Powered by TypePad

« Different But Equal | Main | Feelin' Bad For Obama's Grandma »

April 28, 2008

Comments

Rocketeer

I don't think he will deny himself-and I think the more people push him to repudiate his own teachings-the more unkind the results will become.

Oh, yes. Dear Lord, yes. Precisely what I'm hoping, anyway. In other words, there is yet more Wright can do to...no, wait, for...yes, that's the word...for Obama.

Barry

December 16, 1998:

President Bill Clinton

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors ...
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

"Six weeks ago, he continued, "Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability ... The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

"Bush lied, people died." Say it over and and over until you get it. Appalled has it.

Enlightened

"Okay Appalled, let's say you're absolutely correct.
There were no WMD or WMD programs in pre-invasion Iraq. There were no terrorists, no terrorists training grounds (Salman Pak had an airplane fuselage to train flight attendants), there was absolutely no reason to invade Iraq."

I would dearly love to know why we invaded Iraq. Please say "For Oil".

I mean if I suspend reality I guess I can believe that our entire military, inlcuding the Generals, were duped into a war by the PNAC cabal and the BushCheneyRoveHitler war machine.

Jane

The more people poke at stick at him, the more riled up he is going to get.

We should order bigger sticks.

royf

Avril

If my dear departed mother had told me AIDS was invented to kill off black people, I would have told her she was delusional.

Sue

Here is an elderly Pastor who is being asked to repudiate everything he has said and taught for the years he has been in the black pulpit.

Who is asking Wright to repudiate anything? Like Farakahn, he can say anything he wants. As long as there are fools to listen to it. It is the man who is running for president that holds our interest. His foolishness in listening to this garbage for 20 years and then asking us to trust his judgment.

Barry

"He must truly BELEIVE that white men are evil and that white men are out to hurt African American citizens sale well enough to earn millions."

There, I fixed your mistake Avril.

Appalled

Rocketeer:

It's a pretty big deal to go to war with information an independent auditor has just told you is not supported by the facts he is finding on the ground. If you did that in the Securities indusry, you'd be prosecuted.

It's a big step to say a team of independent experts is not credible. Actually, it's fairly arrogant. You may have issues with Blix (he acted like it was his personal job to stop the war), but the experts were the ones leaking and reporting the problems with the US intelligence -- not Blix.

MayBee:

Our intelligene was giving the UN inspectors all sots of intelligence. And the UN inspectors were coming up with NOTHING from that intelligence. That should have caused someone to say time out -- wait a minute. Why is there a problem?

Danube:

The senate vote was in Fall 2002. The problems the inspectors were having in verifying US leads was from February 2003.

Danube of Thought

"Bush did not listen to dissenters on WMD before 2003..."

I'm still asking you to name those dissenters, Appalled. And again, we know that whoever they were, they did not dissuade a single one of the 100 sitting US Senators from the view that Saddam possessed WMD. Nor did they dissuade the intelligence services of all of our Western allies.

To be sure, there were differing opinions within the vast bureaucracy known as the "intelligence community," but precisely because of the uncertainty of all intelligence, and the very vastness of the bureaucracy, the president has to rely on the consensus view presented to him, and endorsed, by his Director of Central Intelligence. He did, and his well-reasoned judgment was to invade.

Those who disagreed with that decision, and voted not to authorize it, did not do so on the ground that they doubted Saddam's WMD capabilities. This seems to be a highly inconvenient fact for you, as you decline to address it.

Danube of Thought

"The senate vote was in Fall 2002. The problems the inspectors were having in verifying US leads was from February 2003."

So I take it that, on the basis of those February, 2003 problems, a number of Senators expressed their doubts about their votes, and went on record as seeking to withdraw them--correct? (I note that in his 2004 interview with the New York Times, in which he declared that he did not know how he would have voted had he been privy to the intelligence, Senator Obama passed up the opportunity to raise the ominous evidence of the unnamed UN inspectors.)

Appalled

Avril:

I suspect the posturing "God damn America" ranting preacher who has been apearing in the media is not the full story on Wright. But, frankly, Obama is quite mysterious about the pastor's influence on his thought, and Wright is making a public ass of himself.

