Pessimism Is Not A Policy...

[The Ressurrected One]

...and defeatism is not a strategy. That is the short answer to the Democrats' carping about President Bush's speech last night. Most absurd, in my view, are the howls of outrage protesting Bush's explanation that the war in Iraq is an important part of the war on terror that began on September 11. The Associated Press (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050629/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_17;_ylt=Aky2YrPsyTVyRhiZsCUFGO5qP0AC;_ylu=X3o DMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl) reports: "Bush Criticized for Linking 9/11 and Iraq":


Democrats in particular criticized Bush for again raising the Sept. 11 attacks as a justification for the protracted fight in Iraq...

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi accused Bush of demonstrating a willingness "exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq."

Pelosi's claim that there is "no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq" is mind-numbingly obtuse. Let's itemize just the huge, obvious connections:

1) The people we are fighting in Iraq are Islamist terrorists, many of them associated with al Qaeda, the same organization that carried out the Sept. 11 attacks.

2) The principal purpose of the Iraq war is to promote the spread of freedom and democracy throughout the Arab world, which remains the only long-term cure for the problem of Islamist terrorism that anyone has proposed. (If the Democrats have an alternative, they're keeping it a secret.)

3) After Sept. 11, knowing what terrorists could achieve with (relatively) conventional weapons, it was no longer acceptable to risk leaving in power a tyrant like Saddam, who a) had a decades-long fascination with weapons of mass destruction; b) had used weapons of mass destruction on many occasions; c) was a long-time supporter of terrorist groups; and d) had long been viewed as such a threat to America and its allies that since 1998, regime change in Iraq had been the official policy of the United States government, based on an act of Congress.

4) Let's follow up on 3 c). One of the Democrats' most ridiculous mantras is that there was no connection between Saddam's Iraq and international terrorism. This claim is demonstrably false, but as usual, the Democrats are playing to the least well-informed Americans (like Nbadan). Let's just itemize a few of Iraq's most notorious pre-war connections to 9/11 style terrorism:

a) Ansar al Islam, an al Qaeda branch in Iraq, manufactured ricin for use in attacks on Europe.
b) Saddam hosted al Qaeda's number two leader, Zawahiri, in the 1990s.
c) Saddam harbored, and put on a government pension, one of the few perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing who escaped apprehension.
d) Saddam harbored Abu Nidal, once the world's most famous terrorist, until, for reasons that remain mysterious, Saddam apparently had him murdered shortly before the war began.
e) Saddam harbored Abu Abbas, organizer of the Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking in 1984; Abbas was captured in Iraq during the first days of the war.
e) Zarqawi, the world's most deadly terrorist, fled Afghanistan when the Taliban fell at the end of 2001 and went to Iraq. Why? Because he knew that terrorists were welcome under Saddam.
f) From Iraq, Zarqawi organized the murder of American diplomat Lawrence Foley in Jordan.
g) From Iraq, Zarqawi organized and financed a chemical weapons attack on Jordan that could have killed tens of thousands. The perpetrators of that scheme are now on trial in Jordan.
h) Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers to encourage terrorist attacks against Israel.

These are just some of the many connections between Saddam's regime and international terrorism that we happen to absolutely know about. Others are known, and no doubt still more remain unknown.

The Associated Press seems to join in with the Democrats' ill-founded attack on President Bush with this paragraph:


Bush urged Americans to remember the lessons of Sept. 11 and protect "the future of the Middle East" from men like bin Laden. He repeatedly referred to the insurgents in Iraq as terrorists and said they were killing innocent people to try to "shake our will in Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will on September the 11th, 2001."

The "insurgents" are, in fact, terrorists, which is how they are pretty universally referred to by Iraqis. There are no soldiers taking the field against the U.S. armed forces in Iraq. There are only terrorists: suicide bombers with explosive belts around their waists and car bombers who blow up innocents, but not themselves. Why is this so hard for the AP and the Democrats to understand? In the case of the Democrats, I suppose the answer is that, if they admitted that the "insurgents" are in fact nothing more or less than terrorists, they would likewise have to admit that the war in Iraq has something to do with September 11 after all.

