Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Discrepancies, Real And Imagined | Main | The Times Discovers Ari Fleischer »

July 26, 2005

Comments

kim

You are starting to rave, Scott, and you haven't much standing.

Go help start a charter school if you want to fix education.
=================================

Seven Machos

Scotty --

1. Why is it that hard-core Lefties simply can't resist calling everyone who disagrees with them dumb? It's really interesting because it is such a pattern. Plainly, you can tell by their level of discourse that the pro-Iraq people here are dumber than a box of hair.

2. "Do the country a favor and get an education." This line is my favorite. Scotty, I know virtually nothing about you but I would guess that your level of education is at or below the undergraduate level. I would also guess that your career isn't at all related to international relations. Therefore, it is really rather silly for you to suggest that I have no knowledge of the Middle East.

3. You have Bush Derangement Syndrome and you need to seek professional help.

4. Having said all this, it's time to play one of my favorite games: what's your plan, Scotty? What do we do now? Should we just up and leave Iraq? Hang Karl Rove? Burn him at the stake? Jail him for life? Impeach Bush? Invite the terrorists over for a peace conference at your junior college?

scott ferris

I never brought up the legitimacy of Bush's election and won't, I want an open and transparent government that's accountable. Very simple. If your definition of deranged is to disturb the order, or arrangement of, then yes I would be happy to be called deranged. However, you could more clearly express yourself and say anyone who supports an unnecessary war is deranged.

Seven Machos

We better watch our backs lest the economic juggernaut that is Canada overtakes us, right, Scottie?

And what's Scotty's solution? Of course: more money for education. I love it! Unemployment is five percent; GDP is ridiculous; but Scott wants more money for education. The day that the PTA gets a billion dollars but the Air Force has to hold a bake sale -- that will be a great day, right?

Seriously: are you messing with me? Are you today's "Leftist," straight out of central casting, sent to amuse me and me laugh?

Seven Machos

"Deranged" means crazy.

Tommy V

Oh, that's right. Karl Rove! I forgot about him!

scott

First, I want to see Fitzgerald finish his investigation, without interference. Frankly, I don't know if Rove or Libby are guilty, but on the surface they're culpability in the leaking of Plame's name to the press is looking like big trouble for both of them and the administration. If they leaked her name, by negligence or by design, they shouldn't serve in this or any administration. Second, in Iraq, we are dammed if leave and dammed if we stay. Powell said, we broke it, therefore we need to fix it, however, I am not sure we are the country that can repair the divisions in Iraq.

Harry Arthur

or even better enlist and go support your war. Hadn't heard that one before.

Seven Machos

Is "scott" the same as "scott ferris"? Because "scott" sounds very reasonable.

scott ferris

My undergraduate degree is EE, my graduate degree is EECS, I write educational software and take enormous joy in it. I also have a professional interest in Blogs, I want to see them evolve into something more sophisticated then the current design allows. What's on the horizon is what interests me.

MeTooThen

Jim E.

Boing!

Troll Alert.

No Jim E., not according to my logic.

I.Will.Not.Engage.in.Troll.Fallacies.

Nope.

Won't.Do.It.

Now run along.

Really.

Seven Machos

Wait, Scotty! You aren't fluent in Arabic? You aren't an expert on the details of WMD? Then, clearly, under your own theory, you have no ability to expound on the Middle East.

Just to make sure we are on the same page here: you can criticize the war even though you aren't in the military and, by your own admission, have no expertise in international relations. I cannot support the war because I am not in the military and (you think, maybe) I don't know anything about the Middle East or international relations.

Am I missing something here?

Jim E.

Tommy V,
I didn't "move" the discussion to spring 2003 (nor have I "changed arguments midstream"). That's when we attacked. I'm merely pointing out that the main reason we went to war was that "Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States" (quote from war resolution). We went to war in 2003 because of the supposed threat that existed in 2003, not a hypothetical threat in 2015 or something.

It was a pre-emptive war because the U.S. hadn't been attacked, not because Iraq wasn't a threat. You are wrong on this point. Look at the resolution: "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 ..."

You are mistaken in what pre-emptive war is. Look it up on widipedia -- it is war based on "imminent" threat of attack or invasion. Seriously, you are using the word incorrectly, and your post makes little sense on this point.

We now know definitively, thanks to the invasion, that we were wrong -- Iraq was not the threat we were told it was. To say it was even MORE dangerous than we thought is outlandish. This is a roughly factual question and I don't even think the Bush administration itself would say the case for war somehow looks stronger in retrospect. Because if we learned Iraq was "more dangerous than we feared," (and we thought they might have nuclear weapons, remember), I certainly would be a huge supporter of this war.