Enlightened

He doesn't have to name names - just repeating the same talking point, verbatim, for five years, apparently is all the factual evidence required.

Rocketeer

Appalled, those words "independent auditor" and "independent experts?" You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

In fact, claiming the UN inspection team had any independence is the arrogant play.

TMF

Didnt Clinton vote against Kyoto?

Havent there been scientific investigations which show that Kyoto would bankrupt the US and do very little to improve environmental standards, particularly if the Chinese arent a party to it?

Oh yeah.

Appalled

DOT:

At the time the Senate vote was taken, there had been no ground surveys in Iraq for years. So all there was was guesswork. When there was actual field work that conflicted with the guesswork, that field work was disregarded.

That's not responsible decsionmaking.

royf

Even W doesn't agree with you.

 Agree with what that truck caravans were lined up leaving Iraq before the invasion? That's not true he has acknowledged those caravans, He's also said he has no proof of what was on those trucks.

I have never heard a Dem even admit that those events took place, are you telling me different? And while he has stated there were no large stockpile of WMDs after the invasion he has stated many times that Saddam continued to have the desire and the capabilities to produce Bio/Chem weapons.

Which after all is the Administrations official position via "The Iraq Study Group" report. Which also by the way also acknowledges that materials were trucked out of Iraq pre invasion.

As far as General Sada goes I have never heard President Bush comment one way or the other. .


 

Sue

That's not responsible decsionmaking.

Aren't those the last words spoken by Saddam?

TMF

Ah the idiotic canard of leftism:

Important decisions should only be made based on either 100% certainty, or extensive focus group poll testing

Danube of Thought

"When there was actual field work that conflicted with the guesswork, that field work was disregarded."

It was disregarded by 100 Senators, plus Senator-to-be Barack Obama. What you seem fearful of confronting is the inescapable fact that not a single voice was heard in the US Congress expressing doubt about Saddam's WMD, either before or after those unnamed inspectors were cited in the news. Doubts about whether, in light of those WMD, an invasion was warranted, yes; doubts about their existence, no. And you cannot retroactively create such doubts in the minds of any of them by citing us to a CBS News report of anonymous UN inspectors claiming that they had been unable to confirm four leads, none of which related to either chemical or biological weapons.

Patrick R. Sullivan
...Saddam's anthrax came from a mail-order bio supply house in Iowa.

Sorry, I should have made it clear that Wright claimed that the weapons Saddam 'used on his own people' came from America.

MikeS

If we pretend that the only reason to use military force in Iraq was to secure stockpiles of WMDs, and then if we also pretend that the President is obligated to put more faith in Hans Blix than he puts into the NIE, in that case there is a question about whether the President made the right decision about when to attack Iraq.

The problem is that those two preconditions are fantasies.

royf

Appalled

Also from above you will note that I said "large" stockpiles because there were many chemical and Bio type munitions found in Iraq including bombs, artillery shell, mortars and rockets plus many raw chemical stockpiles. Enough to kill tens of thousands of people, which is another fact that is conveniently ignored by the Dems.

Enlightened

Hmmm, maybe Appalled is of the Scott Ritter School of - To WMD or not to WMD -

Since he was also for it, before he was against it, without any proof that a 5-10% portion of Saddam's WMD was ever fully accounted for.

So I guess GWB should have just admitted that 5-10% of Saddams WMB were missing, and let Congress decide how to proceed.

ben


Appalled is typical of Obamabot mentality..unhindered by logic. Here John Kerry, who was for military action before he was against it.

Kerry Said “If You Don’t Believe In The U.N. ... Or You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)

Kerry Said Leaving Saddam Hussein “Unfettered With Nuclear Weapons Or Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Unacceptable.” (Jill Lawrence, “War Issue Challenges Democratic Candidates,” USA Today, 2/12/03)

Kerry Defended Vote In Support Of Use Of Force In Iraq.” “I think Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that’s why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him.(NPR, All Things considered, 3/19/03)

The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)

Kerry Said Saddam’s Arsenal Of WMD Is Cause Of War. “As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10173)

Kerry Wished For Resolution More Focused On The Removal Of Iraq’s WMD. “The President said: Saddam Hussein must disarm himself, or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. This statement left no doubt that the casus belli for the United States will be Iraq’s failure to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction. I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10173)


Richard of Oregon

Don't confuse the story with the facts. Rev. Wright was making a point, not explaining the facts. Importent difference.