You should read also Andrew McCarthy (http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200506290912.asp) in National Review, who notes various connections between Saddam's regime and international terrorism; he includes the under-reported story of Ahmed Hikmat Shakir:

What does the “nothing whatsoever” crowd have to say about:

*Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?

Just curious...

[smeagol]

What's next? Iran, Arabia, Indonesia? Any country that might have a terrorist group operating within their borders can be blown up by the US?

And by the way, there was no linkage between 9/11 and Iraq.

Full stop.

[exstatic]

Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi, but since Bush has the King's dick in his mouth, you'll not see that touted. No Iraqi's, surprisingly.

[scott]

1) The people we are fighting in Iraq are Islamist terrorists, many of them associated with al Qaeda, the same organization that carried out the Sept. 11 attacks.

It is estimated that 1 in 16 "insurgents" in Iraq are these "Islamic terrorists" you speak of. The other 15 are just plain ol' Iraqi insurgents.

If we were to invade Canada, are we to label all Canadians fighting against us as "terrorists"?


2) The principal purpose of the Iraq war is to promote the spread of freedom and democracy throughout the Arab world

That wasn't the reason given to the American people prior to and at the start of the war. Were our Government officials just keeping the real reason from us to spare our anxieties?


After Sept. 11, knowing what terrorists could achieve with (relatively) conventional weapons, it was no longer acceptable to risk leaving in power a tyrant like Saddam, who a) had a decades-long fascination with weapons of mass destruction; b) had used weapons of mass destruction on many occasions; c) was a long-time supporter of terrorist groups; and d) had long been viewed as such a threat to America and its allies

You could have been describing a number of different regimes there... and some of them actually have WMDs.

Yonivore, you should have forwarded your ground shattering evidence to the 9/11 commission, they seemed to have overlooked the obviously ties between Iraq and 9/11.

[scott]

Let me respond for you.

scott, I have no answer for anything you said because Rush didn't address those points today, so allow me to say that aliens must have taken your body and replaced it with NBADan, since anyone who disagrees with me must be a terra-ist.

[The Ressurrected One]

Yonivore, you should have forwarded your ground shattering evidence to the 9/11 commission, they seemed to have overlooked the obviously ties between Iraq and 9/11.
No, they didn't, you just cherry picked their report. Most, if not all, of 4 a) through 4 h) are from the Commission's report.

[SWC Bonfire]

This bickering is driving me crazy. Saddam was an evil dictator that will get what is coming to him. If you don't think that he posed a threat to the US, and everything he did to support the enemies of the US was only what is in the public realm, you've got your head in the sand. Oh, he didn't have nuclear technology and wasn't going to develop and use it... I guess the Israelis just bombed a shoe factory in the 1980's.

Iraq is a shittin' mess, not because of what we did to it, but because of the wacko insurgents, which are receiving support from outside the country. Period. We aren't going to leave the middle east anytime soon, and it may get uglier. Please continue to bitch about it, then call people chickenhawks because they support the country, our soldiers & their efforts, and the President. Continue not to realize that if you don't support our troops efforts, you don't support our troops.

[scott]

No, they didn't, you just cherry picked their report. Most, if not all, of 4 a) through 4 h) are from the Commission's report.

If 4a through 4h had any direct connection to 9/11, it might be helpful to your point.

[Nbadan]

Iraq is a shittin' mess, not because of what we did to it, but because of the wacko insurgents, which are receiving support from outside the country. Period. We aren't going to leave the middle east anytime soon, and it may get uglier. Please continue to bitch about it, then call people chickenhawks because they support the country, our soldiers & their efforts, and the President. Continue not to realize that if you don't support our troops efforts, you don't support our troops.

That's a bunch of crap. You can support the troops, but not neccessarily agree with the premise that the administration put forth to get us into this war. You are chicken-hawks not because you support W or the war, but because there are millions of well-priveledged kids, probably just like yourself, who live in a unrealistic bubble of reality. It's ok to keep our troops in Iraq, fighting a dirty war that is getting progressively worse, as long as you don't have to be there or pay for it.

