Cliff LyonDeseret Cartoon Smears Canard Like Seagull Shit
This one really peeves me. The surge did not work, and there are no credible, a-political, experts who believe it did. Not in terms of the originally stated-goals, nor in any other quantifiable terms.
The only surge that worked was a corporate-media conspiracy to smear that canard like seagull shit and leave it to dry, unchallenged in the main-stream media.
This cartoon is the perfect expression of the kind of so very tired Republican tactic that has produced our national living-nightmare and nearly destroyed the Republican party and any semblance of a two-party system (thanks to the epidemic spineless of congressional democrats).
In this case, another lie, declared by feat because its in the news and by our brave troops (self-proclaimed experts in Iraqi national culture), and by the banner…until Obama surrenders a war that “we” would have otherwise won.
So the Republicans will leave another Vietnam-sized scar on the American psyche by granting another generation of angry, ignorant, old WHITE men permission to repeat ad naseum; “we could have won that war but for the liberals.”
We can only imagine what “winning” might have looked like in Vietnam, or Iraq, or any of the hundreds of failed imperial adventures across time and the planet.
But we will never know, because there is one redeeming value in the American people. We eventually sober up and remember why we hate war.
Note: Richard Warnick has written extensively on this subject.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:47 am
It’s called the Peter Pan Principle - if you say it enough times, you actually start to believe it, no matter how otherwise grounded in fantasy.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Are you saying there are no black people who think we could have won Vietnam?
You racist moron.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Yes I AM. Except Colin Powell…wait. No. Never mind.
Yes, I am stereotyping, because ya’ll sound like a stereo. An old hi-fi playing a skipping record.
Maybe its because African Americans in Vietnam recognized the same racist superiority in our treatment of the Vietnamese that they experienced back home.
Like this:
and this:
You can keep your patriotism of ignorance.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
How do you take down a tyrant without war. A tyrant a is corrupt politician, patriarch, or individual who rules with brute force. Violence is his method of ensuring his power and enforcing his power and if you engage in a war with him he will utilize the forces of evil i.e. torture, murder and all the arts of warfare to punish any who oppose him. A tyrant refuses to listen to and acknowledge other voices and actively suppresses them to secure his power. His reaction to any criticism of his regime, and any sign of a voice from the oppressed is met with defense and violence. Other voices are seen by him or her as simply instruments of power threatening his reign. With the help of God and all the forces of family and nation dedicated to the preservation of democrasy and power governed without violence, where all voices in family and nation are truely heard can we depose regimes of despotism and brutality in both families and nations.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
And created by a woman no less. Ann Coulter wanna be?
August 17th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Speaking of telling the same old, tired lies. I went to a CBS report which was actually very good concerning the voting machines, but look at the little jab at Obama which really isn’t even subliminal on the page. It features a:
Oh, bite me CBS! Some call him an old fool, and some call him a war pig too.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Let Thomas Frank spell out the real conspiracy for you right here.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
The anger in this post is refreshing to see, when so much of the media seems to have forgotten there even is a war afoot.
And just to play devil’s advocate a bit… can we really blame the media entirely? Aren’t we (the public) to assume some responsibility for being so gullible? I mean arguably (exampled in this post even) there are many out there who have bothered to read beyond the headlines and RedState.com to see the distortions in the “The Surge Worked” meme. I’d argue that we are capable of, and should be taken to task for being smarter than this.
Also, the post title may have unseated JMBell, who has held the “Funniest Blog Post Title” award now for several months.
August 17th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Ho Jason, I am way past disgusted with the half of America who elected the coke-head. I thought I would try for once to show the only bright spot among these American evil-doers,
There is ZERO intelligence at RedState.
We go there occasionally for sport though. Find a buddy. Go there and see how mild a statement you can make and still get kicked off.
The rule is, you only get one warm up post to get past the initial moderation, then the most moderate comment to get booted wins….fucking fascists.
August 17th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Cliff, experience triumphs over hope. I used to think our nation’s leaders in general and our military officers in particular were too smart to lead the country into a second Vietnam so soon after the last one. Now we’ve got two unwinnable wars going at the same time!
You do have to hand it to the propagandists, they’re good at what they do. Look at Michael Gerson, this morning he was on the panel of “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” as if he were a respected journalist instead of a professional liar who ought to be behind bars.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
So you can’t stand Olmert either, huh Ian?
August 17th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
The way the neocons are playing the ‘two unwinable wars’ is by framing them as only smaller battles in the Great War on Terror. These unwinable wars don’t have to be won, they only need to not be lost. There’s a lot of room for face-saving, even something akin to ’success’ in that kind of thinking. They have the tools and are making every effort to get-er-done. Shock and Awe, still very much an operating princible.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
If the media would adopt a three bald faced lies and you’re out policy for their pundits, (learned persons), Americans could think again.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:12 am
One interesting aspect of corrupt power is the control of success. Success is horded and deemed a favor granted by those in power. The world is divided into winners and losers with a select few reaping one success after another while the general populace scratch lotto tickets and dull the pain of exclusion and negation with alcohol and nicotine. The power of the individual is suppressed and power becomes so purposefully entrenched that it will look you in the face and say that only revolution will grant you any voice or power, meaning it will kill you if you try to gain any power for yourself.
Power necessary for survival and the full expression of yourself as an individual.
God bless the new generation coming into power. Obama with his youth and idealism will represent this generation and those still hungry to change the world for the better.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Or not Ian. The audacity of hope is that it gets the young and inexperienced to vote for you.
Given that the world the new generation may take power in, is unchanged in the way power works, there will be a moment of application of the goals of the dream time, and then a corresponding moment of clarity when it becomes apparent pressing realities will not simply vanish because the belief that all that is required is “better” people.
It is the newest generation that is a spendthrift borrower in practice, it is the newest generation that has forsaken savings and living within means.
God will need to bless the new generation, as they will need all the help they can get to fix the problems of their parents, and confront those they have yet mastered in themselves.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:30 am
This morning, before an audience of veterans, Senator McCain leveled the following charge against Obama: “Not content with predicting failure in Iraq, my opponent tried to legislate failure.”
That’s a classic Karl Rove formulation. It’s like McCain is trying to win some contest for how much falsity you can pack into one sentence. If you tried to answer this charge, it would take so much logic and so many facts that most uninformed Americans wouldn’t know what you were talking about.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Richard - maybe if the statement takes that much effort to dispute - it isn’t really false.
Did the “Surge” work? That’s pretty subjective - but the majority seems to think that it did (this includes outlets like the NYT).
Did Obama oppose it. YES HE CAN! - err….yes he did.
Part one of the statement is truthful.
Did Obama vote against funding the surge? Did he propose legislation to yank troops out of Iraq in 2007?
Yes he did.
Part two of the statement is truthful.