MikeS

Reverend Wright was lying, not telling the truth. Important difference!

Sue

Don't confuse the story with the facts.

I have a friend like that. Never confuses facts with the story. Ruins it if he does. The story, that is.

boris

With hindsight Appalled can find "experts" that turned out to be correct (according to MSM anyway).

Of course identifying the expert who is going to turn out to be correct in the end is the tricky part.

At the ACME weather station at least one of our staff is always right. Stew always predicts rain, Sue always predicts sunshine, Calvin always predicts snow, Bill always predicts warm and Mary always predicts cold.

!00 percent accuracy no matter what happens!

TallDave

I do not believe that when our current administration talks, anyone bothers to listen. That's a direct consequence of Iraq, folks.

Oh, I think Saddam Hussein heard us loud and clear, right up until his neck broke. And Qaddafi heard the message too.

Patrick R. Sullivan

I'll give Wright one thing; he knows his audience. Michael Medved opened his show today asking people who believed that Wright was correct to say it isn't an attack on him, but on the 'Black Church'.

No shortage of people who bought into it.

Mister Snitch

Just to get back on the topic of Wright for a sec:

The center-right seems to think Wright went off on a PR spree on his own, and that this infuriates Obama. I highly doubt this. First of all, Wright isn't just talking to Moyers - he's doing this schtick all over the place. Wright doesn't have the access to a guy like Moyers, first of all, and second, he doesn't have the ability to co-ordinate such a whirlwind tour. No, Obama's people, or maybe just Obama, has/have decided that Wright can be 'rehabilitated' in the public eye. Moreover, they have decided that he HAS to be, because he WILL NOT SHUT UP, and therefore, he will not go away.

Rather than have him out there freelancing (i.e., a loose cannon, which he clearly was for a while), Obama's folks have cut him a deal. Let us handle you, they're saying, and we'll open all KINDS of doors that would otherwise be shut. Wright sees himself becoming an Important Person, an Al Sharpton but with real connections and an aura of respectability. So he jumps at it, and next thing you know he's in a highly-tailored interview with Bill Moyers and the like.

Danube of Thought

Al Qaeda listens. The Taliban listen. That's pretty much all I care about, but it's worth noting that the nations of Eastern Europe and Asia, not to mention India, listen and listen well. And Africa listens above all.

Barry

Appalled:

And, if you would be so kind, explain how all those leading Democrats thought Saddam had WMD (and voted to authorize the Iraq war), and why the Clintons policy towards Iraq was Regime Change.

Any answer?

Enlightened

I wonder how many "listeners" think Saddam had no WMD? Ya think they snickered over their mint tea when they read "What I didn't find in Niger"?

PeterUK

Saddam Hussein had a track record of skulduggery and the use of WMD.The Iraq Supergun Project Babylon was totally unsuitable for conventional warheads.It was built in secret.Hussein gassed the Kurds,hid part of his air force in Iran Gulf War I,Some were buried in the desert.Importantly Hussein had the Oil for Food money,he could afford to rebuild WMD.
Lastly Hussein was required to demonstrate that his regime had eschewed WMD and forgone warlike intentions.Hans Blick stated that Hussein had not demonstrated good will.

JM Hanes

Appalled:

"....based on the results the UN inspectors were bringing back..."

Now there's a laugh. U.S. intel may have sucked, but these are the folks who were giving Saddam a clean bill of health when the Israelis bombed Osirak, who completely missed nuclear activity in North Korea, who completely missed nuclear activity in Iran....

The tradition continues: El Baradei is apparently incensed that nobody clued him in on Syria.

"But I think the chances are better with a new administraton, smply because there will be more respect for a leader who is not shoot first, get proper intelligence later George."

You really need to ponder the implications of narciso's post. Where the Chinese are concerned, diplomacy is how you keep your competitors busy on the one hand while you continue to do whatever you like with the other.


Maybee:

"The trick of being POTUS is deciding what to do after the More Diplomacy! doesn't work? I contend that what is happening in the Sudan right now is exactly what Bush, Obama, Clinton, Gordon Brown, and the UN are willing to let happen after diplomacy fails/ed."