Finally, a personal point. You and I have had heated comments towards each other, but it has (in my opinion) been more-or-less civil. Heck, feel free to continue the patronizing tone you included in your comment. I don't have a problem with sarcasm. And for the record, my "retarded" comment was thoughtfully and specifically chosen for kim, not you. But I do hate hypocrisy, so if you're going to get the vapors over the "retarded" comment, then perhaps you shouldn't attempt to psychoanalyze my "ego," my so-called "delusions," and my "self-image," all while decrying my lack of civility. To labor your political opposition with mental illness has a sordid and deadly history and is uncivil. Yes, both sides do it, but I am calling you out on it personally. If you're going to be so quick to wring your hands over it, you ought to portray yourself in a similarly inoffensive manner. Where were you when Seven Machos called everyone left-of-center "idiots"? The selective outrage and thin-skin is really lame. Like I said, I don't have the thin-skin and don't really care too much about name-calling, but I want to hold you to your own standard.

scott ferris

Why has the WH failed to get ahead of the Plame investigation story? The failure to address questions in the WH Briefings, certainly on the surface, looks suspicous. I don't have a crystal ball into Fitzgerald's investigation but I am certaintly puzzled by ineptness on the part of the WH to control the damage. Also, having Sen. Roberts enter the fray has the appearence of interfence in a Federal Investigation. I would like to hear what others think about how the WH is handling the the Plame matter. Please limit the cliches.

Steven J.

KIM - "In terms of US national security he was months away from being able to launch an anthrax attack."

LMFAO -

DUELFER REPORT SUMMARY

In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level.

Syl

This argument over 'lied', 'misled', 'no immediate threat', 'future threat likely/unlikely' is mired in the past as if nothing has changed in the years since. And it's the changes in the world since 'the argument that never ends' that are vastly more important than how many tons of yellowcake Saddam had/wanted/didn't have.

We are not warring on a finite number of al Qaeda terrorists, we are at war with an ideology that feeds them and they, in turn, inspire. What many don't see is that 9/11 was the biggest recruiting tool, ever, that the terrorists and their ideology had. We can bring down the West! It's easy! Get onboard!

Fighting back by only decimating al Qaeda was not enough, we had to push back on the ideology itself. Removing the taliban, destroying the terrorist camps, killing and capturing al qaeda members, trying to stop their monetary flow, is only part of the solution.

We can fight individual terrorists but only the muslim world can reject the poisonous ideology. The muslim world must have something to live for, rather than die for, and thus the idea that Arabs could have democracy, like every other culture on the planet is capable of (who knew) became a priority. We had to give it a chance.

Along with this, our destruction of the command and control structure of al Qaeda made the periphery groups become autonomous. This caused them to make fatal mistakes...like killing more muslims than Westerners, like attacking inside the Kingdom, like attacking inside Egypt. Like, you know, making the muslim world aware of the fact that they, too, are targets!

And the further attacks on the West are not having the desired effect. Instead the West is holding fast. At least the leaders Bush, Blair, and Howard are. The naysayers are simply afraid of the bees that are angry we destroyed the hive.

And what we're seeing now is a growing optimism among many Arabs that they, too, can have freedom. The purple fingers had more of an impact on the muslim world than in the West. And these people see that the terrorists are in their way! The anti-terror demonstrations in Egypt the other day were big news on al-jazeera. The recent PEW poll showing the cataclysmic drop in support of bin laden is a sign that Bush's policies are working.

And Iraq was central to these policies. And the Islamist ideology is playing defense in Iraq. Freedom of an Arab nation is the worst fear of this ideology. Al Qaeda even wrote about that in a book that came out in the Fall of '03. They are not on offense.

This continuous nitpicking on the WMD case for war ignores the other valid reasons for Iraq and gives the arguers an excuse for their tunnel vision.

Steven J.

METOOTHEN - "the little, if any, voice given to the well being of the Iraqis themselves."

Shots to the Heart of Iraq
· Innocent civilians, including people who are considered vital to building democracy, are increasingly being killed by U.S. troops.

By Richard C. Paddock, LA Times Staff Writer
July 25, 2005

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-civilians25jul25,1,4544179.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

BAGHDAD — Three men in an unmarked sedan pulled up near the headquarters of the national police major crimes unit. The two passengers, wearing traditional Arab dishdasha gowns, stepped from the car.

At the same moment, a U.S. military convoy emerged from an underpass. Apparently believing the men were staging an ambush, the Americans fired, killing one passenger and wounding the other. The sedan's driver was hit in the head by two bullet fragments.

The soldiers drove on without stopping.

This kind of shooting is far from rare in Baghdad, but the driver of the car was no ordinary casualty. He was Iraqi police Brig. Gen. Majeed Farraji, chief of the major crimes unit. His passengers were unarmed hitchhikers whom he was dropping off on his way to work.

"The reason they shot us is just because the Americans are reckless," the general said from his hospital bed hours after the July 6 shooting, his head wrapped in a white bandage. "Nobody punishes them or blames them."

