The moral relativism idiocy is alive and well in our MSM. Take a look at this doozy:
In the few seconds it took Iraqi journalist Muntather Zaidi to wing a pair of shoes at President George Bush, the Middle East got its own version of Joe the Plumber.
Just as Joe Wurzelbacher’s gripes to Barack Obama during the U.S. presidential election catapulted him to fame, Zaidi’s burst of rage toward Bush during a Baghdad news conference Sunday has made him a household name across the Middle East.
To many, Zaidi is a hero for engaging in the ultimate Arab world insult — hurling his shoes — at Bush, who ducked to avoid being slammed in the head. To others, Zaidi is an embarrassment for a society that prides itself on being hospitable to guests, even those who are not much liked. Whichever way his act is viewed, there’s no question that Zaidi, like Wurzelbacher, is no longer just another Joe.
Comparing a man who dared to ask Obama a simple question while he was running for President with someone who physically assaulted a sitting President is just plain, well…how do I say it? Retarded. With a capitol R.
Yeah, no doubt about it…the man became famous for throwing those shoes and the same people who cheered as the towers came crumbling down are the same people cheering for him. Did the left in this country cheer when those towers came down? For the majority, no, they did not. But they will stand in solidarity with a man who assaulted a President because they don’t agree with the man.
I couldn’t put it any better then Kerry Picket:
This may be shocking to Susman, but only liberals physically attack those who do not agree with them. Newsweek celebrated the physical assaults on those like Ann Coulter, Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, and David Horowitz. Thomas Friedman recently joined this club.
It is not just prominent conservatives, though, who have been physically attacked by lefties. Just ask any celebrity in Hollywood who dared to wear fur one evening and had red paint hurled on them by a PETA activist.
Maybe Susman had a revelation for a moment that only Che-Guevara worshiping individuals throw shoes, pies, and paint at other people they do not like. Why should it matter? As far as Susman is concerned, asking Obama a challenging question is the same as assault.
The lack of character on display by our left is simple breathtaking.
See author page
Um…it doesn’t say anything other than the fact that both acts made their perpetrators famous. That’s hardly a moral equivalence.
Just shows what sub-human garbage some members of the MSM are. In their eyes ANY attack on a Republican (or those that they don’t agree with) is justified.
also, Joe the Plumber has not been beaten and tortured in custody
mynameis
Perhaps you could be a little clearer. Who beat and tortured this guy? If you say the Iraqis then we cannot tell them what to do or not do. Face it. Middle-eastern people do not stick at these things like we do. Where is your proof that he was tortured and/or beaten anyway?
Barbara, he has none. Just the claim of his brother that he has broken bones.
Just wait until someone chucks a pair of loafers at The One. Never happen? Why not? He’s gonna keep US troops in Iraq for another 2yrs min. Anyone think that won’t make an Arab reporter wanna wing a wingtip?
Exactly Scott. The left and MSM (redundant?) will scream bloody murder and DEMAND the harshest penalty possible–especially if he’s a Republican. Then they will go after the perpetrator on a personal level–harrassing him at home or any family he has, harrassing him at work, etc.
Yeah – I saw this crap yesterday and had to laugh at it’s despirate stupidity. The journalist that wrote that piece clearly failed their SATs:
The Irony of Freedom
See the image at the post bottom.
WTC, it is the LA Times. They are to journalism what Stalin was to freedom and human rights.
So does this make it OK for us to throw shoes at Obama also, and get praised for it???
Since Zeidi is a Saddam-supporter, he should approve of Saddam-style methods–if anyone had thrown shoes at Saddam, he would be tortured and killed. Thus is Zeidi gets roughed up a bit for resisting arrest, it’s just too bad. He never protested when Saddam tortured and killed hundreds and thousands of other iraqis, so why should he and his fellow saddamites protest at zeidi’s treatment???
They are just playing the modern media victim-blame game that is used in modern societies.
From a new Pew poll: “just 11% said Bush will be remembered as an outstanding or above average president,” … “by far the lowest positive end-of-term rating for any of the past four presidents.” …”64% [said the Bush Administration] will be remembered more for its failures than its accomplishments.”
The top word used in the poll by respondents for Bush was “incompetent“, next was “idiot”, then ignorant, honorable, selfish, stupid, ass, … no one used the word “christian” or “excellent”.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1063/bush-and-public-opinion
Perhaps the MSM is just reflecting public thought.
Simply Done,
Just goes to prove you how many Americans are completly ignorant. But we already knew this, right? Obama won.
@simply done: If people were polled at the time Truman left office with low approval ratings, do you think the same folk who gave him low marks would predict that he’d be consistently ranked in most lists of top 10 presidents, a couple of decades later?
It’s a meaningless poll, other than highlighting people’s lack of objective foresight. I mean, this says it all:
God bless President Bush. A decent man, and a great to near-great president.
The story is both elightening…and sickening. I’m not sure we’ll be able to undue the damage they inflict anytime soon, if ever. Look at the mess we still have thanks to Carter.
Craig, I predict Larry will either poo poo the source and not read the article, or dismiss it entirely in some other way.
Refute his arguements all you want, you CANNOT force him to face reality. In fact, considering his long history of denial, I’m guessing he will retreat further into it. Larry has obvious dem leanings and he sees them in a positive way regardless of the facts. I mean he actually believes clinton goverened from the center, was responsible for the good economy, and was a “deficit hawk”. Even though there is absolute proof to the contrary, he truly believes otherwise.
He’s doesn’t strike me as a bad person, just lost in his fantasy of hope.
Now this is hilarious, simply… frankly most of these responders – hang, the nation at large – can’t accurately remember a political event from the previous week.
The only people who will shape how Bush will be “remembered” by the common folk who participate in this worthless polls is historians for the annals. And they are not without their bias, as they will gauge any POTUS legacy thru the eyes of the media headlines.
Rather absurd, when you think of it… both the polls, and placing history in the hands of so few.