Yes! The Obama policy shop declares that:

The international community must reject these obstructionist tactics, insist that diplomatic breakthroughs and paper agreements are followed up with real action, and hold the regime in Khartoum accountable for its actions."
All of which is apparently to be accomplished with no real action on our parts but with....diplomacy! We used to call that circular logic, but now it's a position.


Enlightened

Well, IIRC, they all were for it - except for the Messiah - before the Niger Follies.
So Appalled could be getting his facts from that cabal of Intelligence Experts.

Bill Arnold

Enlightened:
I would dearly love to know why we invaded Iraq. Please say "For Oil".
I still cannot to this day explain to my own satisfaction why we invaded Iraq.
But since you asked, "We fought a war for expensive oil, and 'we' won.".
Feel better now? :-)

JM Hanes

narciso:

I've only just realized how long I've been mispelling your moniker. I believe you actually corrected me once, but I somehow missed the difference you were pointing out. Sorry!

Billy Hill

What would an Obama White house look like? Would he plow up the front lawn and plant watermelons? Would he let his poor family members work on their early 70’s Cadillac El Dorado’s in the back yard. If so how many “parts cars” would be allowed? In the summer would he allow the main porch above the entrance to look like any porch in Oakland in the same season? Would crack be on the menu? How many of his cabinet would be black? EVERYONE is racist at some level. An Obama presidency could cause the deaths of millions here and around the world. Is it really worth it?

Barry

Feb. 20, 2003 - Appalled's CBS UN Report Date

July 2003 interview with Larry King, Bill Clinton: “it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there [was]…a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for”

June 18, 2004 -Late last week, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) briefed the Security Council on Saddam's lightning-fast dismantling of missile and WMD sites before and during the war. UNMOVIC executive chairman Demetrius Perricos detailed not only the export of thousands of tons of missile components, nuclear reactor vessels and fermenters for chemical and biological warheads, but also the discovery of many (but not most) of these items - with UN inspection tags still on them -- as far afield as Jordan, Turkey and even Holland.

Enlightened

Bill Arnold - My questions was sarcastically aimed at Apalled. I'm know why we invaded.

PeterUK

Sorry Blix,went all South African for a moment.

sbw

for expensive oil

If it had been for oil, we would have taken the oil. We didn't. The Iraqis can sell oil to whomever they want for as much as they want, if they want to sell it at all.

No, it was for the security where oil -- and whatever else, for that matter -- can be sold. If you think society worth so little that it doesn't matter what happens anywhere else, ask for your tuition back.

Sue

Mister Snitch,

Are you kidding? Bill Moyers would have sold his soul to get that interview.

MikeS

I wonder how many "listeners" think Saddam had no WMD?

Rolf Ekeus (Blix's predecessor) wrote a great article before the war about what he thought Saddam would do with his WMDs.

He said that things like mustard gas were bulky, hard to maintain, and less valuable, so Saddam would probably just pour them out into the dessert. Sarin and other agents with a short shelf life were not worth keeping either. Ricin, anthrax, and botulin were the gems. Ekeus thought those would be dispersed in small quantities.

Interestingly two Iraqis did come forward with WMD materiels buried in their yards. One guy had live botulinum and the other guy had a centrifuge. There was a small squadron of aircraft found buried in the desert. I understand that they weren't WMDs, but it does reveal an intent to bury weapons for later use.

Danube of Thought

And in any event, since oil is vital for heating our homeless shelters and abortion clinics, it's well worth going to war for if need be.

But if in fact you go to war for oil, you appropriate it--you don't let the host country sell it on the world market and keep the revenues.

Enlightened

"Bill Moyers would have sold his soul" After that interview I'm convinced Moyers is completely lacking any soul. Nor does Wright. It was a very chilling eye into leftwing nutballism, albeit heartwrendingly empathetic. ;}

Danube of Thought

Let's face it, Barry, the poor guys at UNMOVIC simply hadn't received the reports from the intrepid, anonymous UN inspectors cited in the CBS News report.

Besides, don't bother Appalled--I believe he is feeling somewhat ill at this point.

Appalled

Enlightened:

I believe we invaded Iraq because we believed the Middle East needed shaking up and an influx of Democracy, so that the angry young men would be soaking up US culture, rather than Jihadi propaganda.