[exstatic]

Please continue to bitch about it, then call people chickenhawks because they support the country, our soldiers & their efforts, and the President.
Actually, the chickenhawk reference was to the many people at the top of the administration, including the Prez, who either got deferrments or a plumb spot in the Guard, and never served in combat, but see no issue with sending other people to their deaths.

Continue not to realize that if you don't support our troops efforts, you don't support our troops.
Bush would like you to believe that. If you have a burning school, and some idiot tells the second grade to run back inside, and you think it's a bad idea, are you not supportive of the second graders? I think you are.

[The Ressurrected One]

If 4a through 4h had any direct connection to 9/11, it might be helpful to your point.
They prove a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda and a connection between Iraq and global terrorism.

Contrary to popular liberal idiocy, the 9-11 report didn't conclude that Iraq had no connection to 9-11 but, that there was no evidence to support a connection. There was plenty of evidence they cavorted with the people responsible for 9-11 however.

More than enough for most reasonable people to conclude that, in addition to all the other evils represented by Saddam Hussein, it was time to enforce Bill Clinton's stated policy of regime change.

[scott]

You won't find a post by me that criticizes the decision to go to Iraq. What you will find is criticism of the way we handled things once there, and criticisms of points like the one you started tihs thread out with:


Pelosi's claim that there is "no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq" is mind-numbingly obtuse. Let's itemize just the huge, obvious connections:

As you just said, there is no evidence to support a connection between Iraq and 9/11, especially not enough for you to attempt to portray that there definitely was one.

[The Ressurrected One]

You won't find a post by me that criticizes the decision to go to Iraq. What you will find is criticism of the way we handled things once there, and criticisms of points like the one you started tihs thread out with:



As you just said, there is no evidence to support a connection between Iraq and 9/11, especially not enough for you to attempt to portray that there definitely was one.
Okay, scott, I've obiously overestimated your intelligence. The "war in Iraq" is different than "Iraq," "the Ba'athist regime," or even "Saddam Hussein" himself. While I still believe they were directly involved in providing some sort of support to the people who attacked us on September 11, 2001, there is no evidence to directly connect them. My believe is based on a preponderance of the evidence contained in the 9-11 Commission report on their connections to global terrorist and terrorism throughout their sordid history.

The "war in Iraq" is a part of the global war on terrorism because -- now follow very closely because you won't see me say anything about Saddam Hussein, Iraq the government, or the Ba'athist regime -- we are fighting t-e-r-r-o-r-i-s-t-s there. The same t-e-r-r-o-r-i-s-t-s that attacked us on 9-11. As such, the "war in Iraq" is directly connected to the September 11th attacks.

Argue, if you will, whether they'd be there if we hadn't decided to effect regime change (which, incidentally was achieved 21 days after the invasion - hence, the much ridiculed "Mission Accomplished" banner), but, none-the-less, our initial mission was completed in 21 days and then the influx of terrorists began and the insurgency was joined.

I happen to believe the terrorists had been there all along and that the influx was started in an effort to preserve the safe-haven Iraq had become after our sound routing of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

You're obviously as intellectually challenged and obtuse as Pelosi. I'm flummoxed...you seemed so much smarter and "nuanced." I was wrong.

[scott]

The "war in Iraq" is different than "Iraq," "the Ba'athist regime," or even "Saddam Hussein" himself.

As you yourself states, there is a "war in Iraq" because of "the Ba'athist regime" and "Saddam Hussein." And that is what the President told us.

You can most certainly make the case that once the original objectives in Iraq were met, the objectives changed as needed. You won't find me arguing over that point either.

However, the war in Iraq and the original reasons for being there are not two seperate things in the minds of the American people. You can call them obtuse. stupid or unnuanced until you are blue in the face - but it does not change the facts. This is in fact the only reason I care about the issue. Bush isn't guilty of anything that any other politician isn't guilty of, and that is spin. He and his speechwriters are smart enough to know that making a subconscious connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 is the absolute best way of regaining support for the war in Iraq.

I think being in Iraq is the right thing to do, and I've said so several times. I've criticized what appears to be the sophmoric level of planning that went into it, but most of all I criticize attempts to tie "the war in Iraq" to 9/11.

Guess what, none of the 19 people who were directly responsible for 9/11 are in Iraq right now. They are dead. The person mostly responsible for 9/11 most likely isn't in Iraq either. There is most likely no one who had any say in the 9/11 attacks in Iraq. Are there terrorits in Iraq? I have no doubts about it. Are the terrorists in Iraq connected to 9/11? Not likely. The only thing they have in common is that they are terrorits, and they need to die. To me, that is a perfect good reason for being in Iraq. However,


The same t-e-r-r-o-r-i-s-t-s that attacked us on 9-11. As such, the "war in Iraq" is directly connected to the September 11th attacks.

is what I take issue with. This is nothing more than rhetoric. The terrorists in Iraq are no more directly connected to the September 11th attacks than Ken Lay was with the WorldCom collapse. Yes, both Enron and WorldCom were crooked organizations to bilked their shareholders and employees out of billions of dollars, but they are not directly tied to one another.

Yes, the 9/11 assailants and terrorists in Iraq are indeed terrorists bent on destroying America. But to say that they are one in the same is just flat out spin.

Spin away, Yoni, spin away.

[The Ressurrected One]

He and his speechwriters are smart enough to know that making a subconscious connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 is the absolute best way of regaining support for the war in Iraq.
I know this is the genesis of the "Bush lied" canard, however, you're just putting words in peoples mouths. I can't help that many idiots believe they heard the President say something many others of us never heard.

And, the fact remains, some of the terrorists in Iraq are the same as those who planned the attacks of September 11th. To think otherwise is being obtuse.

[scott]

I know this is the genesis of the "Bush lied" canard, however, you're just putting words in peoples mouths. I can't help that many idiots believe they heard the President say something many others of us never heard.

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth, and I'm not saying Bush lied about anything. Maybe I'm giving the administration too much credit to think they'd be smart enough to make the subconscious connection. Coca-Cola figured out you could sell more soda by carving the silouette of a naked woman into a picture of ice, I'm pretty sure the administration knows how you can gain more support for a war with dwindling support.

As such, I have never criticized Bush for making the subconscious connection, because 1) it is smart and 2) you are right, that it isn't Bush's fault that people "hear" him say something he doesn't say.

What I criticize, is this:


And, the fact remains, some of the terrorists in Iraq are the same as those who planned the attacks of September 11th. To think otherwise is being obtuse.

Can you provide some evidence of this? The world is full of terrorists, but it's estimated only about 1,000 in Iraq. Basic statistics don't support your thinking, but there may be evidence that does. If you can provide such evidence, I'll be the first to say "Yonivore, you were right."

I don't think it's obtuse to not make presumptions in the lack of evidence. That's just me though.

[The Ressurrected One]

Can you provide some evidence of this? The world is full of terrorists, but it's estimated only about 1,000 in Iraq. Basic statistics don't support your thinking, but there may be evidence that does. If you can provide such evidence, I'll be the first to say "Yonivore, you were right."

I don't think it's obtuse to not make presumptions in the lack of evidence. That's just me though.
So, you're saying there isn't an al Qaeda presence in Iraq?

That's new.

[JoePublic]

Bush wanted the Iraq war from day one and he got it and the American public gave it to him. Those who can't see them must also have their heads in the sand. It was never really about WMD or terrorism.

[scott]

So, you're saying there isn't an al Qaeda presence in Iraq?

That's new.

Are all former Enron employees the ones responsible for it's collapse?

[The Ressurrected One]

Are all former Enron employees the ones responsible for it's collapse?
Apples and oranges.

Did all Enron employees pledge allegiance to Ken Lay?

Al Qaeda is an organization that binds its members with a murderous, singlular, ideology. In that sense, they're all responsible for the actions of their separate members.

Enron was a corporation headed by some corrupt people. Enron executives victimized Enron employees more than they did customers.

Big difference scott...you just keep getting stupider.

[scott]

It is an apples and oranges comparison, you are right. But when people like you put things in the context of "the same terrorits who were responsible for 9/11" you are merely engaging in irresponsible rhetoric.

Why not just be truthful and say "we are fighting a bunch of terrorits, some of which may be associated with the same group who was responsible for 9/11"? Doesn't quite round up support in the same way, does it?

You just keep turning more and more into an empty talking head.

[The Ressurrected One]

Why not just be truthful and say "we are fighting a bunch of terrorits, some of which may be associated with the same group who was responsible for 9/11"? Doesn't quite round up support in the same way, does it?
I don't know why it wouldn't. It is what I've been saying...except to say that they ARE not may be associated with the same group. Why is that so hard for you and the Left to accept and, yes, even say aloud?

[smeagol]

Give it up Yoni, there is as much conection between Iraq and 9/11 than there is between Iran, Indonesia, Syria or Saudi Arabia and 9/11. There's AQ terrorists in those countries too, wouldn't you agree?

Then why the fuck hasn't the US invaded them?

I'll tell you why. Because the linkage is BS. It's as much BS as the WMD linkage.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

The principal purpose of the Iraq war is to promote the spread of freedom and democracy throughout the Arab world
This is NOT A GOOD THING!! I mean, democracy is good, freedom is good, but invading a country with the excuse that you're liberating them, when in reality they REALLY don't want you there is just plain old wrong. I'm not going to get into the whole debate, but I will say this, you messing with the wrong people out there! These guys are not going to give up, and the US can't support a neverending war, its going to drain your economy until you'll be forced to retreat. You're looking at yet another Vietnam people, and you'd think the US government would have learned its lesson by now. Personally, I feel sorry for those American young men losing their lives because of some politicians agenda. Plus you think you have a big problem with Iraq, now Afgahnistan is joining in the insurrection! Good luck trying to fight a neverending war, ON TWO FRONTS!

[The Ressurrected One]

Give it up Yoni, there is as much conection between Iraq and 9/11 than there is between Iran, Indonesia, Syria or Saudi Arabia and 9/11. There's AQ terrorists in those countries too, wouldn't you agree?

Then why the fuck hasn't the US invaded them?

I'll tell you why. Because the linkage is BS. It's as much BS as the WMD linkage.
Actually, we are in those countries. Next question?

[smeagol]

Actually, we are in those countries. Next question?
The US has invaded and liberated Iran, Indonesia, etc, etc?

Man, where have I been?

[SWC Bonfire]

That's a bunch of crap. You can support the troops, but not neccessarily agree with the premise that the administration put forth to get us into this war. You are chicken-hawks not because you support W or the war, but because there are millions of well-priveledged kids, probably just like yourself, who live in a unrealistic bubble of reality. It's ok to keep our troops in Iraq, fighting a dirty war that is getting progressively worse, as long as you don't have to be there or pay for it.

Do you not support removing an evil dictator who was financing terrorists? Do you not support rebuilding public facilities and all of the other good deeds that the US is doing for Iraq? I have good friends who have been to Iraq & one who is there now. Does he like it? No. Does he think that he is making a difference? Yes.

I did not join the service, so I guess I'm a chickenhawk. But the degree that I received in school has allowed me and my company to design and manufacture new equipment for the US Navy and Coast Guard. The products that I designed allows them to help rescue people, intercept and search illegal vessels, assist in training, and generally give the sailors & marines better equipment with which to do their job. But I guess I'm a shameless war profiteer, right?

[RandomGuy]

Oh gawd, here we go again with the conservative "party line". This is the best example of how bush apologists get their marching orders and parrot things they have heard ceaselessly and unwaveringly, in the hopes that people who read it, as so many conservatives do, will set aside their critical thinking skills and accept it all as unvarnished truth.

My disgust for the shameless spin in the first post said, I will wade into the bullshit and attempt to add a bit of perspective so that the half-truths that make up the Bush case are a little more clear. (fires up his beloved google window)

[RandomGuy]

Pelosi's claim that there is "no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq" is mind-numbingly obtuse. Let's itemize just the huge, obvious connections:

1) The people we are fighting in Iraq are Islamist terrorists, many of them associated with al Qaeda, the same organization that carried out the Sept. 11 attacks.

"the people we are fighting". Like the tens of thousands of "collateral" casualties? pfft. I am not under the illusion that fighting wars will be without such things, but if the reason one is in a country is to "save" them, it looks a bit hollow to the rest of the world who actually get to see the uncensored ground truth. When was the last time you saw an armless Iraqi child on Fox news?

The other thing that will not be addressed by any Bush apologist is the fact that Iraq has become a magnet for these nutjobs, and would not have been, had we simply not invaded in the first place. We gave them our soldiers to shoot at, and a convenient urban training ground, what a brilliant strategy.

Here is the million dollar question that puts the half-truth to light:

If the reasoning for invading Iraq was to fight al Qaeda, then how effective would it be to invade ONE country out of the dozens with al Qaeda operatives and sympathizers?

At the rate of hundreds of billions of dollars per year, and thousands of military casualties, we will be a LONG time in defeating al Qaeda this way.

None of the planners of 9-11 were Iraqi. None of the participants were Iraqi. Al Qaeda is a rather diffuse organization that is in a lot of countries. Does this mean we need to invade all of them too?

(edited a grammatical error)

[RandomGuy]

2) The principal purpose of the Iraq war is to promote the spread of freedom and democracy throughout the Arab world, which remains the only long-term cure for the problem of Islamist terrorism that anyone has proposed. (If the Democrats have an alternative, they're keeping it a secret.)


http://www.rotten.com/library/crime/prison/abu-ghraib/ghraib-box2.jpg


And we have been so successful in "promoting the spread of freedom and democracy", that world opinion of us has gotten better, right?

Truth be told, most of the rest of the world views this as a cynical exercise in colonialism. You can't change THAT with all the attack ads on Democrats in the world, and you know it.

This image is what the rest of the world sees, and what al qaeda uses to recruit more people to shoot at american soldiers in Iraq.

The best fucking thing we could have done was to put some serious muslce behind the sanctions that WERE working. This is where I depart from most on the left. I was always a firm believer in thoses sanctions, because they were cheaper than the alternative, wich is what we are paying now.

Think of the billions we could have spent MORE EFFECTIVELY (begin edit, accidentally hit the "send" button) on shoring up those sanctions. We could have contained this festering boil a hell of a lot cheaper by not wasting our monetary, political, and human capital in an invasion that has "lost a generation of middle easterners".

I knew exactly what was going to happen after we invaded, and not only did that happen, the piss-poor planning that this incompetant administration did gave our enemies more propaganda fodder than they could have dreamed of.

[RandomGuy]

3) After Sept. 11, knowing what terrorists could achieve with (relatively) conventional weapons, it was no longer acceptable to risk leaving in power a tyrant like Saddam, who a) had a decades-long fascination with weapons of mass destruction; b) had used weapons of mass destruction on many occasions; c) was a long-time supporter of terrorist groups; and d) had long been viewed as such a threat to America and its allies that since 1998, regime change in Iraq had been the official policy of the United States government, based on an act of Congress.

This line of reasoning means we will have to do quite a few more invasions. How many "tyrants like Saddam" are out there with a "fascination with weapons of mass destruction"?

You also presume here, with NO evidence at all, that he would have given weapons to terrorists.

He had no intention of doing so. Yes he used chemical weapons. So? I am not defending him, but we ignore a lot worse in the world, and actively support all sorts of regimes that have less than stellar records when it comes to human rights.

If you want to take out unethical regimes, that is ok with me, but let's get a truly moral foreign policy that doesn't make us hypocrites, and there are a lot of better candidates than Iraq that would have provided a better benefit for the cost we are paying.

[RandomGuy]

Oops. Gotta go, wife has handed me my marching orders for my day off. Sigh, (reads grocery/"to do" list) I will point out the shortcomings of the current administration a bit later, heh.

[RandomGuy]

Bump.

[JoeChalupa]

Good posts.