My impression around here is that Bush is regarded with respect, a US president with balls. They may hate him for sending the US military to war and so on, but that hatred is tinged with fear and respect even if they don’t admit it. He has made his mark on history, and it will be a bigger mark that either Obama or Clinton. Just being black isn’t enough to make you a noted
president.
Just imagine on Obama’s tombstone: “He was the first black president. Apart from that, he did not do much, and what little he did, was bad.”
As to whether Bush is stupid, quite frankly, the arrogant people around here think that all US presidents are stupid. We were polite to Clinton, but everyone knows that his brains are in his scrotum.
Bush doesn’t speak well, but he is no dumbo.
Whereas Obama speaks smoothly, but has the cunning of a crooked used car salesman.
People who think that Bush is incompetant or stupid are probably that way themselves. Outside america, Bush is respected and feared(as well as hated and despised). This is his greatest tribute. Whereas with Clinton and probably Obama, I can tell u, we will not take them too seriously, even tho we say nice things abt them.
My personal opinion is that BUSH SHOULD RECEIVE THE NOBEL PRIZE FOR PEACE, for conducting such a humane war in iraq and afghanistan(and also succeeding in building a modern democracy in iraq)). Compared to vietnam, iraq and afghanistan was like afternoon tea with the flopsy bunnies.
Though he had his flaws, he is the best POTUS america has had since Reagan, for sure.
Sigmund;
The “Bush Is Stupid Hoax” was something investigated by Snopes, amongst others. Part of it is based on his poor public speaking skills, which has nothing to do with someone’s intelligence, just as some tried to point towards Palin’s accent as justifiable for labelling her as stupid. Part of it is also based on internet myth pointing to a fictitious study by the equally fictitious Lovenstein Institute. I found a lot of sites that present the LI report as gospel, but what is the truth? No president other than Carter ever released their actual scores, so it is difficult to nail down precisely. Here is the fictitious LI report side-to side with the Snopes piece and other estimates made by scientist who have studied the product of their work or other tests in an effort to approach the question seriously:
http://lovenstein.org/report/
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.asp
http://www-cse.ucsd.edu/users/gary/iq.html
http://lists.paleopsych.org/pipermail/paleopsych/2006-July/005518.html
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_chris_bo_070530_presidential_iq.htm
Bush to Kerry Comparison:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/041028_iq.htm
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm
Here’s an interesting link to other famous individuals and their believed IQ’s (although if you read this study further it also hints of some bias and also considers the fake Lovenstein Institute “report”.):
http://archure.net/psychology/IQs.html
Where does Obama fit in? Since he refuses to release his records for review, in which the educational institution has sought to assist him in concealing it isn’t that easy to track down. The Sept. 2008 issue of Psychology today reported Obama’s IQ as 138 and Biden’s IQ as 147. They did not have list McCain or Palin’s IQ’s.
First let’s look at the supporter spin version of historian Michael Beschloss who claimed in an Imus in the morning interview that Obama is “off the charts”, yet failed to provide anything in support of that claim.
Obama Is Our Smartest President?
Kids IQ comparison:
http://www.kids-iq-tests.com/r-prez.html
http://www.kids-iq-tests.com/d-prez.html
http://www.kids-iq-tests.com/2008-prez.html
Time reports McCain’s 1984 test came out as 133:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,992860,00.html
Trying to track down SAT & LSAT scores is similarly difficult. Obama also refused to release that information. Pre-1996, Harvard requires an LSAT of 170 or an SAT score of 1290, which approximately equates to an IQ score of 130, however, it also adheres to affirmative action, as noted in the following, which would lower the absolute minimum SAT score for Obama to have been accepted at down to 1104, which would equate to an IQ of 116. Both are above average, but hardly spectacular.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/09/barack-obamas-iq-is-116_18.html
You also might find this interesting concerning a forgery from a liberal source intended to be Sarah Palin’s SAT scores, uncovered as a fake and proven false:
http://scholasticadministrator.typepad.com/thisweekineducation/2008/10/sat-scores-for.html
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/11/71941/717
http://dawneden.blogspot.com/2008/10/nutroots-use-my-sat-scoresheet-to-forge.html
Dawn Patrol notes the Daily Kos ran this fictitious document presenting it as real and further impugning their reputation. (Sound familiar to another document they ran with?) If you click on none of the other links, the last one is worth the price of admission.
The KOSlims aren’t the sharpest knife in the drawer. Here’s some satire they thought was real.
Poll: 37% of Americans Unable to Locate America on a Map
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/195501.php
As for Bush being stupid, that’s just an example of “liberal tolerance” and elitism. They always label Reps stupid and dems as very intelligent.
Proof? Look to the left’s claims. Reagan was stupid, Bush Sr. stupid, W. stupid. Carter, very intelligent… at first, kerry, gore, obama…
Bush as Truman?
The Cold War had to be fought. The Truman Doctrine understood the US had no choice but to respond to Soviet aggression.
By contrast Bush had choices regarding the war on terror, yet the Bush Doctrine was pre-emptive. Invading Iraq was not a necessity. Consequently, it diverted significant military resources away from Afghanistan and ultimately soiled American respectability.
Truman boldly asked Americans to make personal sacrifices. He spoke of them in plain and clear terms, stating a swift military victory to end the Cold War was unlikely, that diplomacy must always be paramount, and that the United States had a moral obligation to rebuild the war-torn world.
By contrast after 911 Bush began emphasizing diplomacy only after his foreign policy ran into the ditch. Bush had the chance to lead the country on a project focused on breaking our international cooperation against terror, instead, he told us to go shopping. Personal sacrifice was confined to the Military and Katrina victims. After gas topped four dollars a gallon, he told us to drill, remaining committed against green policies.
Truman conducted the war with dignity for the most part.
After Inauguration Day, the military and CIA officials will be free to speak their conscience, the stories will be gruesome, grim and will lengthy. Americans will find out much more just how morally questionable his policies were. The public will find little commonality with Truman in this domain.
Ironically, Powell mirrored a close facsimile to George Marshall as Sec. of State …but Bush undercut him, helped destroy his reputation and ignored his concerns on Iraq.
Bush will never be a Truman.
Unbelievable that so many still parrot this idiotic mantra. “diverted military resources away from Afghanistan”?? Or as Obama puts it, taking our “eyes off the ball”. Feh…
The US placed the multi-nation coalition efforts of Afghanistan security when it was well on it’s way in progress, and relatively secure, into the hands of NATO… exactly as the left progressive/liberals scream for on every military action in the world. This was done to *maintain* American respectability, so it was not seen as a US action, but as an int’l action.
You and ilk begged for the same in Iraq…
By the summer of 2006, when the the entire nation of Afghanistan was placed into NATOs hands, the gains there started reversing, and violence increasing. Doesn’t have anything to do with their wussie ROE now, does it? duh wuh Thank heavens we didn’t do this in Iraq. You want to lose? Give it to NATO, or put control in the hands of the UN… where they essentially do nothing.
And more on the “not a necessity” crap. You obviously read nothing of Saddam’s relationship with the jihad movements from the early 90s on, do you simply done? We may have to rename you “simple mind” if you don’t start catching up on realities.
Pray tell, what is “war with dignity”? And how can you equate a war with a nation-state to an urban guerilla war with stateless, ideologically driven thugs?
Even Putin warned us Saddam was planning on striking America with terrorist attacks. We’ve arrested several Iraqi agents saddam sent to America.
Oh and Mata, by war with dignity, he means one where we are not fighting for ANY of our national interests since that would bad.
@simply done:
I think you missed the point in my response. It isn’t that Bush is the same as Truman. It’s that Truman had low approval ratings at the time he left office. Do you think anyone who might have been polled at the time, would have said, “Truman will go down in history as one of our great presidents who made the tough decisions”? And yet you tout a meaningless poll that predicts Bush will be remembered as a failure. It’s ok. People are entitled to their own opinions. I don’t doubt that a large number of people do think this of our president, right now (if they believe it now, why would they indicate it would change otherwise, down the road?). Just don’t flaunt it as if it were a crystal ball fact, writ in stone.
So then, was Vietnam a war of choice, or did that have to be fought? Was it a diversion from the real Cold War? What threat was Vietnam to us?
Pre-emption wasn’t meant to be normative policy.
Yes, Bush made a choice. He chose to bring to its rightful conclusion, a 12-year menace and violator of UN mandates and the original cease-fire agreements. In the wake of 9/11, Bush made the decision that we could no longer tolerate a regime openly hostile to the U.S. with a history of aggression, love of wmd, and a willingness to fund, train, and work with terrorists; terrorists who could be used as proxies to deliver a wmd attack on American interests. Iraq was ripe pickings for sending a statement to the global jihad movement; a clear message that “this is what happens” when you piss us off.
It was an inevitability. The story of Saddam could have only been brought to its conclusion through forceful removal. 12 years of diplomacy and meaningless resolutions that had no teeth and fear of enforcement by the UN, only served to embolden Saddam to continue with his open defiance.
Waiting to take action until he actually was an imminent threat, would be a moment too late for military response, and would have cost us a lot more than what was suffered through “pre-emption”.
In addition to Mata’s point on handover of responsibilities to NATO,
bin Laden was already said to be out of Afghanistan by December of ’01. When did the Iraq invasion take place, again……? The only military unit “diverted” from Afghanistan to Iraq was the 5th Special Forces Group; sent to fight al Qaeda in northern Iraq.
What’s “soiled American respectability” wasn’t the invasion itself, but the manner in which media and anti-war propagandists have successfully sold perception of the war and our intent.
The notion that Bush is a cowboy who didn’t exercise diplomacy is a false narrative. There was extensive diplomacy that went on in the run-up to war, including his 2002 speech before the UN General Assembly, and building upon the diplomatic history of the previous 10 years. No amount of diplomacy would have ever gotten France, Germany, China, and Russia on board with military action against Saddam. Saddam’s Iraq owed these countries- countries who circumvented the UN sanctions- billions. There were also the oil contracts, bribes, and pay-offs to have sanctions lifted; and you remember what the Duelfer Report said about Saddam’s wmd capabilities and intentions once sanctions were lifted, right? Intent and capability marked a large part of the dialogue in discussing Saddam’s wmd threat- not just talk of stockpiles.
Diplomacy had been tried for 12 years following the Gulf War cease-fire. Diplomacy failed and only fools would have continued on with the charade of more UN Resolutions and cat-and-mouse weapons inspections. Time was on Saddam’s side under those conditions.
I agree that sacrifices should have been asked of us. An emphasis on the gravity of the threat and the need to put ourselves in a war mindset of personal sacrifice. But you have to go back to what the purpose was in telling Americans to “go shopping”. It was to restore American confidence and sense of security. Coming off of 9/11, the message we were trying to send to the jihadis was that they failed to change our way of life; affect our freedoms. Of course, they had….but we didn’t want them to believe it. And we didn’t want our own citizens to believe it. A mistake, as evidence today of how many of us still live in a 9/10 bubble mentality of “life as usual” sipping our lattes, going to the movies and the mall, and enjoying all the frivolous activities denied those who serve on the frontlines of this war, defending and preserving this way of life of ours.
The president may have failed in rallying the country into a collective war mindset. But that’s no excuse for you or I to ignore the war and the need for sacrifice; to do our part in supporting our military and doing what we can to help win the “GWoT”. Americans themselves can take responsibility to make their fellow citizens aware. The media, Hollywood- they could all take the initiative and do their part to ask more of Americans and to do more on behalf of military men and women and their families. Instead, much of what we get is a desire to paint the war as a lie, the war on terror as “fear-mongering”, and basically take the fight out of us and return us to 9/10 ignorant bliss.
my comments are being eaten by spam.