It wasn't about the oil. It was about perfecting Mideastern mankind so that they would stop bothering us.

Mister Snitch

"Are you kidding? Bill Moyers would have sold his soul to get that interview."

Oh no, Sue. Very much the other way around - especially the fawning way it was handled. The only reason it happened was because it ingratiates Moyers further with Obama's people. They owe him one now, and that's how 'journalism' at that level is played. It has nothing to do with news, and everything to do with inside politics.

After that interview I'm convinced Moyers is completely lacking any soul. Nor does Wright. It was a very chilling eye into leftwing nutballism, albeit heartwrendingly empathetic.

Chilling indeed.

Appalled

DOT:

Ill? No. Busy with other things? Yes. Unfortunate, as JM Hanes, in particular, deserves an answer. Maybe late tonight.

Mister Snitch

"It was about perfecting Mideastern mankind so that they would stop bothering us."

The destruction of the WTC and the attempts elsewhere on 9/11 was "bothering us"? Constant threats against free speech, the open teachings of hate, bombing of churches, schools, subways and innocents is "bothering us"? What, like a hair in your soup?

PeterUK

In times of war even large artifacts can disappear without trace.One such was the
Amber Room
looted by the Nazis from Russia.
If something as famous and as large as this can vanish without trace,what price nondescript bits of machinery or laboratory equipment?

PaulL

Dick Morris said in 2003, after the invasion of Iraq, that if WMD aren't found, Pres. Bush wouldn't get re-elected.

Pres. Bush was re-elected.

Thus, WMD must have been found.

MikeS

...we believed the Middle East needed shaking up...

I believed that there was a high likelihood that terrorists would get their hands on WMD, and that the country most likely to allow that was Iraq. I believed that Saddam's support for terrorism was a catalyst for more terrorism. I believed that the people of Iraq were being brutalized and murdered and raped.

Enlightened

"perfecting Mideastern mankind"?????

3000 humans on American soil and an additional 4000 US troops would dearly love to have not been mortally bothered by Muslims getting their freak on trying to perfect Western mankind.

Your talking points are swinging way out there in leftard Sheehan/PNAC land after that gem.

Denny, Alaska

I'm sure Sen. Obama (D-Steve Urkel) will produce a sharply worded statement condemning the good Rev. Wright's erroneous statement.

qrstuv

See, Appalled kinda gets it, unlike the typical troll.

He just doesn't think that it's *worth* it to put any pressure on Islam via enabling the Iraqis to form a representative government, in direct contradition of the teachings of Islam, as understood by the hirabis.

So I would guess that Appalled either thinks that the attacks here and there on civilization by the hirabis are within acceptable limits

and/or

the peaceful majority of Muslims will somehow be able to wrest Islam from the hirabis and destroy their theology, without any help from the outside world -- despite 1400 years of evidence to the contrary.

Gmax

Anybody here understand the function of the National Press Club? Why were a room full of non journalist on hand for this speech? One report I have seen, said the Press was relegated to the balcony seating only? WTF in their own club?

What does this organization do except give racist a forum to rant to standing ovations about putting the boot to the Honkeys. If I were a member of a club which let such a spectacle go on, I would be in the face of a bunch of folks day after. Doubt the press will be so moved.

Mike S

Regarding Senator Obama's position on the Sudan, it ends with, "and hold the regime in Khartoum accountable for its actions."
_______________

How are the Western powers supposed to do that? Did they rebuild that pill factory, yet? Maybe we can bomb it, again.

Enlightened

http://npc.press.org/about/ethics.cfm

Well that pretty much tells us how Rev Wright came to be at the NPC.

;}

MayBee

Appalled:

"....based on the results the UN inspectors were bringing back..."

Now there's a laugh. U.S. intel may have sucked, but these are the folks who were giving Saddam a clean bill of health when the Israelis bombed Osirak, who completely missed nuclear activity in North Korea, who completely missed nuclear activity in Iran....

So true.
And Appalled, what I was saying is even if we would have gotten a 'clean bill of health' from the UN for Iraq, we wouldn't have trusted it. He, however (and France and Russia and China), would have used it to remove sanctions and break down the no-fly zones.
Then we would have been stuck with an un-boxed in Saddam. We couldn't have that.