Often, the easiest explanation is the best one.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:49 am
jd:
Let’s assume the truth of what you say. So what?? Obama also spoke of and, in large part, predicted the quagmire that became the Iraq war, while McCain bought into the lies and misrepresentations of BushCo. If I were a betting man, based on what I have seen to-date, I’ll take Obama’s record over McCain’s any day.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:15 am
jd– The so-called “surge,” like so many of the Bush administration’s initiatives, was successful only in domestic political/PR terms.
You may recall that not only did Senator Obama oppose it, so did most of our top generals and a majority of Americans. They knew that the five additional combat brigades were more than we could afford to send, especially given the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan. They knew that the “surge” wouldn’t make any difference in Iraq, because the various insurgents and militias could simply wait it out. They were right.
Incredibly, many of the Sunni insurgents even got the USA to pay them $300 a month to wait out the “surge.”
Even with so many Iraqis trying to wait it out, the “surge” operations, including excessive use of artillery and air strikes, made 2007 the bloodiest year of the occupation. The number of people driven from their homes also increased by about 2 million that year.
However, the media totally bought the “surge is working” line. Now Bush gets to leave office with the same number of troops in Iraq as before the 2006 election, successfully ignoring both the Baker Commission’s recommendations and the will of the American people. Bush and his few remaining supporters will no doubt try to blame President Obama and the Democrats when the inevitable consequences of his strategic ineptitude play out in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You can’t define “failure” in Iraq unless you can define success. Neither Bush nor McCain has ever convincingly laid out what the USA is supposed to be doing there. In fact, Bush is about to agree to a withdrawal timetable (that takes effect after he’s gone). No doubt he will call it a victory even though he vetoed the exact same thing in 2007 as “setting a surrender date,” in the words of White House spokesmodel Dana Perino.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:31 am
JD, The idea that the majority of people may think the surge worked is about as irrelevant as anything I can think of.
The “majority of people” get their news from TV.
‘nuf said’
August 18th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Ain’t democracy a bitch, Cliff?
August 18th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
The cartoon has two parts. First is the success of the surge - the punchline has gone over some of our heads, but that’s to be expected. Second is the Obama = ’surrender monkey’. I would expect nothing less from the msm, especially the Des. ‘ news’.
August 18th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Cav - you realize that it’s an editorial cartoon - not “news” right?
Second, I agree that there’s a hint of racism, there. Protraying Obama as “skinny” or black, or with big ears definitely plays into anti-black stereotypes.
Perhaps editorialists should look into depicting Obama in the same way Gary Trudeau draws Bush (at least when they are bing critical of him).
August 18th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Yes Jd, I realize it’s an editorial cartoon. I’ll remove the ‘ ‘ from news. Better? I demand conformity however, so if an organ of information diverges ever so slightly from what I know to be true, my subscription is cancelled without further thought. Editors must be more sensitive to my needs.
August 18th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
sic
I liked your original quote better.
I’m the opposite. I revel in diversity of opinion. I read the NYT because I DON’T agree with their POV. I read Indymedia and Newsmax to see what others are saying. I read the Onion, because there is truth in humor.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
There you go Jd, it was only up for maybe 20 seconds. You’ve got to be fast, but I’m glad you liked it.
Somebody told me recently, “I should be more respectful of that ‘Send’ button. D’you think I listened?
I too like the breadth of opinions, but must admit I don’t tolerate dunder-heads to easily. Breathe easy my friend, your posts are pretty good for the most part. Thanks.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Whatever you want to call it, and whatever the disagreement is over the surge, something Bush and Co. is doing is friggen working, as we are nigh on 8 years into this bullshit, with no end in sight.
No amount of progressive spin can change the reality that for whatever reason, the neo-con agenda under Bush is alive and well, and need not worry about about petty sniping from peanut galleries like this. Failure in Georgia is the most recent of ill conceived debacles from the “schleps that couldn’t shoot straight”. Yet the wingeing wastealot Democrat party has done no better, in heading them off at the pass.
Sad as it is, criticizing W at this stage of the game is to show the absolute impotence of the opposition to put even a small dent in this freight trains bumper. It would be more appropriate to just shut up about Bush, and get on with figuring out how to deal with the people that have put him up to this 8 year show. No progressive has realistically touched that with a 10 foot pole.
My advice to you in light of this Albert, is to leave the casino, your money doesn’t work in the one running right now.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:01 am
Hoefer,
This peanut gallery IS dealing with the people that put him (Bush) there and it serving to prevent it from happening again by documenting their stupidity.
JD and Bob S are just the most recent in a long, long line of them, all of whom have eventually gone away, hopefully with a little humility and a better understanding of the ignorance of tribalism.
We also get to take out liars like Alan Korwin from time to time.
I’m very pleased with what we are doing.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:37 am
Cliff,
There you go again….calling me out. I was mostly just minding my own business, reading the liberal foolishness you guys at One Utah write for each other and now you do this.
If anyone goes away, it’s because they get tired of the utter rubbish that passes for Reasoned Discourse here.
You dismiss anything that does not meet with your preconceived notions, not with facts but arrogance. Here is an example
So you don’t like what the experts are saying, you deride them as being not credible, not a-political; as if anyone who has a political opinion can’t be trusted– unless they agree with you.
Liars like Alan Korwin– what utter conceit. You’re entire argument against gun control has been completely and total refuted by FACTS. Facts which you ignore.
Here is a great example of that, in your own words
And you talk about conservatives not wanting to be confused with the facts, you are the worst for that. The facts support a pro-2nd amendment stance…but they are irrelevant because you say so. When confronted with the facts that can’t be ignored, you change the subject…and when that doesn’t work, you ignore it completely.
The Bible provides a great response to this comment
August 19th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Hi Bobbolo,
Lets start with the first claim. To which experts do you refer?
August 19th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Bob S. — Who are the “experts” telling us the so-called “surge” has worked? What do these “experts” say? Has there been political reconciliation in Iraq? Economic reconstruction? Is there even security now, not compared to 2006 but compared to 2003?
August 19th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Who are the “experts” Bob S? Or did you forget to ask yourself that question when you heard the media pundits saying what you wanted to hear. Remember, not-fired military guys and political appts don’t count.
Hurry, I have to run soon.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Cliff,
Why do you get to say who counts and who doesn’t? Who appointed you ruler over everything…last time I check that job was filled and you aren’t Him.
Let’s turn it around and you tell me why you, Richard and the others here get to decide whether or not something worked, or who to believe.
You are listening to the pundits who you want to and believing them while refuting the others. Tell me why you get to decide who is or isn’t a credible, a-political expert.
How about instead of listening to the pundits; you list the objectives of the surge, provide evidence, not opinion, but factual evidence showing whether or not the surge worked?
August 19th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Bob S,
I guess this means you have ZERO “experts” you would like to submit for consideration?
August 19th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Cliff,
Wrong again, it means that I’m done playing your game.