Can you explain that? The Bush Doctrine, NSC’s “National Security Strategy of the United States” published on Sept 20, 2002 seems to make it normative.
blast,
I’m pretty sure (though not 100%) I arrived at this opinion from reading Douglas Feith. It might have been from an article or in his book.
This might be of interest: Sovereignty and Anticipatory Self-Defense. It’s a short paper he wrote, framing the problem.
By “not normative”, what I mean is pre-emption is still a means of “last resort”; diplomatic deterrence and containment are still the desired “first-responder” policies. In regards to Saddam, I believe these had failed; and it is mere wishful thinking that there was anything redeemable in negotations with Saddam- that there’d ever be a different outcome other than continued defiance and violations of his obligations to abide by the terms of the original cease-fire agreements. Saddam was Saddam, with no indication that he would ever change. He was a constant menace. And in a world of wmd possibilities and terrorist proxies, a doctrine of pre-emption seems logical to me, if basically the bulk of the evidence, majority of signposts, indicate that the threat is real and inevitable if action is not taken. Saddam was a special case (A good portion of the justification for military action was in citing a 10 year history of violations culminating in 16 UN Security Council Resolutions + 1441) with a profile that the other two sister-nations labeled as comprising “the axis of evil” had yet to meet.
Wordsmith, “not normative” is not an accurate description when preemption is actually the written policy, i.e. Bush Doctrine.
Did you think Kadafi would change? In his case there was direct evidence of REAL cases his government was directly connected to terrorism and attacks on American civilians as well as military.
We have a right to self defense, no doubt about it. We don’t need to wait for a smoking gun “in the form of a mushroom cloud” either, but when you pull the trigger you better: a) have your facts straight, b) have a good plan, c) have competent people formulating policies. In the case for Iraq, we failed on a, b and c.
blast, I’m going to assume you are speaking of Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi. In which case you need to remember that after the US/coalition deposed Saddam, Libya’s nuke program… much more advanced than thought… was voluntarily dismantled.
Does this mean Gadhafi isn’t a scum bag? Hang no… but he’s a scum bag that most certainly stepped out of the way of the US military and it’s CIC without one shot fired in his direction. And that’s all the change I need.
Kadafi (Gadhafi), was moving westward prior to 1999 and his agreement to hand over the Pan Am 103 defendants. Sanctions in that case worked as did diplomacy of Nelson Mandela (and others). Kadafi was prepared to open up his WMD program and dismantlement it for normalized relations prior to 1999, and was supportive of the USA following the 9/11 attacks. I am glad that the Bush Administration did achieve the goal of removal of the WMD program from Libya without firing a shot… it is too bad they could not have used that same restraint when dealing with Iraq. You might conflate the Iraq invasion with Libya’s capitulation on WMD, but that is not fact.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-uslibyachrono4sep04,0,980049.story?coll=la-tot-promo%20target=_blank
simply done said;
SD;
I respectfully ask, since you have made this statement. that you cite any source to support your claim that Bush put a freeze on our military member’s rights to freedom of speech and that Obama taking office will cause it to cease. I was in the military when Bush made the decision to re-engage Iraq. Your suggestion that Bush issued a “gag order” on our military members is a lie.
In the 21+ years I serviced, only one president ordered a blanket directive be issued that our military members keep their mouths shut and that individual was your beloved William Jefferson Clinton. That came in the form of a 1996 DoD directive initiated by Clinton, following an interview where a general was critical of the Clinton administration’s handling of gays in the military issue. That directive was never rescinded and is the true root source used to silence our military. To my knowledge, Bush never served notice to our military members that his administration would endorse and continue to uphold the directive by prosecuting individual military members for such “indiscretions”, but it remained on the books. From what I’ve been able to find on this, it has only been implemented during the Bush administration against individuals that were showing up to protests against the government concerning Iraq while in uniform, and/or while on duty. The next link is to a story which seems to suggest this was initiated by Bush, without actually making that false statement. In fact, it is our military leaders and officers merely continuing to carry out a policy originated by Clinton. Still, it became the subject of a 60 minutes piece in 2007 to caste more aspersions against Bush:
http://www.uusc.org/blog/2007/02/question-of-patriotism-and-freedom-of.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/22/60minutes/main2505412.shtml
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/polls/blspeech.htm
The Clinton interpretation was much more strict. We were banned from making ANY statements concerning the Clintons or their administration. We were told, point-blank, that even telling jokes, regardless if we were on or off-duty, on or off-base, or in or out of uniform could result in charges of a violating article 88 of the UCMJ for insubordination. Yet interestingly, the media was entirely silent when it was initiated by Clinton and the story ONLY made press pertaining to in anti-Bush, anti-War in Iraq reports. So for the record, it was a Democrat who silenced our military folks. And I would not be surprised if Obama took a similar position as Clinton.
At this point in time, unless Obama sees fit to order that particular DoD directive be rescinded, there will be no change to this policy after Inauguration Day as you so claim. It will remain in effect. as it has for the 12 years since Clinton initiated it.
After 17 failed UN resolutions, and regular assaults on US planes in the no-fly zone, plus sanctions… all to no avail… just what makes to you the “same restraint” would work with Saddam?? Diplomatic efforts, sanctions and int’l pressure were tried, blast.
MataHarley, We had been shooting down Libyan Airforce Fighters since President Reagan’s time. Containment and sanctions (including from the UN) seemed to work fine in his case, and it did not cost 4209 American Service member’s lives and trillions of dollars in financial burden (money we don’t have) and the long list of other global problems it caused.
As to your question
I could say no one now knows what would have transpired since we pulled the trigger prematurely. We know the outcome in costs and lost opportunity to deal fully with AQ and Afghanistan. The restraint of invading when we did… could have included not rushing to war without being fully prepared (if it was decided it was truly necessary). SECDEF Rumsfeld “You go to war with the army you have—not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” – this administration decided the timing of this war, so they chose to proceed unprepared.
… trillions of dollars in financial burden…
Is math a lost art anymore? Estimated cost of Iraq is about $5 bil a month. Even $1 tril would mean 200 months, or 16.6 years in Iraq. Please explain how you came to your “trillions” figure. Funny, I asked that of Larry W too. Still tapping toes, waiting… waiting… waiting.
… long list of other global problems it caused…
As in? How about the other global problems it has eased? As in:
1: Iraq and Afghanistan progressing towards democratically elected Arab governments.
2: Pakistan is no longer an enemy with a nuke arsenal
3: UAE is assisting in halting the finances of terrorists
4: Libya abandoned their WMD program without a shot fired
5: Jihad has fallen out of favor with a considerably higher percentage of Muslims
… 4209 American service members’ lives…
And I shall mourn the loss of each and every one who’s lives I think are priceless compared to some Americans who remain on this planet. They have my undying respect and thanks for their selflessness and bravery. And, unfortunately, in war we lose some of America’s finest. Thank heavens the number is not as large as previous wars.
Are you aware why we invaded when we did? Because the intel dictated expedience. Each month that passed with Saddam unchecked could bring a worse case scenario for bio/chem and/or nuclear weaponry. And the choice of timing was to make sure our troops were not invading in the heat of summer since wearing bio/chem weapon gear would have been almost impossible to endure.
Saddam possessed stashes of chemicals, and possessed proscribed (i.e. illegal) missiles that the UNMOVIC found discarded in a Netherlands junk yard. Missiles acquired AFTER 1998. Let’s see… a vial of chemicals on a missile. Does that pass as a WMD in your opinion? Or does it have to be a nuke?
And thank you for being one of the few naysayers that at least doesn’t emphatically state that life would have been rosy had Saddam stayed in power. No… we will never know a parallel universe’s outcome. However as the Harmony/ISG docs proved, Saddam was actively using jihad groups as an unofficial state weapon. Would you have preferred another “response” as opposed to “preemptive”? I wouldn’t. As proven thru our recent history, playing “defense” leads to “enforcement” terrorism control. Much more advantage when you have the offensive going.
And we did *not* lose the opportunity to deal with AQ and Afghanistan. The US coalition got it under control, gave it to NATO… as all the liberal/progressive/Dems want in every military situation… and they lost control. We are now going back in to get it back to where it was when we turned it over. All because those cowardly NATO allies won’t cough up the troops that have been requested by NATO since late 2006.
Well, there are a number of sources who estimate the cost of the war from left to right on this, some estimate $2.5 Trillion (Stiglitz/Bilmes), CBO (including Afghanistan) says $1.7 Trillion, American & Brookings Inst. joint report put it at $1 trillion. Of course there are other estimates that juice the costs up over $3.5 Trillion.
Your list of good things? wow, you can do better than that. Most of that is wishful thinking or just an interpretation.
1) you are kidding right? Like we can claim that these two governments are stable and will last, no. I agree that it would be nice, but “progressing towards” is not very descriptive.
2) Pakistan… wow. Chaos on earth, possibly behind terror attack in India
3) UAE is totally reliant on the US for security so that is a no brainer.
4) Libya, well, we have covered this already… I will give credit to Pres Bush for achieving this goal, but not because of the Iraq war.
5) Jihad has fallen out of favor. I don’t think if that is true it is because of the Iraq war. You would have to explain how that happened.
Come on, this is like beating a dead horse. Even the President says there were no WMD’s and the intel was wrong. It was a big screw up and if they had not jumped the gun and invaded, maybe they could have avoided this whole costly mess.
On the whole turning Afghanistan over to NATO, humm… that was the Bush policy… do you think it had anything to do with lack of US troop availability and wanting to pressure our NATO allies to contribute to at least that front? I think that is more the case then blaming the dems or anyone else.
Saddam was a bad actor, glad he is dead, I just think we payed way to much for the pleasure of seeing that cell phone video of his last minutes. Oh, and I do like communicating with you. 🙂 Happy Sat.
blast, CBO’s monthly cost of conducting the war is $6 to $9 bil. You’re trying to include deployment costs, occupation costs, and returning costs.
INRE deployment costs: have you weighed that against the additional manufacturing and tax revenue to the US govt for companies supplying services? Nope… just the outlay, not defrayed by the income. That’s like talking gross instead of net.
Second… occupation costs. Have you weighed the costs of paying and supplying troops whether they are here, or over there? oops…
Returning costs… does that include abandoning the equipment, as Obama would have to do to meet his deadline. Or bringing the equipment back?
All in all, the CBO says to prosecute both wars is estimated between $6-$9 bil. So your claims are still mired in tons ‘o’ BS.
Your counter responses to the accomplishments in the ME are pathetic, and underinformed, blast. Shame on you. Let’s see if we can help out.
I’m sorry, but how “stable” was the US in it’s early years? Do you think governments transform overnight? In fact, how “stable” do you think the US is even now? Life and population ever morph. We might find ourselves the new Venezuela or Cuba. Russia and China may find themselves the new capitalist giant.
However a fledgling Arab democracy is an improvement over a despotic regime any day. And if “stable” is your criteria, you’d better move to Utopia… where ever that is. Chicago perhaps?
See above in part. Now add that there isn’t an Arab nation on earth that doesn’t have jihad firmly entrenched within their masses. Muslim nations (not necessary just Arab) have to find that balance in their population between western culture and capitalism, and the fundamental Muslims who also reside in their midst. There are some who seek jihad thru legislative means. Others seek it thru violent overthrow. It is the latter we are concerned with.
No Muslim nation will completely bond with the west. Our cultures are too different. However what we can do is cooperate in intel and controlling the jihad cockroaches that affect both peaceful Muslims and the west. So what you ask of Pakistan and ilk is to be another America. Ain’t going to happen. And to request that is offensive and pushy…
Yet so much of the cash for 911 was funnelled thru UAE. That they now cut off the money is not an “achievement” to you? This is cherry-picking. Maybe we should go back to letting them push jihad money thru, eh?
“… but not because of the Iraq war”… Really? So it’s coincidental that after the statue of Saddam was toppled, Ghadafi was on the phone saying take my WMD program please? Horse manure.
Lordy, must create yet another bookmark file since this is stuff I have to keep repeating over and over… and even from my own blog pre-FA author days.
Yes… the jihad fall from favor is directly as a result of Iraq after 2006. After the US went into Afghanistan, most Muslims felt there was some degree of compassion for jihad, as was their way. That, however, was before AQ and their associated jihad movement demonstrated their bloodbath warfare on fellow Muslims in Iraq in their attempts to start a civil war and create mayhem. (ala… mid 2006, and the bombing of the mosque that started it all)
This WaPo article is the only story I can link to quickly, but it’s not the only story of how jihad is now less than respected amongst mainstream Muslims. The story of a Gitmo young jihadist released.
Then there is the NYT’s article of Mar of this year.. speaking of how the young Muslims are turning away from the religious clerics because of the violence. Also Jihad Watch’s commentary on the same story, noting the same disillusionment with jihad.
Add to that the major battle between Zawahiri and his EIJ predecessor, Sayd Imam al-Sharif. This started back in March when Sayd Imam wrote what I called a new “kinder, gentler” rules of engage for jihad, and called out Zawahiri specifically. He and his cleric faithful haven’t turned western, but have increased their disapproval of the AQ and associates methods of waging war against fellow Muslims.
You see, it’s not just the Sunni Awakening tribal leaders that have been turning on these outlaw jihad warriors. This is, perhaps, one of the most influential changes in the war on the global Islamic jihad movement, as it affects the upcoming generations. The perpetuation of hate will die down. Yet it could not have happened had they not demonstrated their desperate warfare in Iraq.
Really? A “Bush policy”? Who was whining that we didn’t have UN/NATO support going into Iraq? Who always says we must go to the UN for approval to take a dump??
And now, blast… it had nothing to do with lack of troops. We were already in Iraq when we turned over security for Afghanistan to NATO. Remember, that was the summer of 2006. And we have not transferred more than a unit or so (ask Wordsmith… he remembers exactly, if I recall right) from Afghanistan to Iraq. What the heck are you talking about???
It was turned over to NATO so that it would not begin to be see as a unilaterial US action for long term. It was a US coalition going it, but having NATO man the security took it to an int’l perception, and not a US occupation perception. Of course Obama didn’t see this and started whining to increase the US footprint in early 2007. McCain said no… needed to get the NATO allies to do their part so it maintained the int’l flavor.
Obama, today, still remains clueless. It’s not good for Iraq to be “unilateral US”, but it’s evidently okay for Afghanistan to be “unilateral US”.
I asked you if a vial of chem or bio – loaded onto a missiles – was a WMD in your opinion. And you come back with this???
So evidently you want to *believe* Bush when it suits your opinion, and discard him as a liar when it doesn’t? Shameless you are here, blast. I ‘spect better of you.
Sorry.. I can’t let you get away with that. I don’t care what Bush says. He’s done a deplorable job of PR on this war. I agree with his actions. I don’t agree with his presentation to America.
I want to know ift *you* consider a vial of chem/bio weapons on an illegal missile a WMD? That does stand for “weapon of mass destruction”, ya know. Unfortunately, it’s possible this may become important for future debates, as the intel seems to point to chem/bio assaults on US soil. So are we differentiating, and that’s not a WMD? Or does it have a minimal number of people that are killed to meet the WMD test? If so, what’s that number? Enquiring minds want to know.
blast
Additional source that support for jihad has gone way down due to “self inflicted” actions:
… the more peole are exposed to the jihadists’ tactics and world view, the less they support them.
And where, primarily, have the jihadists been able to show their tactics the most? Iraq. Also Pakistan. Support for jihad among British Muslims plummeted after the London bombings of July 2005.
MataHarley, you believe in comments of mass destruction… let me see if I can answer it all. lol.
On the economics of the war. There is no question in the end this war will have a landed cost above a trillion dollars. Just the cost of borrowing the money we use today for the war will be a huge burden of billions of dollars. We know our heros will have medical expenses that must be one of the highest priorities and will cost billions over their lifetimes. The stimulating effects or income raising effects of the war, well, that is not the type of stimulus we need. Althought it adds to the gross revenues of the government, the bottom line is still the money spent, unless you think the government should be in the business of providing business to stimulate economic conditions. Since you lack a Nobel Prize in Economics, I would be more likely to believe the Columbia professor’s analysis, even if I discounted it substantially it still would be more than what you state and what Bush & Company stated at the outset of the war.
yes, I am including all costs… that is what I meant when I said the cost of blood and treasure… that means all the costs of being there.
I think when we come to your list 1,5 – we will just have to disagree. I am not going to get into a comparison between our founding revolution and the fledgling democracy we have created in the Arab world. Comparing the two is ludicrous in my opinion.
Well, first you have never seen me call the president a liar, I never would say that. Second, I take as much information in as I can, and then weigh it. No doubt I believed the initial statements about WMD and when none were found I reevaluated that position and now we have even Pres Bush stating the obvious.
*you* lol. I have read about the possible future issues of WMD’s being used against us here. I think WMD is too broad a characterization for such a complex topic, but since it is the shorthand being used fine. I do think there is a difference between a biological attack, chemical attack, nuclear bomb or a dirty bomb. Each one has distinct footprints and countermeasures. The potential for a cataclysmic detonation of a nuclear device is small due to the nature of what it takes to produce it, but the end result of such an attack would be for sure a WMD. Would some stolen xray materials and some TNT be a WMD? No, but it would be an effective terror device. We already have had an attack from a biological source, did I think that attack was a WMD, no. But it again had a profound terrorist effect. I can’t say I know the number of casualties to declare something a WMD, I would have to say Airplanes would fit that bill then. What do you think the number should be?