Great Banana

Appalled - "the U.S. Should have listend to the U.N. weapons inspectors, not their own intelligence"

Everyone else - but the U.N. is absolutely corrupt, not to mention that it has its own members' agendas, so any info we get from them is not very credible. Moreover, all information points to the fact that Saddam a) wanted the world to believe he had WMDs and b) information points out that he had the ability to ramp up a wmd program very fast if he wanted.

However, appalled wants us to put the alleged U.N. "intelligence" over the U.S.'s own intelligence - which, as all of the quotes from the previous decade showed, resulted in bi-partisan consensus that Iraq had wmds.

that none were found is unfortunate.

How any of that somehow shows that Obama has the character, wisdom, knowledge, or even philosophy to be even an average president is missing. How it establishes that Obama's many strange relationships with america hating racists such as Wright and/or Ayers is lacking. How it demonstrates that Obama will be able to keep america secure is unspoken. but, if you want - you can find written policy statements on his website. Don't raise any other questions about him - he has written policy statements.

Appalled - I'm pretty sure that the hated President George W. Bush had written policy statements available during the 2000 election. thus, by your own meager minimum standard for becoming president, W was clearly the best pick.

Cecil Turner

that none were found is unfortunate.

Also inaccurate. "Not many" would be more precise.

pagar

" but, if you want - you can find written policy statements on his website"

One can find written policy statements on the Communist Party's website

"
The clearest expression of this developing movement pivots around the candidacy of Barack Obama, whose inspirational message and politics have captured the imagination of millions. So much so that many commentators and politicians use the words “transformational” or “transforming” to describe his candidacy — that is, a candidacy capable of assembling a broad people’s majority to reconfigure the terms and terrain of politics in this country in a fundamental way. "

Since Obama's appear to come from the CPUSA, one could get a better idea of the changes that are planned by skipping Obama's site and going directly to the source.

GnuCarSmell

"My pastor, Wright or wrong" is now looking like a irreversible blunder for Obama. He's gotta be thinking "Why didn't I disown this doofus when I had the chance?" This was not the judgement of a particularly bright fellow -- but then, going to Wright's "church" in the first place was a mistake.

boris

The idea that democracy in Iraq is some kind of pipe dream for neocons perfecting humanity:

In this passage of War and Decision, Feith explains the connection between self-defense and democracy-promotion as it actually came up in the administration's internal deliberations. Like so much else in this book, it shows that the reality of how the administration made its decisions was more complicated than the myth—and much more interesting:"The self-styled "realists" have a theory that U.S. interests are unaffected by whether other countries in the world have totalitarian governments and hostile philosophies. That theory is hard to square with recent history. When communist ideology collapsed in the Soviet empire in the late 1980s, almost all the Warsaw Pact states shed that ideology—and instantly ceased to be enemies of the United States.
Looks more like that calculation was based on fairly direct observation.

MayBee

Anyway, Appalled.
I really like the way you kept saying you want to talk about Obama policy proposals, but then given the chance you didn't really want to talk about them.

Bill Arnold

Cecil:
Also inaccurate. "Not many" would be more precise.
I haven't looked at that report in a while, thanks for the link. Are you referring to this?:
A very limited number of cases involved the discovery of old chemical munitions produced before 1990.
If so, this is pretty thin. Old chemical battlefield weapons are dangerous but are not in the same league as nuclear or biological weapons.

The US domestic definition is flat ridiculous, tailor made for prosecutors, e.g. the " Destructive device" definition from USC 5845 includes "missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce"

Danube of Thought

So Appalled believes we invaded Iraq because "we believed the Middle East needed shaking up and an influx of Democracy, so that the angry young men would be soaking up US culture, rather than Jihadi propaganda."

Maybe so, but the Congress of the United States somehow omitted to include that as one of the many reasons it cited for authorizing the war. Instead, those silly people referred to the following:

--Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.

--Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."

--Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."

--Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".

--Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

--Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."

--Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.

--The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.

--The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.

--Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

Perhaps the final rationale--Bill Clinton's Iraq Liberation Act--was really part of a secret plan to have the Iraqi youth soak up US culture.

But who knows? Appalled seems to have a special gift for mind-reading from a morally superior vantage point, whereas the rest of us are reduced to guessing at the congressional motives.

Jane

I decided to watch Hardball tonite to see the suffering. My goodness - did you know that Obama and Wright have really nothing at all to connect them and the smart people in the country know that. They also know that the day BO takes office, the entire world will once again look upon us as the leader of the entire world, because he has traveled the world. Oh and it is really really really really unfair to try and connect Obama with his distant pastor, only the dumb or the republicans would even imagine that.

Jane

Oh and one more thing - in a panel of reporters, Matthews was the most rational.

Sue

Jane,

I think I just heard O'Reilly say it isn't about Obama anymore. If it isn't about Obama, then why is he discussing it? The only reason anyone noticed Wright was because of Obama.

clarice

Being ill-informed is one way to assure one is always appalled, isn't it?

And now one of the reasons I heart jmh--posts like this one:
"All of which is apparently to be accomplished with no real action on our parts but with....diplomacy! We used to call that circular logic, but now it's a position."


Great Banana

Look,

Obama is going to use the same diplomacy he used for 20 years in getting the right honorable reverand Wright to not hate and not preach hate about whitey and america.

clearly, based on his experience with Wright, he has the experience to handle Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, etc., etc.

Unlike the current administration, he is going to get things done. If they don't do what we want them to do - Obama will explain to them the hopey changey and how it works. And, he may read them some of his policy papers - likely the first time he himself will have read them.

Sue

I'm confused. I keep hearing from various pundits that "clearly Obama doesn't share Wright's views". How the hell do they know that? How come it is so clear to them and still murky to me?

Cecil Turner

If so, this is pretty thin. Old chemical battlefield weapons are dangerous but are not in the same league as nuclear or biological weapons.

Not thin at all. (We put our hands on 'em; that's as solid as it gets.) Just wasn't quite what was expected. And the vast majority of the "stockpiles" the intel weenies thought were there were "old chemical battlefield weapons" (in fact, the way they arrived at the brilliant numbers in the analysis was to take all Saddam's admissions about old stocks and subtract the amount proven destroyed . . . and then add in about a third for ongoing production). The fact that the vast majority would be useless was apparently beyond the scope of the analysis. And nobody claimed he had functioning nukes. We were pretty sure he was still a couple of years out.

The problem was always BW--the only real threat to the US--a lab for which could be hidden in a small building (like, for instance, those several labs discovered by Duelfer run by IIS)--or perhaps even at the bottom of a pond (kidding). We still have little to no idea what the exact state of the Iraqi programs were, as Duelfer admits. (I doubt they were sent across the border to Syria, but that's hardly inconceivable.) But as that stuff in general has a shelf life even shorter than the chem weapons, it has to be whipped up as needed.

"WMDs" is not a particularly useful term for this discussion. When discussing a threat to the US, we're not talking about bombs, but BW agent (and grams or kilos of the stuff, not tons). But if folks are going to insist on "WMDs" as the metric, then "no WMDs" is false.

Jane

Oh yeah one last thing. Matthews was outraged that Bush went to the correspondent's dinner - because after all these people who applauded his were the same people who were supposed to expose him in the media.

Has the man looked in the mirror lately?

Danube of Thought

Did Matthews drool? I literally have not watched one second of his program in five years.

Sue

Jane,

I thought it was a tradition for the president to attend.

windansea

It will help you to understand why your fellow voters will likely not feel the way you do this year.

you guys have thwacked appalled sufficiently on all but this quote, so allow me to do the honors

that giant sucking sound you hear is rational voters and super delegates running like crazy away from Obama and Wright

Obama is toast, at this point he'd be lucky to win 6 or 7 states, he is dropping like a fly in Indiana and even NC, he may get the VP nod from Hillary but I doubt it

Sue

I heard Wright say today that the US had still not apologized to Japan. Did I miss Japan's apology to the US for starting the war to begin with?

MayBee

I don't think Japan is asking for our apology. I think our relationship with Japan in regard to WWII has reached a nice balance. They'd accept our apology, but they really really really do not want to rhetorically fight that war all over again.

Jane

I thought it was a tradition for the president to attend.

It's absolutely a tradition which is why it was so ludicrous. He had on a "reporter" who was screeching that Obama had nothing at all in common with Wright, his beliefs were utterly separate and Matthews attacks the press for clapping for the President. It was amazing.

DOT, he was completely covered in drool. There was a pool beneath his chair. I admit to not watching him for about 5 years either, but I wanted to check in since I knew he would be suffering.

I just heard General Allard quit NBC because it's too liberal. Tee Hee

fdcol63

Did I miss Japan's apology to the US for starting the war to begin with?

Sue, you know that Wright would then STILL blame the US, saying that we had forced Japan to attack us because our colonial outposts in Hawaii and the Philippines threatened their activities in the Pacific and because evil US policies had deprived Japan of resources like oil and steel in whitey's attempt to keep the yellow man enslaved and oppressed.

For Wright and his ilk, it's always our fault.

Sue

For Wright and his ilk, it's always our fault.

Actually, for Wright and his ilk, it is always the bottom line. When they talk change they mean the cha-ching kind.

Ann

Jane, LOL

I watched Hardball tonight for the same reason. I love to see Chrissy in pain. He seemed outraged that the President conducted the United States Marine Corps Band, known as http://www.marines.com/page/usmc.jsp?pageId=/page/Detail-XML-Conversion.jsp?pageName=Presidents-Own&flashRedirect=true ">The President's Own at a White House Correspondents' Dinner where the President and Correspondents attended, laughed and had a good time. Sheesh.

I don't think he got the joke.

Ann

Oh, by the way, Jane, I loved your Brokeback Mountain comment on my fag (flag) typo.

Who knew Ann could surpass Clarice at anything? ;)

Jane

Ann,

Gawd I would love to take credit, but I don't think it was me, simply because I remember laughing at the same comment. It was someone droll.

Barry

Coming home and listening to the news does convince me of one thing, Hillary is paying rev wright.

MarkO

Those who oppose the use of overwhelming force today seem to think that their view should have obtained throughout history. Thus, the sighing over the Atomic Bomb. If my son is in harm’s way, I want the USA to use all overwhelming force. I would not want one American child to be lost in any effort to be politically correct.

By the way, why is it that some narcissistic politicians believe that mass murderers would throw down their weapons and sue for peace if only those politicians could meet with them? They likely believe they could talk my horse out of kicking them. When I try to reason with my horse, it bites me.

You can’t be a snake handler if you forget they are snakes.

Ann

Via Instapundit:

"What the Clintons did for feminism, could Obama do for race relations?"

narciso

Well Karl Rove certainly is; why else would he go on a jag, reminiscent of William Ginsberg's notorious 5 station stop; or more
properly Glenn Close's Alex from " Fatal Attraction": " I will not be ignored" Speaking of irrelevant Matthews commentary as a rejoinder to Wright's logorrhea, he brought up Democratic jibes against Falwell
& Robertson, and managed to work in the FDLS
antics as a reason not to vote for Romney

Sue

You can’t be a snake handler if you forget they are snakes.

Interesting factoid. The preacher that first brought snake handling to the Appalachians died of a snake bite. Guess he forgot they are snakes.

Ann

Posted by: Jane | April 27, 2008 at 07:05 AM

You were right Jane, it was Jane Doe Droll. LOL :)

Danube of Thought

I honestly believe that Reverend Wright was sent to us as a gift from God, or at the very least from the Angel Gabriel. This is the most magnificent cartoon I have watched in a lifetime as a political junkie.

I watched Hannity & Colmes again tonight, and the increasing contortions poor Colmes is forced to attempt would be painful to see if I didn't loathe that strange, cadaverous fellow so much.

MarkO

Jane, the snake did not forget...

Nor will one find a spot-changing leopard (or even camelopard) in its natural habitat.

If I am elected, however, I will go to the natural habitat and reform the animals. We can no longer act unilaterally with regard to zebras who are half pentatonic.

Ann

OT, but maybe this is why we are really bitter and are looking for a change:

Clinton: $2.3B in earmarks

Pofarmer

I'm confused. I keep hearing from various pundits that "clearly Obama doesn't share Wright's views". How the hell do they know that? How come it is so clear to them and still murky to me?

I've kinda been wondering that myself.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame