their own people, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot attacks against our country,”
Where does he say anything different? "When Iraqi security forces can protect"... blah, blah, blah. Actually, it leaves years of occupation in Iraq because the terrorists are going to continue to threaten Iraq as long as we are there. It's pure bullshit once again, just rephrased. He is not leaving Iraq! Why can't people get it?
Posted by Judith at December 14, 2005 01:46 PMHe doesn't say that he was wrong--he still blames the intelligence. The country is being run by a bunch of alcoholics with typical alcoholic reaction--when anything goes wrong, blame someone else. I suppose, it could be newsworthy that there is an admission that SOMETHING went wrong, but we must be pretty desperate if we see this as progress. It's just another step in forming the Victory Vision.
Let's not forget Mussolini and his Victory in Africa. For that matter, let's hang it around Shrub's neck. I wonder if Mussolini comes out better from that comparison...
So you guys are denying that the intelligence was wrong then? Have you even read the intelligence? Geez you guys are divorced from reality.
Posted by Seixon at December 14, 2005 02:34 PMyeah get up there and sound contrite after you have been fucking the American public up the ass since you started this adventure.
Posted by j swift at December 14, 2005 02:36 PMSo you guys are denying that the intelligence was wrong then? Have you even read the intelligence?
We're saying the intelligence was wrong on purpose.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 14, 2005 02:47 PMHoly crap, did you miss all of the articles a few days ago that said that the French repeatedly told our intelligence that there was NO Niger uranium connection.
This was not faulty intelligence, it was IGNORED intelligence.
Posted by Anjha at December 14, 2005 02:55 PMThis was not faulty intelligence, it was IGNORED intelligence.
I'll go one better: I think when the story comes out, the Niger forgeries will have PNAC and INC fingerprints on them.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 14, 2005 02:58 PMactually, bush started to use the 3 standards of victory in his first "strategy for victory" speech what, 10 days ago? as has been noted here, they are unachievable in any meaningful sense, and the second one, in particular, can't be determined until we leave, so it's a real catch-22.
which suggests that bush has no intention of ever leaving altogether, although, as has already been stated, that doesn't mean he can't withdraw some troops.
all he's doing is following the nixon '72 playbook: define the opposition as "withdraw now," posit the alternative as "peace with honor," count on roughly 20-30% of americans in the middle to pick "peace with honor" over "withdraw now."
Seixon, there are two issues with respect to prewar intel: the first is what conclusions the prewar intel actually drew (for instance, we know that some idiot in the CIA, either out of stupdity or out of political pressure, found that joe wilson's trip added to the case that saddam was seeking uranium in niger).
the second is the accuracy with which that intel was used in speeches (which, of course, was supposed to be part of the phase ii intel report that pat roberts continues to stonewall).
Surely, in your own words, you aren't so "divorced from reality" that you can't see that likelihoods were expressed as certainties, that tidbits were cherrypicked and trumpeted as the whole thing, that countervailing opinions were suppressed in public speeches, and that the findings of the UN inspectors were treated as the work of saddam-sympathizing simpletons....
Posted by howard at December 14, 2005 03:05 PMCall your Senators and demand Phase II of the Intelligence Com. report!!!!!!!
Posted by mjvpi at December 14, 2005 03:09 PMIntelligence - Spintelligence
I cannot see the big deal over GW's speeches - I hear nothing new.
Blah, blah, blah Victory, blah, blah, blah, over there instead of over here, blah, blah, blah 9-11.
It's all bullshit.
He lied us into war - he lied to congress, he lied to the American people. It is all impeachable.
If he was really upset about faulty intelligence, heads would be rolling, people would be fired, the whole agencies would be re-org'd. There is none of this happening.
His staff cannot even tell him the truth without being afraid of being reamed...do we really think that intelligence agencies could give bad intel, lead us to war and he's still smiling.
It is all crap.
He wanted to go, 9-11 gave him the excuse. Period. Dot.
I still want to know why he did not stop 9-11, why did they not follow procedure and go after those planes? He is culpable for all of it. All of it. The blood stains his hands and he gives blah, blah, blah speeches.
Nothing to get a tit in a wringer about.
Posted by Anjha at December 14, 2005 03:11 PMSeixon - anyone who supports this war should be over there helping our troops as they fight and die creating an Iranian sattelite state. get your chickenhawk ass over there!
Posted by jj at December 14, 2005 03:23 PMLet give Mr. Bush benefit of doubt that intelligence was faulty. However, the way this war was planned and executed such as not enough troops on the ground, not sealing the borders after fall of Saddam, not understanding religious diversity of Iraq, etc.whose fault was that? Does he want to blame that on the US Military?
Posted by suresh at December 14, 2005 04:04 PMLet give Mr. Bush benefit of doubt that intelligence was faulty.
Regardless of whether the intelligence was bad or not, he is the Commander in Chief. He is responsible for the work of his administration. This is the same scenario as occured at Enron - whether Ken Lay knew what was going on or not, it was his responsibility as CEO to know.
Posted by ann at December 14, 2005 04:26 PMIt seems to me that you're all missing the essential point. Lots of voters, both party-line and swing voters, voted for GWB twice. Many are disallusioned by what, to them, based on current media coverage, looks to be a failure. They don't really want to abandon the President but they don't want to be on the losing side either. GWB has given them an excuse (i.e. that he's a responsible leader) with which they can convince themselves to re-up as Republican faithful. GWB's message is NOT aimed at those of us who never believed in him in the first place. His message is aimed at voters who will help the Republicans keep contol of the legislative and executive branches. We will have to see how things play out over the next few weeks but it appears to me that he has been successful at achieving his goal. That's bad news for everybody else.
Posted by Paul Lucic at December 14, 2005 04:52 PMThey don't really want to abandon the President but they don't want to be on the losing side either.
Every time I hear this desire to be on the "winning team" I want to vomit. This is our government, not a sectator sport. The only time that we, as a country, lose is when we elect incompetent leaders, regardless of political party.
Posted by ann at December 14, 2005 05:00 PMSeixon is correct in saying that Bush admitted the intel was wrong in 2004. I'm not sure what the big story about Bush's speech is today, to be honest. I see a whole PR effort to convince people that the war is going much better than it is, but I don't think the admission that the pre-war was wrong is new or newsworthy.
Of course, we'll have a better idea of what the story will be in Iraq over the next month or so when the election results come in and the new coalitions form to run the country. Will the Sunnis accept a limited role in a new government? Will the Shi'ites give the Sunnis major roles in the new government? How will they resolve the issues they punted in October of centralization and federalism, now that Sunnis will have a seat at the table? What will the Shi'ites do about the Shi'ite militias who now basically run the Iraqi army, police and intelligence services? How will intra-Shi'ite relations hold up, especially as the Sadrists make a showing of force in these elections (they boycotted in January)? What happens when the Sunnis demand a withdrawal timetable for US troops as a CONDITION for laying down their arms? What is the Shi'ite government going to do about Iran and it's meddling in Iraq affairs? What will be the status of Kirkuk? What relationship will the Kurds, and especially the peshmerga, continue to have with the Iraqi government? These are the questions that will decide whether Iraq will emerge a peaceful, stable democracy of the sort Bush envisions. The US has only limited ability to affect these things. Iraqi troop training data or towns and cities attacked in counterinsurgency operations will little effect.
Posted by Elrod at December 14, 2005 05:17 PMCaption Contest:
His lies caught up with him, and finally, he lost his lips!!
Posted by bbtb at December 14, 2005 05:18 PMCaption Contest:
Q: How can you tell when bush is lying?
A: His lips move
Q: What lips?
Just when I think the news will calm down, another explosion. I highly encourage EVERYONE to go over to the After Downing Street site and read the post about RUMMY, SADDAM & THE HISTORY OF THE AQABA PIPELINE. Certainly crystallized everything for me, again.
Posted by mainsailset at December 14, 2005 06:01 PMdj moonbat,
Was the intelligence wrong on purpose under Clinton too? Or is that just a mere coincidence? Yeah, because Bush got an entirely new CIA to work with when he came in. Oh wait, no he didn't.... :P
Anjha,
You believe the French? LOL. The French are up to their eye-balls in the Niger forgery caper and only poor suckers like you are buying their "oh, but we have nothing to do with it" BS.
The intelligence was ignored? Look, the NIE said that they had "high confidence" that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons, and said in the view of "most agencies" that there was "compelling evidence" that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program. Among other things.