Over and over again, I’ve provided experts, facts, data, supporting evidence and you’ve ignored it. So I’m not playing that way anymore.
You’ve said that no “credible, a-political” experts believe the surge worked…prove it.
Provide your list, show your documentation that the experts you cite meet your own criteria.
Heck, Even Richard is debunking your supposed 9/11 expert.…how or why should we trust anything else you say without solid support.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Bob S,
I can’t prove a negative. How old are you?
August 19th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Cliff,
Does it matter how old am I? You’ve stated that no credible experts believe the surge worked, if you can’t provide evidence from credible experts proving that the surge didn’t work, then you are just full of hot air.
You say the surge didn’t work, what objectives did the surge have that it failed to achieve, surely that can be documented, right?
You asked for evidence, experts who say the surge worked, but won’t provide credible a-political experts with credentials and authority to show that it didn’t.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Bob S,
Richard Warnick has been writing about the surge since it began. His posts are full of excellent arguments and references. I have seen more than enough evidence to confidently say that there is not now and never will be any serious attempt to argue that the surge has worked. If you can find anything that discounts the massive amount of evidence that Richard has compiled, give it to us please.
Before you bother however, perhaps you could tell us what “the surge worked” means?
Political reconciliation?
Better trained Iraq military? Police?
Fewer American deaths?
Fewer Iraqi deaths? Fewer refugees?
Fewer suicide bombings?
Fewer soldiers deployed?
An election or 2?
Better faster reconstruction?
Are they taking down the temporary walls all over Baghdad?
What do they mean when they say the surge worked really? Certainly, you can tell us that off the top of your head, no?
August 19th, 2008 at 10:57 am
You prove a negative, Cliff. We’ve discussed this before. If you say the surge has not worked, show how it hasn’t. Provide your apolitical experts.
It’s easy, Cliff. List the aims of the surge and identify if any of them were reached. Then provide documentation to back up your theory. Don’t be so anti-intellectual, Cliff.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Cliff,
Then show the evidence.
I agree with JD, It’s pretty simple, find out what the surge was supposed to do, not what you or your “experts” think it was supposed to do, then prove that it didn’t meet those requirements.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:18 am
But then, Bob, the onus would be on Cliff. And he’s already proved that he’s not too good at research (or fact checking, or logic, or math).
In fact, besides standing on the corner and screaming at traffic, Cliff hasn’t shown that he’s much good at anything (with the laudable exception of providing unending entertainment to us, in the same way that a maladroit pet would be entertaining).
So, how about we sit back in our lawn chairs outside our trailer homes, pop a warm stale Budweiser (in a can of course) and watch Cliff flail about? Maybe munch on something made with Wonder Bread…or some of them pig cracklins…..?
August 19th, 2008 at 11:23 am
We all know, or should know, that the Iraqi elections have been postponed indefinitely, and if they happen at all it won’t be before June 2009. Also, in related news the Kurdish Peshmerga has surrounded Kirkuk and is threatening military action. The elections would determine the status of Kirkuk if they are ever held.
IMHO the burden of prove is on those who claim success for the so-called “surge.” It cost the lives of over a thousand Americans, and many thousands of Iraqis. It made around two million people homeless. The cost was over a hundred billion dollars. What did we get?
August 19th, 2008 at 11:25 am
JD,
I have a bench seat from an old van outside my RV….you fancy types with your mobile homes are just showing off.
The onus would be on Cliff….it’s that whole thing…what was the phrasing again….Oh Yeah
I’m really starting to like that phrase; how do you feel about it Cliff?
August 19th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Cliff; you vastly over estimate your impact, which is not surprising, nor unusual. Cognitive consonance. What we do has to be significant if our ego is to be fed.
Korwin and his supporters ate your lunch, and then the Supreme court shit daisies on you.
I refer to the extended 8 year ass whipping progressives have suffered, no allowed, as proof of insignificance. So it is 63 to 7 with 3 minutes to play in the fourth quarter. Way to go aces!
To the extent that we are still in Iraq, and our troops aren’t being dusted at the rate of 20 a day, the surge has worked political wonders. It is hardly an issue with average Americans, who are more concerned about gas prices and personal economy.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Richard,
Sorry, but as I just posted Cliff made the claim that the surge didn’t work. He should be able to support that comment.
As far as your claims, do you have evidence that the surge itself made 2 million people homeless?
As far as the cost, how much did it cost the French to help us to establish our form of democracy?
August 19th, 2008 at 11:40 am
As Cliff so graciously pointed out, I have been posting about the “surge” on One Utah since the beginning, offering a steady stream of evidence.
On the other side, people seem to feel free to make claims in the absence of any facts. What makes you think “our form of democracy” is being established in Iraq? Do you believe that the principal goal of U.S. foreign policy ought to be the overthrow of any and all undemocratic governments? If so, what precedent does that set for other nations who choose to disregard international law?
August 19th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Richard,
I didn’t make any claim that our form of democracy is being established in Iraq.
I asked a question about the cost. France helped us out, establishing a government that was democratic in nature but supporting us through a war and after.
I don’t think the principal goal of the U.S. foreign policy out to be the overthrow of any and all undemocratic governments, nice strawman attempt there.
I think the principal goal of U.S. foreign policy should be the safety of the U.S. That is what people have forgotten, it’s one of the primary reasons to have a government, the security of the state and its citizens.
One of the ways to accomplish that goal is to increase the number of democracies in the world but just to create a democracy isn’t sufficient reason to overthrown a government. And contrary to opinions, that isn’t what happened in Iraq.
As far as you posting information, good on you. Should be easy for Cliff to find the evidence, right?
But he also set the criteria for the evidence, the experts have to be credible and a-political.
August 19th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Bob S.– If you think our national security is the goal, do you agree with Senator Obama that we should not have invaded Iraq, a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and posed no threat? Al Qaeda is stronger than ever now.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Richard,
I disagree with Senator Obama. First a couple of facts, while there were no direct operational links, there were nonetheless links.
Saddam’s government provided training in document forgery and bomb making. Provided a safe haven for members of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s group. Al-qaeda isn’t a single outfit but a bunch of loosely allied outfits.
Second, we invaded Iraq to enforce the approved resolutions of the UN. Sanctions and resolutions that France and other countries didn’t want enforced because of the Oil for Food scam that was occurring.
Third, whether or not Al-qaeda is stronger now is debatable. What is not debatable is that they are responding to our actions. By controlling the fight, we’ve put them on the defensive more then we ever had before. This is keeping them off balance and keeping us safer.
Should we have just sat around talking to Al-qaeda; hoping they find it in their hearts not to murder more American citizens?
August 19th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Bob S.– You’re not aware that before we invaded Iraq, Zarqawi was up in the northern no-fly zone of Kurdistan where Saddam’s forces couldn’t go? In fact, the Bush administration twice vetoed DOD plans to attack Zarqawi, which we could have easily done, because it might undermine the case for a full-scale invasion.
You’re not aware that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan labeled the U.S. invasion of Iraq a violation of the U.N. Charter? The invasion was NOT authorized by the Security Council. Weapons inspectors were in Iraq until they were warned to leave because the U.S. invasion was coming.
Al-Qaeda is more capable than ever according to a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate and a recent assessment by the U.S. government’s senior terrorism analyst. What are your sources on the strength of al-Qaeda? In what way is al-Qaeda “off balance”?
I think all Americans who aren’t idiots want to eliminate al-Qaeda. Unfortunately, the idiots are in charge at the top levels of the national security establishment.
Going back to the effect of the “surge” on Iraq’s internally displaced persons and refugees, here’s the New York Times from August 24, 2007: More Iraqis Said to Flee Since Troop Rise.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Bob S.– It’s fair to say, by your logic, that the USA ought to attack Israel. They are in violation of a number of U.N. Security Council resolutions, and also pose a threat to world peace (just ask Leban0n). This is simply to point out the absurdity of your argument, not to advocate invading Israel.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Just a monarchy and a couple-o-heads….
August 19th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Richard,
Your own source disproves your claim
If the number doubled from 499K to 1.1 Million, then only approximately 600K have been displaced by the surge, right?
Not” It made around two million people homeless.” that you claim.
is the Iraqi Red Crescent a credible a-political expert? I definitely wouldn’t count the New York Times on that list either.
As far as Zarqawi being in Northern Iraq, it was still Northern Iraq, right? How long had he been there and how did he get there. This is proving my point, there were connections to Al-Qaeda and Iraq.
Kofi declaring it illegal, was that his personal opinion, a legal statement or just sour grapes?
Let’s contine, with the links you provide claiming that Al-qaeda is “more capable then every”. The link you provided doesn’t say that, it states that Al-qaeda is more capable then it was LAST YEAR.
I haven’t reviewed the 2007 NIE, but if you have a link I’ll do that. The problem I’ve encountered over and over again, is that people get their information in pre-digested form courtesy of the LeftStream media. Just like the claim there were no “links” between Saddam’s Iraq and Al-qaeda….but when you dig deeper into it, you find the actual quote was no direct operational links. Meaning they didn’t plan missions together but were still involved, big difference eh?
Or
Sounds like Kofi may not make the list as a credible a-political expert, eh?
August 19th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
facts schmacts, Bob!
Don’t you know that George Bush is a VERY BAD MAN!
Look. Here’s a YouTube video to prove it!
August 19th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Richard,
Sorry, but once again you get it wrong.
Show me where I stated that we have to worry about world peace. I stated that the security of the U.S. should be the primary goal of our foreign policy, right?
Does Israel threaten the security of America and its people?
I don’t see that it does, so no invasion for you.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Bob S.– My sources, even official U.S. government reports and statements, are all products of “the Left”? Hah.
BTW, here is the July 2007 NIE link you asked for. Just another report from the radical-far-left U.S. intelligence community, no need to consider it credible.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Richard,
Never said all your sources were from the left…just the NYT and others Leftstream media.
Thanks for the link.
By the way, I’m enjoying the smackdown you are giving the 9/11 conspiracy theories :)
August 19th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
The 9/11 de-bunks are just too easy.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Richard,
Sorry, but I’m not seeing where the NIE says that Al-Qaeda is more capable then ever as you claim.
Efforts in the past 5 years have constrained their ability to attack; efforts like the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, right?
Sound like they nailed this year….we have the perception that the threat isn’t real from Cliff and others like him
Al-Qa’ida is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the Homeland, as its central leadership continues to plan high-impact plots,
Should we take the fight to Al-Qaeda or wait until they sucessfully attack the U.S again? I vote we take the attack to them, you?
Regenerated or protected does not mean increased, does it?
Sounds like a really good reason to tighten that border security to me.
Under the criminal statutes, would that be conspiracy to commit a crime? Maybe we should just send the FBI over to arrest those bad boys.
Wow, I thought I only had to worry about criminals in the streets; now I see that Al-Qaeda is a concern also….good thing Cliff and his ilk want to disarm everyone. Someone might get hurt if they tried to stop a terrorist.
This is the kicker to me, we should stop fighting them, stop making them spend their money on ammunition so they can sit around singing campfire songs while they build nuclear, chemical and or biological weapons.
The government has a responsibility to protect American citizens…failure to prosecute this war to the fullest would be a dereliction of that duty.
Sorry, but your evidence doesn’t support your claim that Al-qaeda is stronger then ever.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Good to see Bob and jd are still stretching to rationalize decisions made by the worst president in history.
August 19th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
AL-QAEDA QUITS!
U.S. Troops returned home in triumph Monday as world rejoices. Whiny liberals now admit the surge worked and will support any future war profiteering without question.
August 19th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Creating armies of enemies that didn’t previously exist would also be a dereliction of that duty, would not you agree, Bob?
August 19th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Whenever people question the value of big little blogs like this, I refer to this thread. Let us call this one “The Education of Bob S.”
Granted he may squeal like a pig most of the time, but he is still here and, I have to think, learning something about socratic debate and maybe even questioning his own pre-conceived notions of how the world really is (and how smart liberals really are).
Still, we have a long way to go. Ideas like tightening our borders over becoming a nation no one wants to attack, are indications of an angry, uninformed pessimist.
Ladies, if you are out there, do not marry Bob S until he finds a heart.
August 19th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
See Bob,
I think this is why Master Cliff questions your age. You ask, ”
Kofi declaring it illegal, was that his personal opinion?”
Such a questions reveals an understanding of the greatest world body that is based on unfounded pessimism rather than an educated appreciation of how that body functions.
At what point in your life, did you decide to have an opinion on the UN. Do you have a clue?
August 19th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Don’t agree, force proof out of them, this is simple lawyering from Albert. This is as good as it gets in a “civilized democracy”.
Make him show you proof, not innuendo. Make it contingent proof that everyone has to agree upon.
Then you can understand why the human race is in a state of constant war.
No one is right, except the winner. A keyhole into what the truth of history may be.
Lynette shilling for what has been a terrible failure to face reality as an organization in not attractive.
Cliff, Bob may well be the diversion this blog required to be of any interest and relevance at all. You should thank him, in your arrogance, you have all missed, that he is teaching you. In an indirect sort of way. Can you see yet clear to why your political side loses more often than not?
August 19th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
As a side note, Al Queka was never more powerful than the day it toppled the towers, after that the entire affair is nothing more than a series of self inflicted wounds.
To judge via web address, ask cliff why he has never been married.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Albert,
This is too easy….remember that unsupportable comments and taking people to task thing…here is another.
You say:
Show me the evidence that we have created an enemy that didn’t previously exist.
Talking about organizations, philosophies, terrorist groups, not particular individuals here so no trying to take that shortcut. There are always recruits into organizations, but which groups, what organizations?
August 19th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Lynette,
Welcome to the debate, now prove the statement or state that it is just your opinion please.
I happen not to share the opinion that it’s the greatest world body.
.
Those are only a few of the scandals….won’t even talk about appointing Syria to the Security Council or the countries making up the Human Rights Commission — turning a joke of an agency into a travesty.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Bob S.– I appreciate your taking the time to read the NIE, however please note that the published version was intended to be unclassified pro-Bush spin.
Yet they still had to admit that a year ago al-Qaeda was operating from secure bases in Pakistan and retained the ability to directly attack the United States at will. The NIE also conceded that the Bush administration’s disastrous occupation of Iraq “helps al-Qa’ida to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives.”
Now the Bush administration’s senior terrorism analyst, Ted Gistaro, tells us that al-Qaeda’s Pakistan base “is a stronger, more comfortable safe haven than it was for them a year ago.” He also said al-Qaeda has a new corps of trained operatives ready to carry out terrorist attacks in western countries.
Seven years after “wanted: dead or alive,” Osama bin Laden is still in control of a large terrorist organization that has all the capabilities it had in 2001 and then some. So, yes, stronger than ever.
IMHO al-Qaeda has no immediate need to attack American soil again because they still have the strategic initiative, and U.S. foreign policy continues to follow a course they have set for us.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Cliff,
Nice response, but does it address any of the experts that you should have been able to find?
Thanks for proving exactly what I said earlier
What is the matter, can’t find any experts proving the Surge didn’t work?
Care to call it an unsupportable comment and withdraw it? I’ll help, there is a new website that you can use to find information…it’s called Google or Yahoo or Ask.
Where are your experts Sir?
Where are the objectives the Surge failed to meet?
Sorry to post several at one time, but I spent an enjoyable evening out at the range…punching holes in a paper target. Of course the pistol malfunctioned; I didn’t rob stores, shoot any jerks on the road, or commit any of the random mayhem that firearms cause.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Richard,
I’m not denying anything the NIE said, but that wasn’t what you wrote. You stated that Al-Qaeda was stronger then ever and used the NIE to support that position.
That is not what the report stated. It was probably what the news, e.g. that leftstream media, claimed.
Too many times we hear one thing from the media “No links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda” but the truth is far from that. That is what I have a problem with because then folks like you repeat it. It’s the gossip version of the Big Lie; just like Cliff is doing with the 9/11 conspiracies.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Approving a Negative
When the Hawks contemptuously fart in our faces, we all smell it. Conservatives would suggest that we are better off for the whiff.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Bob S.– You are still saying that al-Qaeda is not stronger than ever? Why, because the Bush administration hasn’t actually issued a press release titled “Al-Qaeda is Stronger Than Ever”?
August 19th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
al Qaida in Iraq didn’t exist prior to invading Iraq, Bob!
Stop, Bob, just stop making excuses for the worst president in history.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Breath deeply Cav, or go to war. There is no peace with “Dutch Oven”* politicos of either end of the spectrum.
* Take your loved one to bed after a tasty aromatic meal, maybe Thai, and when they are drifting off to blissful sleep, fart with a grand thrust, and quickly trap the gases under the sheets, thrusting them over their heads…., being careful to disable any waking attempts to free their lungs to any fresh untainted air.
This my friends is the “Dutch Oven” treatment. All in love ya know.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Yes it did Albert, Al Queda has been around for since trade center bombing one.
Most intelligent people refer to it as Al CIA DUH, or Al Queka. The enemy is us.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Albert, Iraq is just a playing (battle) field. As soon as the Great Big Dummy shows up in goon suits, that is where AL CIA DUH will show up. All part of the same show, provided for your enter{p}ainment.
Hang on to your wallet, it is a wholly bi-partisan project.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:19 am
And al Qaida in Iraq has no relation to its coporate parent, al Qaida…..
…riiiight……….
August 20th, 2008 at 12:47 am
jd:
Through your wholly incorrect sarcasm, you nevertheless hit the nail on the head. Indeed, there is little connection between al Qiada in Iraq and al Qaida. And, further, al Qiada in Iraq did not exist prior to March 2003.
Congratulations! There may be hope for you yet!!
August 20th, 2008 at 5:28 am
W3. Looks to me like ‘both ends of the spectrum’ are way over there>>>>
WTF?
August 20th, 2008 at 5:49 am
Okay Folks,
I’m going to take this all in one post so first up:
Richard - I’m not saying that Al-Qaeda is or is not stronger then every. I don’t know. From the evidence you posted, neither do you. I started this wanting to see the evidence from credible, a-political experts. Have you provided any of that?
Nope, you posted an unclassified NIE that does not support your statement.
Where is the evidence from those experts? That is what I’m asking for– prove it when you make a statement.
Albert– you are making this too easy.
I’m not claiming anything. You didn’t prove your point either….and I’ll use someone’s on your sides own words to show how easy it is..Richard admitted:
You want to claim we are making enemies where none existed before, show me the evidence (Why do I get this Jerry Maguire flashback feeling…..SHOW ME THE MONEY…NO, SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE)
Zarqawi was in Iraq already, his group was allied with Al-Qaeda…was Zaqawi pro-US prior to the invasion? If not prove that we created him as an enemy. Don’t just claim it, Prove it.
Bob S.– You’re not aware that before we invaded Iraq, Zarqawi was up in the northern no-fly zone of Kurdistan where Saddam’s forces couldn’t go? I
August 20th, 2008 at 6:46 am
Know what Bob? You are a dick head. Yep, a serious idiot.
Let me introduce you to a few new terrorists.
You can see more here ASSHOLE.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:59 am
Lynette,
Nice to meet you also…great way to win friends and influence people.
So you equate Abu Ghabib with raping children?
Things that are pranks, hazing activities in college with continued UN bribery schemes?
Is that picture wrong…absolutely! Are they terrorist? Why don’t you ask the families of the 9/11 dead if those service personnel are terrorists? How about asking the women who were raped by the UN Soldiers?
August 20th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Bob,
Perhaps asshole wasn’t a strong enough term to describe your decrepit existence.
“Ask the families of the 911 dead if what the service men are terrorists?” I’m quite sure they would agree actually.
That little bitch is the national shame of the decade.
But, I was talking about the naked men bound and huddled in a pile you dick weed punk. What the FUCK did they have to do with 911?
Perhaps ASS WIPE rings more true for you.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Lynette,
Obviously you have anger management issues at the minimum…probably more. If you would like, I’ll research some places you can get some help.
As far as the pile of naked men, you said and I quote
I disagree with your assessment they are terrorists, since you have trouble understanding my point. Let’s use the UN as a reference because some people think they are such a great body.
The definition of terrorism:
So, do the actions of the service personnel at Abu Ghabib meet the definition of terrorism or not? If it doesn’t, then they aren’t terrorist.
I pointed out that before you sling around an accusation, maybe you should talk to people who have experienced it and found out what they think.
You will also find out that calling names doesn’t bother me. I actually should keep track of the names I’ve been called, so far “persistent bastard” is my favorite.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:19 am
Bob S.– Are you trying to win an award for nit-picking?
The unclassified version of the NIE from a year ago said that al-Qaeda at that time was again about as capable as it was in 2001. The recent assessment by Ted Gistaro tells us that al-Qaeda has built up its capabilities in the past year. If the NIE and Gistaro have any bias, it’s in the direction of making the Bush administration look good. Therefore, it is reasonable to suppose that the truth is worse than they are admitting in public.
Again, we are approaching the seventh anniversary of “wanted: dead or alive.” All we know about Osama bin Laden is what Donald Rumsfeld said many years ago: “He’s either alive or dead, in Afghanistan or someplace else.”
Zarqawi’s group wasn’t re-named “al-Qaeda in Iraq” until October 2004, 18 months after the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Richard.
Absolutely I’m picking nits, I’m also pointing out utter failures to provide the “credible, a-political experts” and evidence.
Sorry, but I don’t see anywhere in the NIE link you provided that it says that Al-Qaeda was again about as capable as it was in 2001. Care to quote that section for me?
What I do see, with the evidence that you have provided, is that things are working
If it is reasonable to perceive the bias, then you should be able to provide supporting evidence from unbiased intelligence sources showing the opposite right? Not just your opinion or feelings-(although I don’t discount or disparage your feelings, I don’t count them as an adequate source to base national policy.
As far as Zaqawi’s group, “A rose by any other name”. It was still a terrorist group, prior to the invasion, were they friendly or neutral to the US? Prove it.
That is what I’m asking for, over and over again, and not getting it. Cliff claimed that unsupportable comment should be taken to task, that is what I”m doing.
Support your statements.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:41 am
Bob,
You are Goddamn lucky you live in the Internet era, because if you were to act this fucking stupid in person, I beat the stupidity out of you then eat you so I could shit you out my asshole.
A while back you asked someone to *prove* we have created more terrorists. If I were an Iraqi, I WOULD BECOME A GODDAMNED TERRORIST TOO.
Maybe you would too, unless you would be as big an Iraqi pussy as you are an American one.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Bob S. — I’ll have to get back to you later on your request for unbiased intelligence information. First, we need a new President and then it will take some time to de-politicize our intelligence agencies, assuming the new chief executive wants to do that!
Meanwhile, we are waiting for you to make your case that the so-called “surge” was a success in other than domestic political and media terms.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Richard,
This is the point that I keep having to make. Cliff stated
I definitely consider that statement to be unsupportable, since I didn’t make it I don’t have to defend it. Cliff and his buddies do…that’s what you’ve been trying to do.
He also stated that
Again, I consider it an unsupportable statement. Since Cliff made the very clear and direct statement it didn’t achieve any of the stated goals or other quantifiable terms, PROVE IT.
It is not up to me to prove that it did work, it’s up to Cliff (who has been noticeable absent from the thread lately) to prove it.
I’m just insisting on his criteria: credible, a-political experts.
I might even grant you the NIE as qualifying, but it did not state what you said it did. So where is the evidence?
August 20th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Cliff incorporated by reference (using a link) everything I have written on One Utah regarding the so-called “surge.” Lots of facts and links to be found in those posts. I’m assuming you haven’t checked them or you wouldn’t be asking for additional information.
This discussion is getting stale because you won’t provide anything to back up your contention that the “surge” did what it was supposed to do, and that the tremendous cost (including the opportunity cost of losing the war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan) was worth it.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Richard,
When John, JD, I and others provide information that backs up our contentions, what happens?
I’ll tell you, Check out this post of Cliff’s Lots of facts and links can be found in that post right?
So what happens, when things are proven to be factual, the goal posts move. Fine, prove our points again, the subject changes. Provide factual information on the new subject and get ignored.
I’m tired of playing that game, so I’m playing Cliff’s game. Prove the Unsupportable comments or be taken to task.
I’ve made absolutely no claim the Surge has worked, I don’t have to provide anything to back up my contention…I didn’t make one. I’m objecting to Cliff’s contention, your Contention that the Surge didn’t work. Using Cliff’s own standard, support your public comment and provide credible a-political experts.
I haven’t reviewed your previous posts but the evidence that you did link to DOES NOT support your statements.
You’ve got the resource, Cliff has the resources to cull through your previous posts to support your position. I’m just being a “persistent bastard” in asking for what is the stated level support for comments.
Cliff hasn’t been able to do that, Albert hasn’t been able to do that, you have came closer then any, but still haven’t been able to provide the evidence.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Like I said, this discussion is getting stale. I’m not going to debate myself.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Richard,
I’m sorry the discussion is getting stale. I realize that and normally try to move the discussion forward but enough is enough.
I was irritated when Cliff called me out, I plan on staying that way. I’ve really tried to limit my discussions here to the 2nd amendment because of the animosity that usually runs rampant on political issues. See Lynette’s comments for an example.
I plan on doing more of the to show the hypocrisy of some of the posts. Your posts generally provide links, documentation, evidence to a degree. I don’t always agree with what you post, but I’m provide the opportunity to examine the evidence and draw my own conclusion.
There are those that do provide that opportunity but demand accountability from others, is that fair?
I don’t think so, so when Cliff claims something…shouldn’t he have to provide the evidence to support his claim?
August 20th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Bob:
If you are so naive to think that al Qiada in Iraq existed prior to the invasion, then so be it - there is little that can be done for you here other than remind you that your son is fighting a war whose genesis is lies and misrepresentations.
Thanks for confirming you are a flagship member of the stupid and susceptible!
August 20th, 2008 at 9:53 am
You are demanding absolute proof from me. Obviously, that’s not available. I’m giving you my opinion based on the facts I know. If you know facts that contradict my view, let’s have them.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Albert,
I’m not being naive….I’m being obstinate; there is a difference.
You claimed that we were creating enemies where none existed, right? So obviously you have proof of your statement.
The fact that you believe the war’s genesis is lies and mi-representations doesn’t bother me. You calling names doesn’t bother me.
Contrary to what you might think, I’m open to changing my opinions and views. Can you say the same? I’m just asking for the same level of accountability that Cliff is calling for….proof.
Richard –
I’m not asking for absolute proof. I’m asking for any proof. I’ve stated that you generally provide it. Much of the “proof” I see on this site isn’t definitive, isn’t a-political, isn’t from experts. Example, Cliff’s 9/11 expert who is a professor of retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology. Hardly a credible expert, right?
August 20th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Pretty obvious that the whole subterfuge that is this staged war for money has got everyones psyches a little tweaked.
Again, Al Queda goes where western fools in goon suits go. Very simple. They are invested nowhere, they can go anywhere. They are the perfect invented threat, that can never be vanquished, squeeze them out of existence in one place and they reappear in another.
Getting their money from sympathetic Saudis, that we pay hordes of chinese borrowed money too, for imported oil. Que the wooo wooo music.
Americans left, right and center are a dreadfully stupid lot these days. That is being generous. This thread is proof of the spectrum of stupidity.
Somewhere deep in the caves of Afghanistan hides a man responsible for the deaths of thousands of American soldiers…mastermind of the tower toppling, bane of the western world…his name apparently unmentionable by gratuitous insulting combatants from the cockpits of their laptops… dunt dunt Daaaaaa!
Osama bin Laden, a shadowy figure of a man, a man that has with almost nothing, rendered a vast swath of America into slobbering idiots in their fear and confusion. No you can’t make this up, the proof is in the thread.
The elites have done an admirable job, they have made mountains from mole hills, though creating Al Queda as the boogieman is apparently not enough, they are going to have to resurrect the Soviet ?Union to continue the charade, so they can continue to rip us off, and further deprive us of civil liberties. That said they surely have gotten their mileage out of Al Queda.
I’m sure somewhere a life size robotic Osama doll has been constructed by the masters of Hollywood, or a simple digitized image, or a similar actor to trot out should the gullible public need a jolt of shock and awe fear video to continue the charade. Good work if you can get it.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Sorry, Bob.
Would you need proof that the sun sets in the west, too, if you were confronted with such assertion? At any rate, here’s something to peruse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq
August 20th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Please see Ansar al-Islam
or don’t…..you can be as naiive as you want.
But it really doesn’t matter whether they were there before the invasion - only that they are there now. Travel to Iraq to kill Americans means that they aren’t travelling to Denver to kill Americans. I’d rather that they engage the hard target of our combat troops than a suburban shopping mall.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Bob and jd:
Something for the stupid and susceptible to consider.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Albert,
Thanks for the link…I followed it to another Wikipedia page and found this
Sound like prior to 9/11, prior to our invasion of Iraq Zarqawi was already an enemy of the US. Sorry, but you stated we created new enemies. This fails to support that statement.
Even if you meant “new enemies in Iraq”, this fails since Zarqawi was already in Iraq prior to the invasion….and proves there was links to Saddam’s Iraq. Wonder why people believe there could be a connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam’s Iraq?
August 20th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Of course, as I mentioned before, Bush’s National Security Council rejected Pentagon plans to attack Zarqawi without staging a full-scale invasion of Iraq.
Wouldn’t America be better off if everyone had demanded absolute proof that Saddam’s regime was preparing an imminent attack on the USA before Bush ordered the start of the Iraq fiasco?
August 20th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Richard,
Sure, I think that absolute proof would convince….maybe 2% of the people who doesn’t like America that we had a reason to do it but that is about all.
Do you honestly think that France was going to authorize action to stop Hussein from shooting at the planes enforcing the No-Fly zone?
Or that the other countries involved with the Oil For Food Scandal would enforce sanctions and make Hussein open up sites for WMD inspections?
10 years of more sanctions and resolutions changed nothing, Saddam was still a threat.
If someone was threatening you and your family, what would constitute absolute proof of that threat? The person actually attacking you?
At some point we need to act, even if no one else likes it. There was an old saying, not sure how it exactly goes about fear and respect. I don’t care which one the terrorists have, fear or us or respect for us, as long as it keeps them from attacking us.
By the way, I agree that Zarqawi should have been taken out prior to the invasion. That isn’t to say the danger to America would have been neutralized, just lessened.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Nice link, Albert.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Wait - now this one from Richard. Al-Qaeda was in Iraq BEFORE the invasion?
Third paragraph from your link, Richard.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Bob:
You and I are “connected” though 1U, but that connection is tenuous, at best. Same thing can be said about al Qaida in Iraq and its precursors. These were, at best, loosely affiliated groups with disparate causes. But that all changed when America came to Iraq in 2003.
Please, I beg of you, stop attempting to rationalize the disastrous decisions of the worst president in history. Aren’t you tired of belonging to the group of the few stupid and susceptible that remain, and whose only real purpose is to prove to themselves that, indeed, they were not betrayed by GWB?
You provide new insight to the Peter Pan Principle!
August 20th, 2008 at 11:02 am
What is your point, jd?
August 20th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Albert,
I think JD is trying to use this line:
to refute the claim from Cliff that the surge didn’t work….I believe it’s called turning the tables. Links provided by you clearly show that the opposite of what was claimed.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Bob and jd fail to consider than what has happened in the last five and a half years is exponentially worse than if Saddam remained in power and Iraq was contained, with or without sanctions. Americans and Iraqis would pretty much all agree on that point.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Bob:
But the surge has not worked - e.g., no political reconciliation has occurred!
Stop making excuses for W, Bob, as doing so is really quite beneath what you appear otherwise capable of!
August 20th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Richard,
I don’t fail to consider it at all. Your opinion relies on a couple of assumptions that I don’t agree with.
1. That Iraq would have been contained. I think the Oil for Food scandal clearly shows that the UN failed and continued to fail in the responsibility for the sanctions and resolutions regarding Iraq. I think we would have seen a removal of all sanctions in a short order. Thus freeing Saddam to use the resources of the country overtly. Do you think he would have been sending Bush flowers or plotting terror?
2. What happened in the past 5 years is exponentially worse then what could have happened. I see many possibilities that would prove that wrong. Saddam showed no reluctance to use chemical warfare on the Kurds. Do you think that he would have hesitated to use WMD’s on America or provide them with plausible deniability to terrorist groups?
Think thousands of US causalities are bad….imagine the effects of a chemical attack on a major city or event in the US. Causalities could easily run into the tens of thousands.
3. That Saddam wouldn’t have continued to terrorize and kill his own population. American causalitiesaside, Saddam was willing to kill his own, who is to say that wouldn’t have continued.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Albert,
Stop stating your opinion and start providing documented evidence.
What were the goals of the Surge and what didn’t happen. You say they didn’t but you don’t meet Cliff’s requirements. Remember it is credible, a-political experts.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Bob S.– Saddam Hussein didn’t have nuclear weapons. He didn’t have biological weapons. He didn’t have chemical weapons. He didn’t have long-range missiles. Even if you apply Dick Cheney’s absurd one percent doctrine you got nothing.
Tell me, how many terrorist attacks on western countries have ever been carried out by Iraqis?
Tell me, how many Iraqi civilians have died since March 2003? In his entire career as a Stalinist dictator, Saddam killed, at most, 300,000 Iraqi civilians.
So tell me, how many Iraqi civilians have died as a result of President Bush’s policies?
August 20th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Richard,
Hmm, Saddam didn’t have chemical weapons
Statement disproved. But I can hear the claim now “Bob, that was 1988…what about now?”
Saddam removed most of the WMD but didn’t get them all as clearly shown by supportable evidence.
Did Saddam have intentions of restarting his WMD program, in violation of sanctions, resolutions, international law?
August 20th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Actually, Richard, Bob and I hopped in my time machine and explored what would happen if Saddam remained in power. Turns out he reinvaded Kuwait in 2006, skirmished with Iran over the Shatt al Arab and launched missile attacks against the Saudi oil fields. He also continued his payments to the families of PLO/Hamas suicide bombers.
So there you are, your little prediction of the future was completely wrong, Richard.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
First of all, your source is Faux News. If you can diss The New York Times, I can diss them. BTW, the far-left pacifistic Times led the way on peddling pre-invasion bogus Iraq WMD intel.
I would be surprised if Saddam’s regime properly disposed of all their chemical agents by incineration– they were probably dumped in the desert. Never found by our forces, but the insurgents may have found some.
Based on the courses I took in the Army, I’m here to tell you chemical agents or even bombs by themselves are not weapon systems. Saddam had no chemical weapons capability.
So, how many terrorist attacks originated by Iraq? How many Iraqi civilians killed since March 2003?
August 20th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Bob S:
Don’t get too angry at Lynette. I know she’s not acting too lady like, but just think of her as a mother who loves her two year old son so much that when he ignores her and runs out into the busy street, the only option she has is to slap the living Jesus out of him or in your case shit you out of her asshole.
She wasn’t posting the picture to make the case that the Americans were terrorists, she was trying to point out that when these, most likely, innocent Iraqi men who are being humiliated, abused and even killed get out, they and their friends are going to want red American blood.
Thank you Lynette! You tried.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Richard,
We’ve already determined that either you weren’t paying attention when you took your NBC courses in the Army, or you are deliberately misstating what you learned.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Larry,
Thanks, I hadn’t considered the angle that Abu Ghabib might have caused hatred when I posted. Wish Lynette would have been able to respond as you did.
It is possible, I found the actions of those service personnel reprehensible because of that possible outcome.
I disagree those prisoners were likely innocent though. Some of them might have, that is why situations like that shouldn’t occur. Why the interrogations need to quickly determine the status, that information verified and acted on. If the prisoners were likely guilty moved to a long term holding facility and the innocent released.
I also question if the humiliation and abuse endured was enough to cause hatred and action. These are people used to their families and friends disappearing into Hussein’s prison camps and torture chambers. I state once again, I don’t approve of the actions but compared to the atrocities committed by Hussein’s people I wonder if our side didn’t make more of the issue then the prisoners would have.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
oh jeez…I missed the whole Lynette thing.
Let’s hear it for “reasoned discourse”. Wheee!
Interesting how the “neanderthals” here don’t need to resort to profanity and personal insults to make our points.
(I’ll except my calling out of Larry as a bigot)
August 20th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Bob S. — The Abu Ghraib fiasco-within-a-fiasco is a complex story that still hasn’t been fully told. However, from what we know almost everybody in the prison in 2003-2004 was rounded up pretty much at random by General Ray Odierno’s 4th Infantry Division. They were innocent.
To this day, the U.S. military is holding more than 20,000 Iraqi civilians who have not been accused of any crime, and have no legal recourse. Many have been arrested during the “surge” in arbitrary raids. By and large, the Americans can’t tell who’s an insurgent and who is not. Men are arrested at random, held for years and released at random, their families left with no means of support.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Bob:
Fuck mustard gas. Where was the WMD we were told existed in Iraq?
Your apologetic string for W is bordering now on the pathetic!
August 20th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Mustard gas isn’t a chemical weapon, Albert?
Regarding your second question, we don’t know. The best and brightest thought that Saddam had reconstituted his programs. Saddam exacerbated the problem by refusing inspectors access to his many “palaces”. And Blix, didn’t state that there weren’t any weapons, only that he needed more time to confim that there weren’t any weapons - and he needed access to the palaces to make that confirmation.
With the possible exception of Ritter, everyone was SURE that he’d reconstituted his WMD programs.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Sorry, jd, but with the benefit of hindsight for confirmation, the “best and brightest” were hoodwinked by an administration hell-bent on invading Iraq. That you continue to offer stale apologist rhetoric on this point is baffling.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Wha? You mean the Clinton administration? I distinctly recall Al Gore talking about Saddam’s reconstituted ChemWeapons program.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
jdberger could not be more wrong. President Bush received briefings starting in September 2002 in which he was told in no uncertain terms that Iraq had no usable weapons of mass destruction.
Can you say “impeachable offense”? I knew that you could…
August 20th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
jd:
Correct me if I am wrong, but neither Gore nor Clinton invaded Iraq and marched to Baghdad, all the while telling the American people to expect roses tossed at our soldiers’ feet. You are really outdoing yourself today!
August 20th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Richard,
Given the high level of the official involved, was it not possible to question the accuracy of his information?
Was it possible to question, especially given Saddam’s admitted attempts to convince the world he had WMD, that it was a time saving device initiated by Saddam?
Did Sabri have a reason to give the information he thought was wanted?
Remember, Sabri was meeting with a cut-out. Would that cut out announce who he/she was working for or keep it secret?
Stacked up against multiple sources, especially given Saddam’s desire to convince the world he still possessed WMD, isn’t it reasonable to mark that information as questionable? Remember hindsight is 20-20, but there were unaccounted for munitions according to every source that I can find.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
That’s correct, Bob. Old, stale, nearly worthless, unaccounted for munitions, the likes of which can be found in third world nations across the globe. You cling desperately to this point to rationalize a war based on lies and misrepresentations; notwithstanding, however, it being clear to everyone with an open mind that you always come up short.
It may be time to admit that you were hoodwinked right along with the rest of your now-tattered repugliscum party - your son is fighting a war based on lies and misreps, and I’d be pissed if I were you.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Bob S. — So you think Bush was smart to dismiss information from the Iraqi foreign minister and believe the stuff Rafid Ahmed Alwan (aka “Curveball”) made up.
What about Saddam Hussein’s intelligence chief, Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti? Also less credible than “Curveball”?
August 20th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Richard, interesting article. Of course, since Bush is expected to believe every CIA source, he should have been expected to believe CIA intelligence that stated that al Qaeda was collaborating with Iraqi intelligence, right?
Or are you cherry-picking your intelligence?
Not that there’s anything wrong with that - intelligence agencies often receive contadictory information. And agents often endorse information that fits their worldview. This is why intelligence gathering is an artform, not a science.
Albert - thank you for conceding my point that the Clinton administration also believed that Saddam had reconstituted his ChemWar program. You are correct that Bill didn’t invade Iraq - though he did bomb it on a regular basis. But again, when he left office, the towers of the WTC were still standing.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
jd:
Still struggling, I see, to connect Iraq with 9/11. You are an obstinate fuck, that’s for sure! And as to your assertion of a concession, please read my comment once again - you obviously read something into it that is not there!!