@blast#25:
And yet when else has this “bush doctrine” of pre-emption been applied elsewhere? Iraq was a special case, where diplomacy was absolutely irredeemable in relation to Saddam. The previous 10 years of experience in dealing with us and the UN sent a message to him that we had a lot of bark but no teeth. He did not think that this President would resume the first Gulf War and enforce the provisions of the Cease-Fire Agreement. At most, he thought he’d weather what he went through during the Clinton years:
I think it’s debatable whether or not the quick downfall of Saddam’s regime had any influence on Libya coming clean. I think America on a war-footing had some influence (both Afghanistan, followed up by Iraq); the rest being diplomacy and some intelligence coup regarding Libya’s pursuit of wmd capabilities. It was a combination of “steel and a willingness to deal”.
I’ve read that Kadafi called Mubarak during the run-up to the war in Afghanistan fearing that Libya would be America’s next target after the Taliban; and that he called Berlusconi and expressed the same fear and anxiety when the U.S. was gathering forces to invade Iraq.
The Administration deserves credit for its secret negotiations with Libya, prior and after the Iraq invasion. And it’s because of Libya’s direct involvement with terrorism, that negotiations had not been all smooth. As sanctions were being lifted, it still remained on Washington’s list of state-sponsors of terror and full diplomatic relations were not restored until December of 2003 when
a) The whole nature of intelligence-gathering is guess work. Historically, how accurate has intelligence ever been? And has it typically underestimated or overestimated the threat level?
b)Was the Normandy Invasion “good planning”? No plan survives after first contact, and all you have left is “coulda, shoulda, woulda”. As Mata points out, what is remarkable is that we haven’t lost more than what we’ve lost. Every death is to be mourned; but if all you do is pay attention to body counts, then the war will always be viewed as “not worth the price”. The anti-war crowd and the media have highlighted and underscored every body count milestone (remember when they were wailing about the death toll reaching 500, 10 months after the invasion?)
The decision to go in with a streamlined military force and a sprint to Baghdad was brilliant, don’t you think? It probably saved lives during major combat operations. Also, since the U.S. 4th Infantry Division wasn’t able to launch from Turkey, Franks adapted, fooling Saddam as to the actual start date of the invasion.
Post-war operations? There were a lot of planning that went into this. The criticism of “things going wrong” can be leveled at any Administration at any time in any previous war. “Stuff happens”, as Rumsfeld put it with blunt eloquence. What war is ever fought with perfect execution with the original battle plans remaining inflexibly intact?
The original plan was the Afghanistan model of handing the reigns over to an interim government with an Iraqi face; “liberation not occupation”. Somehow, State Dept. and Paul Bremer changed that original intent.
@blast:
I’d accuse both of you of comment-proliferation. My eyes glazed over after skimming through the first few paragraphs.
This is all I have time for as I’m bogged down with Christmas activities on two fronts. 😀
Here is a place we can agree on a concept of WMD. To me, it has no number, but is a weapon of any sort used to maximize death count… whether it succeeds or not.
So yes, I consider biological attacks, such as the very minimally successful (in the cost of lives) a WMD. This is why I do not hold with the rallying cry of “no WMD”. I know very well that Saddam’s chemical labs could churn out bio/chem stashes like Martha Stewart can churn out cookies. When you compound that with proscribed missiles that he acquired after 1998, Saddam possessed WMDs that he could put together for his own use, for for sale on the black market. So I think it’s just a matter of what one considers a WMD… or, in more popular phrase’ology… “what the meaning of ‘is’… is”.
INRE the economics of war… using your analogy for costs, I’d have to wonder if anyone would support wars that were not active invasion of US soil. That’s only happened a few times…. American Revolution, Pearl Harbor and 911 being the most well known. The first two were easier to discern the enemy as they were nation/states. The last? It’s like being attacked by the Bloods ‘n’ Crips, fer heavens sake. It’s a war foreign to our modern comprehension (not that the ideological war hasn’t been fought before in history).
I have a very American attitude towards wars… and that includes Clinton’s wars that I did not support. I may disagree when the decision is being mulled publicly. But once committed, I drop those protests and say “go for it full bore”. I did that thru the 90s. I did that as a military wife during Vietnam. And I’d do it under a President Obama as well. I wish it were an attitude more widespread. After we are committed, the time to whine is over.
And BTW, thank you not only for your service, but for not labeling our CIC a “liar” at any time… even tho you disagree. You’re a liberal I could break bread with any day, and not walk away with steam pouring from my ears. LOL
So sorry your eyes glazed over, Word. Then again, I have to say some of your posts have done the same to me. So no offense taken, and all accepted in your inimitable good humor.
Yes, they deserve tons of credit and I believe I did give them credit for this, but not solely because of the war.
No, it was not brilliant. If you are speaking about our force arrayed against their forces alone as the sole metric, it was superior, but in the end failed to provide stability in the early days and to protect the enormous stockpiles of weapons that were then pilfered and used against us. That sewed the seeds that allowed things to devolve to near chaos. Our warriors deserve all the credit for pulling the place together and the lessons learned on the battalion level that turned the tide. No doubt hindsight is 20/20, but the criticisms of the planning and execution are valid. If we allow ourselves to fall back on “No plan survives after first contact” without examining what went right and wrong, then we never learn and repeat mistakes. My criticism is not to merely lay blame, but to converse about the problems faced and how they were dealt with. I am not interested in a rosy portrait of how brilliant we all are, but to face the stark reality of what went right or wrong (in my opinion).
Well, you got me there as the proof is here. lol, I hope you get your Christmas activities done and enjoy them! Merry Christmas.
Your experiences are different from mine, and I think you know (or I hope you do) that whither or not we agree or disagree that I value that perspective. When I respond to something is because I have an opinion or are interested in discussing a point. No doubt that ends at the waters edge and am American first and foremost. I do however feel that if a policy needs to be changed, or some value is being misused I will say so. It is not a matter of who is president, Bush, Clinton or Obama, as to supporting or opposing some policy they embark on. I did not disagree with the Iraq invasion at the time and trusted the people above my pay grade to make the right decisions. No doubt they had many right calls and some that were bad too. The price of admission to being President is having people agree and disagree with nearly everything you do. President Bush is not an evil person in my opinion. Do I think we needed to go into Iraq (now with hindsight) at the time we chose, no I don’t. I expect our leaders to make better decisions than I can, given the resources and smart people (all above my pay grade, lol) they have at their disposal. They can make mistakes and if they do, why not just admit it and move on. Maybe I am politically naive, but that is how I think.
Well, with Martha Stewert’s cookies of mass destruction on my mind and breaking bread… I am hungry. I probably come across liberal in this forum, and maybe I am. I don’t consider myself liberal, I see myself more as a Teddy Roosevelt Republican with some Libertarian leanings. Maybe the cookies had something smokeable in them… Oh, and thank you too.
So what does that mean in your analysis? Say… in the summer of 2006, when the Iragis finally put into place their first permanent elected government, that we just say “ooops! Sorry… we made an error. See ya!” ?????
Once we removed Saddam, we were obligated to stand by their new govt until they could stand safely and effectively on their own. Yet the Dems advocated desertion at every opportunity because it affected the US and public opinon. The Iraqis? They could give a damn for their outcome.
Their success meant vast progress on our national security. Their failure meant the converse.
So ‘splain, please Mr. blast… what does that “… make mistakes.. and “…. admit it and move on… mean in this instance?
Blast you agree we didn’t need more soldiers to invade and take Iraq. That is something we MUST be able to do in the future as we can’t bet on some tyrant doing nothing and letting us amass our army off his border before we invade. Should we have brought in more soldiers after that? Yes. I can’t recall if we had them available, tho. Unfortunately it took some time to build up our forces and later find a general who could handle the situation that previous generals had allowed to spin out of control. The sad thing is that some of the generals responsible for the mess later tried to blame Bush and the media ate it up without question.
@blast:
My understanding is you feel the diplomacy worked with Kadafi, and could have worked if applied to Saddam as well, with the same vigor.
What I refer to is, catching Saddam off-guard by such a quick, mobile, and light footprint. Saddam didn’t think the war would start until the 4th ID was in place. Had the war been delayed further, Saddam would have had more time for booby-trapping bridges and oil fields, as he had done during the Gulf War. Iraqis had begun such rigging, but did not see them to completion, due to the untimely start of the war. I’d say that saved lives, during major combat operations.
Yes, we failed to provide stability and security in the aftermath. Was it Bush’s fault? Rumsfeld’s? Franks? Policy planners? Other military officials?
CENTCOM planners relied on the CIA’s assessment in calculating troop levels for the invasion; they assumed that large numbers of Iraqi police would be available to maintain public order after the fall of Saddam’s regime.
The criticism that Rumsfeld is to blame for “not enough troops” is misplaced, imo. According to Feith, Rumsfeld would have given Franks the troop level he wanted, if he had asked. He didn’t ask. Generals who have criticized the troop level didn’t fail to convince Rumsfeld; they failed to convince General Franks.
If it’s criticism based not on political partisanship, but upon legitimate criticism that certain conditions that took place could have been averted by foresight planning. As it stands, we should learn from mistakes and missteps, constructively rather than simply scoring political points and undermining and delegitimzing the whole war effort. I’m not saying you’re doing it, but there are critics who have engaged in this.
What is invincible to most people are all the things that went right and things that were averted because of the “adequate” planning.
That’s fair. Sometimes it’s hard to separate someone like yourself from the BDSers who are more interested in laying blame, and nothing else.
Thank you. To you as well.
@MataHarley:
No insult was intended. By “eyes glazed over”, I wasn’t saying what you and Blast had to talk about was not worth the read, but just that I was scrolling through, it looked like a lot to catch up on, when I was pressed for time. It just looked like a lot to go through, but it’s really not. And I always appreciate the amount of time you put into your comments, complete with relevant links.
@Hard Right:
I was going through Richard Clarke’s book the other night, Against All Enemies, and in defending the Clinton Administration, he mentioned how sometimes senior military officials would let it spread down the ranks that politicians in the White House were to blame for unpopular decisions, rather than taking responsibility themselves.
Word, I think we saw that with General Sanchez. For those that don’t remember him, it was on his watch that everything went to crap, but he later turned around and attacked the Bush admin who had backed him until it was clear his way simply wasn’t working.
I’m also not a fan of Richard Clarke. He’s proof that nothing good happens when a leftwing idiot rises thru the ranks of the military. He was strictly a political pick because he had the correct leftist beliefs. I tend to listen to Wesley Clark who also happens to think Richard (Dick) is an incompetent partisan hack. He complained in his book that Dick Clarke never gave him ANY actionable intelligence. Not once.
Whoops, it was Tommy Franks that called Clarke useless, etc.
In looking back, as that is all we can do now, there were opportunities to bolster sanctions and tighten the noose on Saddam. Weighing the outcome and costs (as we see them today) was it worth it if we could have achieved our goal of containment and verifiable disarmament. We lived with Kadafi for a long time, and we lived with other despotic regimes with unfriendly intentions. There are many players in the game who dwarf Iraq’s strategic threat to our security; namely, Russia and China.
That blame probably should be shared with all you mentioned as that was their responsibility to ask the questions and hold accountable those who worked for them. The buck has to stop somewhere.
I agree with you. There has to be a reality between the positions of the right and left as neither side owns the truth, or at least not all of the time.