All of that was faulty. Stop pretending the facts don't exist and get acquainted with them.
jj,
Hey, I'll go down to Iraq and fight if you come with me and become a human shield. ;)
It's easy to call others chickenhawks while you wouldn't have to be the one living under Saddam without the war having happened. That's OK, I would prefer being a chickenhawk instead of just a chicken like you.
It's also real easy to bleat for the removal of the "Madman" and plunge Iraq into murderous chaos when you expect others to pay the price.
I'm in the camp of not seeing this as anything new by the Clown-in-Chief, but it appears it is being spun as a new "taking of responsibility" by said Clown.
But Bush has always maintained the intelligence was faulty---even as he pinned the Medal of Freedom on Tenet. It's Bullshit.
I guess by "taking responsibility" he's explicitly retreating from the implicit story that the CIA, and not Bushco, dragged us into invading Iraq, but that was always nonsense that even the Seixons of the world didn't believe.
Posted by euzoius at December 14, 2005 07:03 PMWhere are these new trolls coming from? We just got rid of a couple, and presto, we have a couple of new ones.
Posted by at December 14, 2005 07:55 PMI don't think Bush has ever said that the CIA was responsible for us being in Iraq. If he has, please do provide me with a quote. I sure as hell can't remember him saying any such thing. He has always stood behind his decision to invade Iraq and put Saddam in his place, something Clinton should have done in 1998.
Posted by Seixon at December 14, 2005 07:59 PMThis seixon is a neocon and would have signed the letter, had he/she/it been asked. There is no use in trying to convince he/she/it of anything.
I might only ask that seixon look a little further back than 1998 when making assessments about "what to do" with Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
Posted by dorita at December 14, 2005 08:14 PMClinton invade Iraq in 1998, all anyone would have heard is "wag the dog, wag the dog."
Posted by at December 14, 2005 08:15 PMWas I wrong? No, I wasn't. Calling me a neocon isn't going to hide the fact. Sure, we could have taken Saddam out in 1991 too, however I think there would be a precedent to at least give Saddam a chance to get his act together. Sure, some might have said "wag the dog" in 1998, but I doubt the neocons would have. Either way, it would have been the right thing to do. As usual in his foreign policy, Clinton did what was best for him politically, and not what was best for the country. Like Bush isn't taking heat for his invasion of Iraq - he is still sticking to his guns even after being called Hitler and who knows what else. If all that was stopping Clinton from taking out Saddam was the possibility of someone saying "wag the dog" then that is pretty pathetic. Be a man for crying out loud. And no, cheating on your wife is not being a man.
Posted by Seixon at December 14, 2005 08:55 PMNo, he is not admitting the policy was wrong. With this renewed mea culpa of sorts, Bush is hoping to bury his administration's own role in manipulating and fabricating intelligence to sell the country on the war.
Whoomp! There it is....
Seixon,
check it out..... check-it-out...
Posted by JHJ at December 14, 2005 08:57 PMWait a minute, Seixon, why was taking out Saddam the right thing? I know he was a thug and all, but we didn't take him out primarily because he was a bad man. We took him out because he was a national security risk. Now I tend to believe that had the inspectors had more time to operate in early 2003 we would have discovered what a paper tiger Saddam was. And though the consensus of the NIE was that they were highly confident of the existence of WMD, the NIE report was written by Tenet. There were two different NIEs - a classified version given to the Senate Intelligence Committee and an unclassified released to the public. The classified one listed the doubts in footnotes - and they appeared to Senator Bob Graham to be HUGE doubts by the most expert agencies. E.g. the Nuclear Regulatory Agency and Department of Energy were the ones who disputed the aluminum tube claim, and the Air Force challenged the unmanned drone claim. So Sen. Graham asked for a declassified version with the caveats and doubts included so the larger Senate could debate the WMD intel more accurately. To Graham's shock, the caveats and doubts were completely removed from the de-classified version. Tenet claimed that a consensus of intel agencies supported all the WMD claims and never mentioned that the key agencies had serious doubts. That was sheer dishonesty on Tenet's part, undoubtedly with the urging of Cheney, Feith, Wolfowitz and others. Tenet was a scumbag - and yes, he was a scumbag under Clinton too.
Posted by Elrod at December 14, 2005 09:26 PMJHJ, spare me the Raw Story garbage.
Elrod,
I'm not sure what you are talking about with Tenet, but the MAJORITY of the intelligence agencies supported the claims within the NIE, and I don't think there is any precedent for believing the minority over the majority when it comes to intelligence.
Sure we might have figured out that Saddam was a paper tiger had we let those whopping 100-300 UN inspectors roam around Iraq for 1, 2, 3, 12 more years. Or we could just take the sucker out and put the Iraqis out of their misery once and for all.
Disarming Saddam would still have left him, the biggest WMD in Iraq, there. Thus we wouldn't have actually solved the problem, as it was Saddam that was the real problem, not the WMDs. The US has WMDs. The UK has them. Israel has them. Russia has them. China has them. This isn't problematic. Saddam with WMDs is a problem. Therefore, Saddam needs to go. He's gone.
Now if only we could get Iraq to calm down a bit... we'd have this thing in the bag.
Posted by Seixon at December 14, 2005 09:51 PMThe way things are going it won't be too much longer before some country, maybe the new super power China, comes in and save us from our fascist government.
I bet all their intel says that W is a threat to the safety of the rest of the world, pre-emptive wars, torture, propaganda.
Won't be long, won't be long.
Then, after we are rescued and 100K Americans die on American soil trying to rise up against the occupiers, who rescued us by taking the tyrannical Bush out of office, we will just have to wait until China says that we are 'ready' to take over governing our country.
Posted by Anjha at December 14, 2005 10:04 PMHe had the responsibility to confirm every bit of intel and make damn sure that he was damn sure before committing our troops to die. That was a major decision of the gravest nature and he made it pre-emptively without the support of allies. If the rest of the world had the same intelligence they would have signed on to help; they did not because they did not buy the threat.
He had the responsibility to fix the intelligence failures and can offer nothing that he has done to fix it to the American people. I have not heard one solution, not one fix, not one person fired, not any new technology, not any new programs, nothing.
He had the responsibility to plan the war effectively and plan post-Saddam effectively, he did not.
He simply does not care.
Saddam was not a threat.
This war in Iraq has taken away all of our ability to deal with the real threats. Because of the arrogance and the mishandling and the torture - the fucking torture which is NOT American - we, and the rest of the world is at more risk than ever before.
The amount of terrorism around the world has doubled since this war started.
We are not safer.
It is not for us to prove he lied - it is for him to prove that he did not. Buck stops there. He had all of the power and all of the control.
Taking responsibility means doing something, not just saying it.
Posted by Anjha at December 14, 2005 10:16 PMSeixon:
Disarming Saddam would still have left him, the biggest WMD in Iraq, there. Thus we wouldn't have actually solved the problem, as it was Saddam that was the real problem, not the WMDs.
What? If Saddam didn't have WMDs, there was no reason to do any of this. If Saddam was in power without WMDs, are you telling me that you would still support toppling him? Since when did we in a post-9/11 world go around toppling non-WMD states that weren't directly housing Al Qaeda? We toppled the Taliban for giving Al Qaeda a base of operations. We supposedly toppled Saddam for having WMDs and being in a position to give them to Al Qaeda or use them himself against us. If we knew in March or April 2003 that Saddam didn't have the WMD program Bush thought he did, that invasion would never have taken place because the requirements of PL 107-243 would not have been met. That is why Bush didn't wait for the IAEA to finish its work.
If you think that this war and its resulting death and destruction would have been justified to topple a non-WMD Saddam, then you really should get your ass overseas and fight it yourself.
And if you had done your research instead of putting silly-ass crap on your site saying that Bush is better because he was in the TANG (and flamed out) than Clinton for not serving at all, you would know that the IAEA has said that they need only a little while more to confirm that Bush was full of shit with his claims. And they weren't talking years or months, but rather weeks.
So please go back to Troll University and try again.
Posted by Steve Soto at December 14, 2005 10:50 PM"And no, cheating on your wife is not being a man."
Seixon, and being AWOL, a liar, a cheater, a fraud, deceptive, criminal and arrogant is not being a man either. Clinton is more of a man than George W. Bush could ever hope to be in a lifetime.
By-the-way Seixon, killing 30,000+ people and 2000+ Americans doesn't make you a man either.
Posted by Judith at December 15, 2005 12:22 AM"he is still sticking to his guns."
Yeah, I really admire someone who sticks to his guns even when he has been proven wrong by others including some in his own Party. But by God, he isn't going to change anything, or listen to anyone because he is such a big man. LOL
Posted by Judith at December 15, 2005 12:34 AMHe is still not changing that cowboy mentality. The Dirty Harry talk, "Your either with us or against us", is still the same. He's not doing a fucking thing different.
Nothing is concrete in his "Plan for Victory". As long as the Carlyle Group and the rest of his cabal stays profitable, he's happy.
Judith (and the rest of you):
This is NOT news (as others have tried to point out). Bush has said many times that the intelligence was wrong.
You guys also have no memory (or are just plain ignorant of the facts). The Iraq War resolution was not just about WMD's. There were many other factors stated in the resolution for going to war. You like to talk about how Bush cherry-picked intelligence to make his case. Well, if ever there was a case of cherry-picking, it's by liberals who pick out what they want to hear and then cover their eyes and ears to anything else.
You live in a fantasy world of your own making. Not that that bothers me because in doing so, you continue to isolate yourselves further from the mainstream of America. Of course in your fantasy world, you think the Dem's are going to be swept back into power in 2006. LOL!!!!
Here is a link to the resolution if you care to read it and educate yourself:
http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html
Posted by David at December 15, 2005 05:14 AMDavid, you can continue to tell us that WMD was not the only reason or the main reason, but that is not what your leader told the American people. Sorry, but try as you may, no one here is buying the back tracking. Yeah, and here's my favorite:
Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Posted by Judith at December 15, 2005 05:27 AMBy-the-way David, if you asked 265 million people why we went to War, do you have a guess on what that answer would be? Yeah, that's what I thought.
Posted by Judith at December 15, 2005 05:31 AMDavid---Bushco argued to the Congress he needed the authorzation to use force to effectively negotiate in the UN Security Council.
It was never sold as a declaration of war, which is how your side now falsely presents it.
And if you think Congress would have approved the "war resolution" without Bushco's manipulation of the crucial WMD intelligence, then you're the one living in the fantasy world.
But I suspect that's the case, regardless.
Posted by euzoius at December 15, 2005 05:31 AM"It was never sold as a declaration of war, which is how your side now falsely presents it."
Euzoius, you are never going to get people to open their minds to the truth, least of all the true believers. Some people have spent three years shielding themselves from the truth and the FACTS. Facts are of no importance in the world of those who wish to keep spinning the old Bush line.
... we will just have to wait until China says that we are 'ready' to take over governing our country.
You have the right basic idea, anjha, but the wrong method.
No nation in their right mind wants to put their troops into a gun-crazed nation inflamed with the idea that they are a militia (at this point, they would be, so that debate is moot for my point). There are much better ways to cripple this country without resorting to military force - and we will see that happen late next spring.
The changes are coming, and no Red Stater will be any more immune for supporting the Fur$t Moron!
Posted by pessimist at December 15, 2005 06:00 AMDavid, you're right about one thing. The dems won't be "swept back into power" claiming that WMD was the sole reason for the action in Iraq. WMD wasn't even the sole reason for the UNSC resolutions aginst Iraq. Many Americans can remember all the way back to 1991. The "WMD were the only justification given for the action in Iraq" is yet another losing message for the dems. We do seem to have a monopoly these days on such messages, which is amazing considering the job the republicans are doing.
Now, we could score BIG by actually coming up with a plan to fix the flaws that led to the intelligence failures, although spying is by definition an inexact science. It's clear the CIA needs some major work, these problems didn't originate with the Bush administration, they are long-standing, going back several administrations, at least back to Reagan. Even if the problems had been known when Bush became president, it's unlikely they could have been fixed in the months between Jan 2001 and Sept 2001.
The problem for dems is to get them off non-issues, like whining about Karen Hughes and Donald Rumsfeld. And concentrating on coming up with a message and a plan that both captures the imagination and interest of the American public and actually does something. Americans are notorious for disliking personal attacks. There's no benefit to making underdogs of republican administration members.
Posted by avaroo at December 15, 2005 06:39 AMIf China really wants to hurt the U.S., all they need to do is not buy our government debt.
Posted by at December 15, 2005 06:41 AMI guess all I have to do is ask one question:
Was there a time that North Korea didn't have WMDs?
If so, couldn't we have prevented them from getting them by sacking the dictatorship of the country?
So then tell me why sacking Saddam was a bad idea. Especially given all his flagrant violations of the UN resolutions, the cease-fire he signed with us, and using the Oil-For-Food program as an embezzlement and bribery fund.
Yes, it's quite apparent that people at this blog would rather that we left Saddam in peace so he could become the next huge threat like Norht Korea, all while we covered our eyes and ears. Kind of like the Clinton administration massively failed to stop al Qaeda and Osama before he was able to pull off 9/11. That damn plan was 5-6 years in the making, and the Clinton administration got rope-a-doped by the Taliban's envoy about giving up bin Laden.
Steve,
"And if you had done your research instead of putting silly-ass crap on your site saying that Bush is better because he was in the TANG (and flamed out) than Clinton for not serving at all, you would know that the IAEA has said that they need only a little while more to confirm that Bush was full of shit with his claims. And they weren't talking years or months, but rather weeks."
What does that have to do with the comparison of Clinton and Bush? Oh, absolutely nothing. LOL.
I never said that Bush was "better", I just pointed out the immense double standard that Mike Wallace was using in saying that Bush couldn't be commander in chief, while he made no such allegations against the draft-dodging non-military Clinton.
Yes, the IAEA and UNSCOM also said things would take "a few weeks", you know, back in 1991. Suddenly the year was 1999 and they still weren't done. That sure is a lot of weeks!
You still didn't get the point that to solve the problems in the Middle East, you don't disarm the dictators and wait for them to arm themselves again. Just like you don't keep feeding the kids in Africa, YOU DO SOMETHING TO FIX THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM.
I mean, disarming Saddam would be like slapping a bully at school on the wrist and letting him go again. You know he is going to pound some kid or be a bully towards someone again, so why do you keep slapping him on the wrist and letting him go? Why not take the bully out of school or put him through a program to make him stop bullying?
Just like poverty: throwing money at it isn't going to solve the problem. However, that's what liberals think, apparently.
It's all about quick and painless "solutions" instead of getting down and dirty and actually SOLVING the problem.
Posted by Seixon at December 15, 2005 07:40 AMYep, the Reactionary Right has really been solving a lot of the nation's problems over the past five years.
Government by blindered ideologues---that'll get those difficult national problems SOLVED!
Posted by euzoius at December 15, 2005 08:07 AMSeixon,
I think you fundamentally misread "the problem" at the center of Middle East. Saddam Hussein and his brand of secular pan-Arab dictatorship was, once upon a time, a serious issue. Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan and Libya all once subscribed to militant pan-Arabism of one sort or another. The most important of these, by far, was Nasserite Egypt. But after a succession of humiliations at the hands of the Israelis, and a final humiliation of Iraqi Ba'athism in Kuwait at the hands of one of the largest coalitions ever assembled, pan-Arab secularism has been a dying force in the region. There were still fossils of the old order - Syria, though weakened considerably after the passing of Hafez Assad; Libya, weakened by post-Lockerbie sanctions and an Islamist insurgency in the country's South; Jordan followed Egypt and made peace with Israel after the Gulf War; and Saddam Hussein, completely weakened by war and sanctions. Saddam did not represent "the problem" in the Middle East. Even if Saddam had WMD he wouldn't have been "the problem". He would never just "give" them to Islamists who hated him. His plans were to terrorize the Kurds and keep Iran in check.
The real problem, which became especially evident after 9/11, was two-fold: stateless Islamist radicals under Al Qaeda, and states that sponsor Islamism in some form or another. Al Qaeda operated all over the globe, but drew most of its adherents from dictatorial regimes that were friendly to the United States - Saudi Arabia (most of the hijackers), Egypt (Atta), Jordan (Zarqawi), Kuwait (other top AQ folk are Kuwaiti). As for the states that sponsored AQ, the most guilty (outside Taliban Afghanistan) was Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Since that time, Pakistan has done a little to curb pro-AQ madrassas but Saudi Arabia has done virtually nothing. And then there is Iran, which fuels a slightly different Shi'ite brand of Islamism, with adherents in Hezbollah of Lebanon and now the new Iraqi government.
So there you have it. The Saudi regime sponsors Wahhabism worldwide and many minor figures within the Saudi royal family directly fund Al Qaeda. And yet the key figures in Al Qaeda want to overturn the Saudi regime! The whole war on Islamist terror seems like a gigantic Saudi civil War.
Posted by Elrod at December 15, 2005 08:18 AMElrod, thanks, that was a nice rundown. Sadly, the trolls can't understand anything that doesn't fit into the worldview they were assigned when they agreed to shill for the Bushies for cash. Ultimately, money talks, integrity walks in wingnut land.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 15, 2005 08:33 AMYes, it's quite apparent that people at this blog would rather that we left Saddam in peace so he could become the next huge threat like Norht Korea, all while we covered our eyes and ears.
Um, nope. The sanctions were working, doing their job to make sure that Saddam couldn't get WMDs. He was quite contained and powerless as a threat to the U.S.
Posted by ann at December 15, 2005 08:51 AMKind of like the Clinton administration massively failed to stop al Qaeda and Osama before he was able to pull off 9/11. That damn plan was 5-6 years in the making, and the Clinton administration got rope-a-doped by the Taliban's envoy about giving up bin Laden.
Gee, Seixon, that must be why W decided to go on a long vacation right before 9/11, instead of, oh, trying to stop it. He must have been rope-a-doped too, but he's already a dope.
By the way, Seixon, exactly where is Osama Bin Laden? Since W is doing such a great job and all, and has had about 5 years to find him.
Posted by Blue Jean at December 15, 2005 08:57 AMWe didn't get Hitler either, Blue Jean.
Posted by avaroo at December 15, 2005 09:01 AMWe didn't get Hitler either
Anyone who thinks the "war on terra' is anything like WWII doesn't know much about history. Al Qaeda is not Nazi Germany and in fact, a stateless organiztion dependant on the hospitality of sympathetic leaders or sufficent anarchy in a country to protect itself is inherently dealing from a position of weakness rather than strengh. If this is like WWII where is the rationing? Where are the taxes to support the war effort? In WWII FDR didn't tell Americans to "keep shopping".
Posted by rlp at December 15, 2005 09:14 AMavaroo, your agenda is a bit mysterious, but your "points" are being pulverized very badly.
And how, exactly, did we not "get" Hitler? Didn't he die in that bunker as the Soviets closed in?
Ready another qualification in tube 1, Captain!
Posted by euzoius at December 15, 2005 09:58 AMavaroo's MO is much like AFD's. Pretend to be a former dem, then recite talking points ad nauseum, while showing an astounding lack of intelligence about politics, history, and language. Sexion's just a blogwhore, who got his first paycheck from the RNC and is running with it. Also shows an ungodly amount of stupidity. Not worth arguing with, either of them, but it's fun to watch them bleat while Rover pokes them from behind.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 15, 2005 10:08 AMavaroo,
Actually, Hitler killed himself and his remains were found by the Russians. so, since the Russians were our allies at the time, we actually did get Hitler. Next point?
Posted by Blue Jean at December 15, 2005 11:51 AMBesides, WWII ended in 1945, and Nazi Germany declared war on the US in December, 1941. That's four years; more exactly, three and a half. So, as of September, 2005, it has officially taken us longer to catch Bin Laden then it has to get Hitler.
Maybe that's because FDR actually focused on winning the war, not flouncing around on battleships pretending he was Top Gun.
Posted by Blue Jean at December 15, 2005 11:56 AMeuzoius,
Someone made the point that we haven't yet captured OBL. We never captured Hitler either. That didn't make WWII any less "successful" as far as beating the enemy.
Posted by avaroo at December 15, 2005 02:21 PMiam, I'm not a "former dem" and haven't ever pretended or claimed to be. Unlike many of the posters on here, yourself included, I am actually a democrat now and always have been.
Posted by avaroo at December 15, 2005 02:22 PMBritt Hume last nite asked Bush the Kerry question,"knowing what you know now would you still have gone to war?". Bush said yes.
In other words if Iraq had no weapons, and therefore no threat, Bush would still attack.
There is no connection to al-Qaeda and he still would attack.
If that is the case then his real reason for attacking Saddam is?
Jerry McEvoy
17 UNSC resolutions
Posted by avaroo at December 15, 2005 06:16 PMAvaroo, I know a Democrat when I see the, and Avaroo "you are no Democrat."
Posted by Judith at December 17, 2005 02:34 AM