Police in Baghdad say they have received reports that U.S. forces killed 33 unarmed civilians and injured 45 in the capital between May 1 and July 12 — an average of nearly one fatality every two days. This does not include incidents that occurred elsewhere in the country or were not reported to the police.

The continued shooting of civilians is fueling a growing dislike of the United States and undermining efforts to convince the public that American soldiers are here to help. The victims have included doctors, journalists, a professor — the kind of people the U.S. is counting on to help build an open and democratic society.

"Of course the shootings will increase support for the opposition," said Farraji, 49, who was named a police general with U.S. approval. "The hatred of the Americans has increased. I myself hate them."
On June 27, the day he turned 49, Salah Jmor arrived in Baghdad to visit his family.

His father, Abdul-Rihman Jmor, is the chief of a Kurdish clan that numbers more than 20,000. Salah had left Iraq 25 years ago for Switzerland, where he earned a doctorate in international relations and eventually became a Swiss citizen.
The brothers were in the fast lane as a U.S. military convoy of three Humvees was entering the highway from the Gailani onramp. Neither of them saw the soldiers, Abdul-Jabbar said.

Abruptly, Salah slumped over into his brother's lap. Abdul-Jabbar asked what was wrong and then saw blood pouring from Salah's head. There was a single bullet hole in the windshield.

He saw the convoy moving ahead as he pulled over to the side of the road. He said he had seen no signal to slow down and heard no warning shot.

The soldiers turned around and came back a few minutes later. One said he was sorry, Abdul-Jabbar said. Together they waited more than an hour for an ambulance to arrive.

"I asked them, 'Why didn't you shoot me? I am the driver,' " Abdul-Jabbar recalled. "But they didn't answer me."

Abdul-Jabbar said he and his family had supported the U.S. troops when they first invaded Iraq, but no longer.

"This kind of incident makes people hate the Americans more and more," he said. "They don't care about the lives of the people. Each day they make new enemies."

There is a strong tradition of revenge in Iraq's tribal culture. The killing of such a prominent clan member could have triggered a bloodbath that would claim 200 lives, said the patriarch, Abdul-Rihman. But the Jmors, a well-educated family of doctors and engineers, say they want the judicial process to hold Salah's killer accountable.

"People say if they kill my brother, I have to kill one of them," Abdul-Jabbar said. "But I believe in justice. I can't just go kill them. The United States says it is the leader of justice in the world. Let us see that."

Steven J.

DAVIS - "If Senator Roberts doesn't know, "

Roberts is a traitor.

Steven J.

KIM - "Particularly the Main Points section of the Duelfer Report."

Here they are:


DUELFER REPORT SUMMARY

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed.


Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi officials considered Iran to be Iraq’s principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerations, but secondary.

ISG uncovered Iraqi plans or designs for three long-range ballistic missiles with ranges from 400 to 1,000 km and for a 1,000-km-range cruise missile, although none of these systems progressed to production and only one reportedly passed the design phase.

Iraq Survey Group (ISG) discovered further evidence of the maturity and significance of the pre-1991 Iraqi Nuclear Program but found that Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after that date.

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.

In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level.

Seven Machos

Okay, Jim E. I never called everyone on the Left "idiots." I'm sure you will fish out my comments. What I recall saying was that the Left in this country is "a bunch of idiots" because all it really has to do is support the Iraq War and it can have its domestic program on a silver platter. This is true.

Perhaps I should have said "acting like idiots" or "being politically stupid." Whatever. Your fellow BDS sufferers on teh Left constantly say that people on the right are just plain morons. Our actions can only follow from our stupidity. What I am suggesting is that the Left's political actions are objectively stupid, and that the Left should change its approach, at least on the surface.

Harry Arthur

scott ferris, et al, in all due respect, we'll soon see who is culpable and who isn't. Perhaps we can be patient just a little longer and let the investigation run its course. When we have the full story, and if it is determined that Rove is guilty of illegal acts or malfeasance in office then the honorable thing for him will be to resign immediately or be fired. Same for Libby, et al.

WRT Iraq, it's clear to me that the answer there is similar in that it also calls for patience. We'll see in the not too distant future whether Bush is right in suggesting that Iraq represents a democratic "tipping point" in the ME. If so, it may very well have been worth the tremendous cost. If not, then admittedly we are in for several more years of turmoil in the region all of which will arguably be more painful than is currently the case.

As for how we got there, well, the reasons seem to be able to generate interesting debates but at this point are largely mute in answer to the "what do we do now?" question, other than in speaking tangentially to the veracity of our leaders and the trustworthiness of our intelligence assets. Unfortunately, where you stand in both arguments seems to depend on where you sat when they started.

Jim E.

New story in washpost right now. By Pincus and VandeHei.

Novak was told by CIA twice not to run with story...

Steven J.

HARRY - "WRT Iraq, it's clear to me that the answer there is similar in that it also calls for patience."

We've been patient. In the original "plans," we were supposed to be down to about 30K troops by December 03.

Steven J.

JIM E -

Thanks for the heads-up!

Steven J.

KIM - "Please don't demean yourself and misrepresent the Duelfer Report by selective quotation from it."

You keep babbling about this. It is incumbent upon you to show that the quotations are misleading.

Seven Machos

Stevie sure likes to throw around the word "traitor." How many members of Congress and the executive branch are traitors, Stevie? So far, I believe you have identified about six.

Scotty: I feel like the White House can't win on the investigation. Talk and you are trying to interfere with the investigation. Don't talk and you are stonewalling. However, the best political course is public silence and, behind closed doors, complete cooperation with the prosecutor. This is the course the White House seems to have chosen.

The people in the White House know the facts. They know what they did or did not do, and said or did not say. Fitzgerald will find this out, or he won't. If Rove is guilty of a crime, Fitzgerald may find out. If Rove is not guilty, Fitzgerald probably will find out. It is unlikely, in a high-profile non-scandal like this, that Fitzgerald will find crime where none was committed.

Steven J.

SEVEN - "Ninety percent of Americans don't know and don't care about this non-scandal."

Wrong again -

"The leak investigation is seen as a meaningful issue: About three-quarters call it a serious matter, and just over four in 10 see it as "very" serious. These are down slightly, however, by five and six points respectively, from their level in September 2003. "

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=949950

Jim E.

Seven Machos,
OK, we get it. It hurts your feelings when some anonymous commenter calls people on the right morons. What do you want me to do about it? It's not my fault you feel so victimized and take such things so personally, assuming your hurt is sincere. (If it's not sincere, then STFU.) Take solace in the fact that your mentally deranged ("BDS sufferers") political "enemies" are so "stupid" and that Republicans are running the country unimpeded. (Calling righties "morons" -- indefensible and uncivil and wrong. Calling the left "stupid" -- objective fact. Mmm-kay.)

Why aren't you guys dancing in the streets? You're right -- the Dems are spineless, clueless wimps when it comes to playing hardball politics. You guys won. You're running the government, you got your war on. Cheer up!

Steven J.

SYL - "We are not warring on a finite number of al Qaeda terrorists, we are at war with an ideology that feeds them and they, in turn, inspire. "

And Bush is losing that war:

'Iraq has been an absolute gift to al-Qaida'
July 24, 2005
BY DANICA KIRKA
CHICAGO SUN-TIMEShttp://www.suntimes.com/output/terror/cst-nws-ties24s1.htmlWith havens in Afghanistan under pressure and their finances under scrutiny, militants may take philosophical guidance from the likes of Osama bin Laden but are largely relying on their own resources in carrying out operations, experts said Saturday. ''They all want to be part of this phenomenon,'' said Loretta Napoleoni, author of Terror Incorporated: Tracing the Dollars Behind the Terror Networks, as she explained the terror wave. ''It's not like someone is telling [the militants], 'You bomb on the first of July.'"''Iraq has been an absolute gift to al-Qaida,'' said Paul Rogers, a professor of peace studies at England's Bradford University. ''[Al-Qaida] seems to have no difficulty in getting more and more recruits.''''For an attack of this size and nature to happen in such a regionally important center destroys the image of its tight security and sends a clear message to authorities that they can be hit anywhere,'' said Dia'a Rashwan, an Egyptian terrorism expert. ''We can't blame a small, amateurish group for this.''The attacks in London and Egypt also could be seen as an attempt to demonstrate al-Qaida's prowess in the face of the U.S.-led war on terrorism, said Mustafa Alani, a security analyst at a Dubai-based think-tank, the Gulf Research Center. ''They're saying this war is not winnable,'' Alani said. ''If you look at the map of al-Qaida operations, they stretch from London to Bali to Istanbul to Mombasa to Saudi Arabia and Iraq.''

Seven Machos

My whole point about polling was that Americans don't care about the matter so polling is at best misleading. Americans don't care enough to know enough about the issue to answer questions with a fixed field of answers. Bully for them. Face it, people: we are the political junkies with a serious problem.

What does Stevie do? He comes back with...a poll!

Scott Ferris

Fitzgerald has the appearance of a serious and dedicated investigator and I'll certainly await his findings before making a judgment. However, two many other investigations haven't had this independent review necessary to resolve them satisfactorily. As example,
Sen. Robert was going to hold hearings on into possible political manipulation of Iraqi WMD intelligence, which he promised prior to the election, then he cancelled them after the election. How are we going to know whether the WH deliberately manipulated the intelligence data without looking into it? It's the lack of transparency that I take issue with.

Steven J.

Jim -- Try weeklystandard.com.

Posted by: Seven Machos

LMFAO!

Seven Machos

Jim: Politics ain't beanbag. My feelings have never been hurt. I am not hurt. I have never felt victimized. I don't think I ever said I was hurt or victimized. I think you may be projecting.

Whatever the case, hit me with your best shot. Before I put another notch in my lipstick case, you better make sure you put me in my place.

Steven J.

SEVEN - "My whole point about polling was that Americans don't care about the matter so polling is at best misleading. "

SHORTER SEVEN - I'M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG, FACTS DON'T MATTER, BUSH IS A GOD!

Steven J.

4. Terror mastermind Abu Nidal also enjoyed Saddam's hospitality from 1999 to 2002.

Abu and his group had long left the laying field.

Syl

"And Bush is losing that war:"

There's nothing in that article that proves that. In fact those statements prove my point. Just because there is conflict and Islamic terrorists going nuts does NOT mean we're losing. The Arab world is waking up to the horrific ideology in their midst. The next step is to destroy it. Only they can do that.

Steven J.

SYL - "Just because there is conflict and Islamic terrorists going nuts does NOT mean we're losing. "

We have lost the battle for hearts and minds.

Syl

Steven J
"We have lost the battle for hearts and minds."

How pedantic. We don't need the Arab world to love us, we need them to love themselves enough to change.

Seven Machos

Syl: You have really nailed the philosophical issues regarding Iraq in a way that I could never do. Also, the other day, someone (Tommy?) noted profoundly that the divergence on the war is based on whether you believe the post-September 11 era will be solved militarily or thorugh law enforcement.

Tommy V

Jim,

"I didn't "move" the discussion to spring 2003 (nor have I "changed arguments midstream"). That's when we attacked."

I think any person can read your posts and see that you swerving because you made a comment that was driectly contradicted by an authoritve source.

Your quotes from the resolution do not contradict any point that was made. I do not understand why the resolution was quoted.

"You are mistaken in what pre-emptive war is. Look it up on widipedia.""Seriously, you are using the word incorrectly, and your post makes little sense on this point."

This is what I mean by changing arguments mid-stream. You have completely written off a huge national discussion to make some weird point, and are countering a statement not even made. (Since I did not claim otherwise, your line about me making little sense falls flat. The contention was not made, nor was it relied upon, so how could undermine my argument?)

The point is that there was a debate about a "pre-emptive war", Jim. There was a national DEBATE on whether it was right to a launch a pre-emptive war.

Do you really think if the threat was being portrayed as imminent there would be a debate whether we should stop it? There was a debate about it because it was the threat was NOT imminent.

Who would argue that we should not stop an imminent threat?

(The only one I know who used the term imminent was John Edwards, and he regretted it.)

The debate was about what Iraq could potentially do in the future. Not what it was about to do in the Spring and Summer of 2003. Again, this WAS VERY CLEAR. I believe the term the President used most often was a "gathering threat".

In the 2003 State of the Union, Bush said:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late"

I think he makes himself pretty clear here.

And again, you're a smart fellow, I think you know this. Which is why I doubt your intellectual sincerity here.

"To say it was even MORE dangerous than we thought is outlandish."

You keep saying this, but people who are more aware of the facts disagree with you. Sorry. Deal with it. The debate about Iraq was always about what it potentially would do . Always. You're tryin to change the framework of the argument.

I was not lecturing you on the civility in using the term retarded, I was lecturing you on how wrong you were, and how ridiculous you looked in using that term when all I had to do was google Kay's quote. Be as uncivil as you want, I never asked for civility nor did I reprimand anyone for a lack of it.

You were just dead wrong that it's an "outlandish" claim, and that no one would agree with Kim.

But you keep coming back and rewriting new arguments as to why you're not wrong. The key word is "potential", "pre-emptive war" means something that we're not even discussing, blah, blah, blah... (You might want to fall back to no WMDs. You were at least right about that.)

It's okay to be wrong sometimes. It's not a big deal.

Like I said, feel free to disagree with Kay. He clearly disagrees with you.

Seven Machos

Stevie: Facts do matter. I don't think Bush is God. Otherwise, you are correct.

Steven J.

SYL -

Study cites seeds of terror in Iraq
War radicalized most, probes find

By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | July 17, 2005
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/07/17/study_cites_seeds_of_terror_in_iraq/
WASHINGTON -- New investigations by the Saudi Arabian government and an Israeli think tank -- both of which painstakingly analyzed the backgrounds and motivations of hundreds of foreigners entering Iraq to fight the United States -- have found that the vast majority of these foreign fighters are not former terrorists and became radicalized by the war itself.

Tommy V

We're copy anpasting whole articles now? How about just a link?

scott ferris

WaPo article appears to nail Novak, no wonder he's clammed up. He should retire quitely. Fitzgerald's investigation seems to have caught a number of people in out right lies, Novak chief among them. Is any one going to belief Novak whe he tells his side of the story - if he can keep can't keep his stories straight.

Steven J.

TOMMY - ""Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late""

"Yes, I, too, believed there were weapons. I began to be skeptical when we went to sites that were given to us by U.S. intelligence and we found nothing. They said this is the best intelligence we have, and I said, if this is the best, what is the rest?" HANS BLIX, NYT, 3/30/04

Steven J.

SEVEN - "Facts do matter."

"We know for a fact there are weapons there." - Ari Fleischer, Jan. 9, 2003

Seven Machos

Scotty: Novak is not a public official and can say what he wants. He can even lie when it comes to actual public officials and will have committed no crime. That's the law here in the USA.

Stevie: I think you have abundantly made your point that you read articles that say that the war in Iraq is bad. Also, your ability to cut and paste is commendable. Perhaps you could try making an argument that incorporates the facts of the articles.

Tommy V

Steven,

I got news for you,

If "Bush is losing that war:", then WE are losing that war. You really might want to think about rooting for the good guys on this one.

And I don't believe that we're losing for a second.

This is going to be a long drawn out fight and it will last for years, and Iraq is by no means the end of it. If it is, it means Bush was even more right then he had hoped.


And Steven,

You might want to avoid jumping into discussions late because you end up looking kind of foolish. That Blix quote couldn't be more irrelevant to what was being discussed.

Steven J.

TOMMY - "The debate was about what Iraq could potentially do in the future. "

I, along with nearly every Senator in this Chamber, in that secure room of this Capitol complex, was not only told there were weapons of mass destruction--specifically chemical and biological--but I was looked at straight in the face and told that Saddam Hussein had the means of delivering those biological and chemical weapons of mass
destruction by unmanned drones, called UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles.
Further, I was looked at straight in the face and told that UAVs could be launched from ships off the Atlantic coast to attack eastern seaboard cities of the United States.

Congressional Record: January 28, 2004 (Senate)
Sen. Nelson Page S311-S312

WE WERE LIED TO!

Seven Machos

Stevie: Are you suggesting that because Ari Fleischer said something that turned out to be untrue that the whole edifice of my argument falls? I disagree. I have indicated that I believe that the WMD angle was badly and wrongly overplayed.

Read what I said above about why I support the war effort. Read also what Syl said.

Steven J.

TOMMY - "That Blix quote couldn't be more irrelevant to what was being discussed."

The inspectors were in Iraq but they weren't finding anything using the best intelligence we had. Bush invaded anyway.

BUSH IS A TRAITOR

Steven J.

TOMMY - "Do you really think if the threat was being portrayed as imminent there would be a debate whether we should stop it? There was a debate about it because it was the threat was NOT imminent."


"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." President Bush, 10/2/02
"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious
dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
President Bush, 10/7/02

"No terror state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein." RUMSFELD, 9/18/02

Q Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and
imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?
MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely. 5/7/03


Seven Machos

Stevie, I want to cut and paste some important stuff for you here:

Traitor. n 1: someone who betrays his country by committing treason [syn: treasonist] 2: a person who says one thing and does another.

Treason. n 1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. 2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

Your only argument is that Bush betrayed your trust. But you know and I know that, as sure as the day is long, you never trusted Bush. How could he betray your trust?

You are sounding terribly shrill tonight, Stevie...

scott ferris

Novak is a liar and a public figure. The problem with liars is they eventfully get caught lying, for a reporter it's not a very wise career move.

Steven J.

No greater harm can be done than breaking the covenant of trust between the President and the people; between the three branches of our government; and between the country and the world.

CLOSING REMARKS OF THE HONORABLE HENRY J. HYDE
AT IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF WILLIAM J. CLINTON
JANUARY 16, 1999
http://www.sentryoveramerica.com/issue5p5hydeclose011699.html

BUSH == O FOR 3, TIME TO IMPEACH!

Seven Machos

Stevie -- Who are you talking to? Who are you trying to convince that the administration overplayed the WMD threat?

The FACT is: nobody cares. People support Bush and the Republicans in spite of everything you are charging Bush and the Republicans with. Why are you wasting your breath? Perhaps you should try a new line of attack.

Seven Machos

Stevie: Who is going to impeach Clinton? The Leftist League of Shrill Guys Who Can't Stop Cutting and Pasting?

Steven J.

SEVEN - "Who are you trying to convince that the administration overplayed the WMD threat?"

Bush lied.

Seven Machos

My mistake. Obviously: who is going to impeach BUSH?

richard mcenroe

me too too — Meanwhile, as we parse the commas in the latest anonymous leak, the Democrats' labor base is disintegrating...

Steven J.

SEVEN - "who is going to impeach BUSH?"

Partiotic Democrats and Republicans.

Seven Machos

Stevie: I don't think Bush lied. But so what if he did?

1. It's over. We are in Iraq.

2. Nobody cares. THe Left has been making tthis shrill charge for years. What has it gotten you? Four more years of Bush. At least two and maybe four Bush-appointed judges. Bolton at the UN. A Republican-dominated House and Senate. Over 30 Republican-dominated state legislatures. When will you admit that you have lost?

Seven Machos

Stevie: There is no way that Bush will ever be impeached. Ever. Deep in your heart, even though you have a terrible case of Bush Derangement Syndrome, you know this. I advise you in the strongest possible terms to accept reality and move on.

Steven J.

*Patriotic

Syl

Seven Machos

Thanks. I've done my homework.

But the idea that it's an either/or between military and law-enforcement is a false dichotomy because, I believe, both sides see the need for both at various times. They just disagree on whether Iraq was one of those times.

One side was for maintaining the status quo, the other for changing it. Well, it's too late for that argument now because the status quo was changed forever when Saddam was pulled from his hidey hole and the terrorists started killing more Iraqi's than Americans and 8 million purple fingers showed which side they were on.

Steven J.

SEVEN - "When will you admit that you have lost?"

This is about morality and the rule of law, not electoral victories.

Seven Machos

Richard MCEnroe: I agree completely in theory, but I tried to read all about the labor thing today and it was my-eyeslgaze-over something terrible. While trivial and a huge waste of time, this is much more intriguing.

scott ferris

Mid-term elections are going to be fun. Jean Schmidt vs. Paul Hackett should be interesting, Hackett might just win. Ohio GOP has it's share of problems.

sferris@comcast.net

From USA Today:

For the first time, a majority of Americans, 51%, say the Bush administration deliberately misled the public about whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction — the reason Bush emphasized in making the case for invading. The administration's credibility on the issue has been steadily eroding since 2003.

By 58%-37%, a majority say the United States won't be able to establish a stable, democratic government in Iraq.

About one-third, 32%, say the United States can't win the war in Iraq. Another 21% say the United States could win the war, but they don't think it will. Just 43% predict a victory.

Still, on the question that tests fundamental attitudes toward the war — was it a mistake to send U.S. troops? — the public's view has rebounded. By 53%-46%, those surveyed say it wasn't a mistake, the strongest support for the war since just after the Iraqi elections in January.

"I think the American people understand the importance of completing the mission," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said when asked about the poll results. "Success in Iraq will help transform a dangerous region."

Seven Machos

I hope George Voinovich loses. Anyone who cries like a sissy on the Senate floor deserves to lose.

Syl

Steven J

"vast majority of these foreign fighters are not former terrorists and became radicalized by the war itself."

This is no surprise. I've said before we are not simply fighting a finite number of terrorists, we are fighting an ideology that feeds and breeds them. This only proves it. Terrorists are being created every minute of every day. Doesn't matter what 'excuse' they use. But in Iraq they are fighting a defensive war. 9/11 was an offensive one. It recruited even more. Most of the terrorists radicalized by Iraq went to fight IN Iraq. A bigger recruitment tool would be another huge attack on the West.

If they didn't have Iraq, they'd use something else. The West can do NOTHING right as far as they are concerned. We pulled our bases out of the Kingdom, did that stop them? Spain pulled out of Iraq, did that stop the terrorists from more attempts (luckily foiled)?

We cannot cower in the corner and say 'but but fighting them creates even MORE please STOP' because showing the ideology for what it is is the only way to end this scourge in the long run.

Seven Machos

Syl rules.

Tommy V

Steven J, meet Travis Bickle. Travis Bickle, meet Steven J,

Steven J.

WISON WAS CORRECT!

DUELFER REPORT
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap4.html

ISG has not found evidence to show that Iraq sought uranium from abroad after 1991 or renewed indigenous production of such material—activities that we believe would have constituted an Iraqi effort to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program.

So far, ISG has found only one offer of uranium to Baghdad since 1991—an approach Iraq appears to have turned down.

Steven J.

SYL - "If they didn't have Iraq, they'd use something else. "

An unnecessary war has made us less safe.

Steven J.

SYL-

Please recall that Iraq was SECULAR.

Tommy V

Hey, Steven J, I was wondering...

Do you think Bush lied?

Seven Machos

Iraq was secular in the sense that Saddam was a maniacal, self-absorbed thug who was not particularly religious.

Have you ever been to the Middle East, Stevie? Do you know what happens five times a day? Do you think that Saddam had strict separation between church and state? Did he not allow prayer at football games? Could Muslim girls not wear the hijab at school (when they went to school, if they weren't being raped and killed by Uday that day).

Dude, I don't think you have any inkling of how shrill and uninformed and politically naive you have made yourself look over the last several postings. You've got to do better if you want to play at this level.

Steven J.

TOMMY - "Do you think Bush lied? "

YES I DO.

Steven J.

SEVEN - "Do you think that Saddam had strict separation between church and state?"

So much so that he forbade pilgrimages to the Shia holy sites.

Steven J.

SEVEN - "Could Muslim girls not wear the hijab at school "

Yes.

RedDan

You folks have seen the latest WaPo article from Pincus, haven't you?

You know, the one where the former CIA spokesman indicates that Val Plame was, indeed and for real, undercover?

Steven J.

SPEAKING OF IGNORANCE -

We have no idea what kind of ethnic strife might appear in the future, although
as I have noted, it has not been the history of Iraq's past.
WOLFOWITZ, FEBRUARY 27, 2003
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_house_hearings&docid=f:85421.wais

Syl

Steven J:

"An unnecessary war has made us less safe."

Less safe than WHAT?!? September 10, 2001???

Tommy V

Syl,

Steven J doesn't quite know what he is saying. All he knows is that he hates Bush.

Syl

Steven J's postings consist only of assertions and pasted quotes. Some comment entries consist of outside quotes ONLY.

He doesn't have an argument, he has a database!

Syl

Tommy..true. BDS is definitely a disease.

It's funny, but I voted for Gore. I followed the post election stuff 24/7. I was devastated when the SC came down with its decision. I even cried. But 24 hours later I had accepted it and moved on.

Later when I discovered the Bush hating 'selected not elected' crowd I was appalled. These people don't understand that democracy doesn't mean getting your way all the time.

Later events proved to me that America had lucked out and Bush was in office. I've been a Bush supporter ever since and have switched to Republican. I even discovered I agree with them!

RedDan

Actually Syl, I would argue that we are, indeed, less safe than we were on Sept. 10, 2001.

RedDan

And Seven?

I have been to the Middle East, and worked there...and I work with Middle Easterners and Muslims on a regular basis.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

It's all well and good to criticize Steven for posting his database...but if you are going to hammer someone for "not having been there" I would ask, "have you been there?"

Syl

RedDan..does that mean a terrorist attack tomorrow?

We have never been, nor are we now, not in danger. Were we more in danger after we fought Japan after Pearl Harbor? Fighting back, almost by definition puts us in danger. But so does not resisting. We did not declare this war.

Steven J.

SYL - "Later events proved to me that America had lucked out and Bush was in office. "

9/11 panel: FAA had early al Qaeda warnings Phil Hirschkorn
CNN
Friday, February 11, 2005 Posted: 4:21 PM EST (2121 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/11/911.memo/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Dozens of Federal Aviation Administration memos warned of al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden in 2001, but the agency didn't order new security measures before the September 11 attacks, a newly released declassified report by the 9/11 commission says.

Steven J.

SYL - "Fighting back, almost by definition puts us in danger. "

THEY weren't in Iraq.

Steven J.

RedDan - "It's all well and good to criticize Steven for posting his database"

I don't think so. I put a lot of time in tracking down the lies and smears of this Administration.

Steven J.

SYL - "Later events proved to me that America had lucked out and Bush was in office."

"The new administration seems to be paying no attention to the problem of terrorism." BREMER, 2/26/01

''What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident and then suddenly say, 'Oh my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this,''' Bremer said at a McCormick Tribune Foundation conference on terrorism on Feb. 26, 2001.

Steven J.

SYL - "Later events proved to me that America had lucked out and Bush was in office."

Referring to the period before 9/11, Bush told Woodward, "I was not on point.."

from BUSH AT WAR

RedDan

RedDan..does that mean a terrorist attack tomorrow?

No, it means a larger population of people with more reason to engage in violent actions against us or our allies, with more areas of the world within which to gain support, get training, and more regions where smuggling, money laundering, and arms trading can go on, and more places and sources of arms and munitions that are readily available for those people inclined to use them.

Why else have the numbers and deadliness of terrorist attacks gone through the roof in the last two years?

We have never been, nor are we now, not in danger. Were we more in danger after we fought Japan after Pearl Harbor? Fighting back, almost by definition puts us in danger. But so does not resisting. We did not declare this war.

Specious argument and poor analogies.

By engaging directly with the full force of all security apparatus available to us against the clear and obvious enemy on that enemy's home turf and in the relevant theater of battle, we reduced the danger to our nation.

In the current instance, by failing to fully engage all our resources directly against the clear enemy, by failing to engage in intelligent use of our resources and information, by failing to cut off the flows of drugs, guns, money, and people, by failing to interdict enemy networks, by failing to truly strike at the heart of the enemy organization...we have increased the danger to our nation and our allies.

Steven J.

SYL - "Steven J:

"An unnecessary war has made us less safe."

Less safe than WHAT?!? September 10, 2001???

"

YES

RedDan

RedDan

But, steven, you do not do a good job of presenting those lies in context, forcefully, or in ways that address opposing arguments.

Sorry, but it's true.

Finally, have you folks seen the latest from the washington post?

Plame was covert, undercover, secret....

Steven J.

SYL - "Steven J's postings consist only of assertions and pasted quotes. Some comment entries consist of outside quotes ONLY."

I do that because you, Tommy and Seven are profoundly ignorant.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame