Carol Platt Liebau: Cowardice Never Pays

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Cowardice Never Pays

Note to the Democrats: Appeasor nation France is now being targeted by Al Qaeda, despite its strong opposition to the war in Iraq and generally cowardly behavior.

So much for the theory that U.S. policy is the reason why "they hate us."

36 Comments:

Blogger Editor said...

You mean all the happy talk last week from Bush, Cheney, Condi, Negroponte and Chertoff isn't true.

Every time they fool me into thinking that we're winning, there ends up being another attack and more death and violence in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Fortunately, we've only dipped our toes into the war sending about a third of the troops needed to win. So worse comes to worse Bush can say he really never tried to win and never bothered to have a plan.

9:58 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

...So why are Islamo-terrorists targeting innocent, France? Answer that!

10:17 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Islam dosen't want "appeasement," they want us DEAD! (or convert)

10:20 AM  
Blogger Josh said...

So basically what you're saying is that France was trying to appease Al Qaeda, but is being targeted anyway?

If the only evidence for France's appeasement is its opposition to the Iraq war then that is a very weak argument, considering that Iraq and Al Qaeda were completely seperated and had only the barest of contacts in the past and practically none at all at the time of invasion.

In Al Qaeda's eyes, France is one of the same Western colonial powers that have exploited and degraded Islam for centuries. Failing to support a war against a country unrelated to Al Qaeda would hardly be seen as appeasement by either the French or the Islamists.

11:24 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Josh, an answer to your first question, Yes! They want us DEAD! That includes you! You also said,"considering that Iraq and Al Qaeda were completely seperated and had only the barest of contacts in the past..."

You need to know that before and during the current Iraq war, Al Qaeda was in Arizona, Florida, New York, New Jersey, France, England, Spain,Russia, etc. Why would they be all over the world but not in Iraq, which was the center of Middle Eastern terrorism? Also,when Saddam offered $25,000 per terrorist, had training camps in the Iraq'i desert equiped with Boeing 737's as training equipment, and provided sanctuary to terrorist leaders, why do you still want to believe that lie that Saddam didn't have anything to do with terrorism? Finally, the,
"Oil for Food" program proved that Saddam was ACTIVELY SEEKING WMD's through illegal deals with France, Germany and Russia, through the coverup of the UN. Did you know that?

12:15 PM  
Blogger Josh said...

Josh, an answer to your first question, Yes! They want us DEAD! That includes you!

It includes me? Well holy shit that's horrible I better listen to what you have to tell me!

You need to know that before and during the current Iraq war, Al Qaeda was in Arizona, Florida, New York, New Jersey, France, England, Spain,Russia, etc. Why would they be all over the world but not in Iraq, which was the center of Middle Eastern terrorism?
Because Saddam was a brutal tyrant, and as such, was able to keep most troublemakers like Al Qaeda out of his country. Open countries like the US and England have a more difficult time. However, Zarqawi actually was in Iraq because he was able to stay in the Kurdish north where Saddam had little effective power.

Also,when Saddam offered $25,000 per terrorist, had training camps in the Iraq'i desert equiped with Boeing 737's as training equipment, and provided sanctuary to terrorist leaders, why do you still want to believe that lie that Saddam didn't have anything to do with terrorism?

I assume the $25,000 offer you are referring to is Saddam's policy of paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel. While this is a pretty shitty thing to do, it has nothing to do with Al Qaeda. The policy was a public relations attempt to improve his standing with fundamentalist Muslims both in his and other countries, and is a drop in the bucket compared to the funds that other states in the region, notably Iran and Syria, give to terrorists in Israel. Either way, suicide bombers in Israel do not target America and have next to nothing to do with Al Qaeda, ideologically or operationally.

I assume that the "training equipment" you are referring to was at Salman Pak, which was a training camp run by Iraqi special forces. The allegation that it was a terrorist training camp originated with the Iraqi National Congress, an organization of Iraqi defectors who advocated regime change in Iraq. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported in 2005 that the CIA found evidence to back up the claim.

As for the WMD Oil for Food scandal you're going to have to provide a source. Wikipedia has an extensive article on it, and all I was able to find was this part that pretty much disproves what you said:

The Iraqi government was then permitted to purchase items that were not embargoed under the economic sanctions. Certain items, such as raw foodstuffs, were expedited for immediate shipment, but requests for most items, including such simple things as pencils and folic acid, were reviewed in a process that typically took about six months before shipment was authorised. Items deemed to have any potential application in chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons systems development were not available to the regime, regardless of what their stated purpose was.

Either way, I don't see what that has to do with Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda.

2:06 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Josh, you can deny all you want, sad as that would be, but the fact still remains that Iraq, under Saddam, was the center of Middle Eastern Terrorism and a protector and haven for it. Saddam was a gathering threat and attempting to illegally acquire WMD's from, France, Germany and Russia,
(that's why they opposed us at the UN, by the way)
and our President took him out BEFORE he became a greater threat. Now you can
deny these facts if you want, but don't be foolish in thinking that Islamic terrorists don't want to kill all of us if we don't convert to Islam. You at least have to believe that.
You surprise me thouogh, in that you are one of the few on your side of the arguement that believes "Zarqawi actually was in Iraq because he was able to stay in the Kurdish north" Most people don't want to admit that at all. There's hope for you yet.

3:43 PM  
Blogger Josh said...

"The center of terrorism?" Please. Show me that Saddam sponsored terrorism against the US and was continuing to do so at the time of invasion. Salman Pak has been disproven, and the money to suicide bombers in Israel was not Al Qaeda and not directed at the US or the West.

Now you can
deny these facts if you want, but don't be foolish in thinking that Islamic terrorists don't want to kill all of us if we don't convert to Islam. You at least have to believe that.


Of course I believe that terrorists want to kill us. I was responding to the fact that the first part of what you said was basically "THE TERRORISTS WANT TO KILL YOU!" when

A)Well no shit the terrorists want to kill people, and

B)What terrorists like Bin Ladin do or don't want to do has zero effect on whether or not they have ties to Saddam Hussein.

3:58 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Oil for Food scandal can be found here.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200403101819.asp

4:01 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Josh said, "I was responding to the fact that the first part of what you said was basically "THE TERRORISTS WANT TO KILL YOU!"

If they want to kill us, wouldn't that obviously imply that they wanted to kill, you?

Q: Who are you fighting against on this blog, me or the terrorists? We can have differences, yes, but
when will you and others join together will me and others in fighting terrorism?

4:15 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Josh said...
"The center of terrorism?'Please."

Saddam was a gathering threat and Iraq was the center of Middle Eastern terrorism, if not, then why do terrorists come from
all over to protect Iraq, like no other place on earth? Why don't they attack us here?

4:27 PM  
Blogger Josh said...

International jihadis come to Iraq because it provides a convenient place to target American troops, since over 160,000 are there. Besides, the main bulk of the insurgency is Sunni radicals and former Baathists who were there under Saddam and became insurgents because the US invaded.

Iraq also has special religious importance to Muslims, but really a US invasion of any middle eastern country would draw jihadists to fight the invading infidel. Hell, the Soviets faced the same thing when they went into Afghanistan in 1979, a country that was completely unimportant to Islamists strategically.

4:36 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Q: Who are you fighting against on this blog, me or the terrorists? We can have differences, yes, but
when will you and others join together will me and others in fighting terrorism?

4:41 PM  
Blogger Josh said...

I don't know how exactly I can fight terrorism from this blog, but I don't know why you are implying that I somehow don't want to fight Islamist terrorism.

The problem with "joining together with you and others" (and I assume that means Bush and the Republicans) is that Bush's policy of regime change in Iraq and his terror policy as a whole has been downright horrible. The invasion of Iraq has brought nothing but suffering and insecurity.

Propose some anti-terror policy that has a good chance of working and I'll happily support it. But as long as the policy involves military invasions of unrelated countries that make things so much worse, I just can't.

4:47 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

What we have set up in Iraq
is a "magnet," where terrorists come from all over to fight the,
"invading infidel." They pop their head up and we shoot them off! Putt-ding! putt-ding! like a carnival shooting gallery. Isn't it far better to kill them on their own turf, than to wait for them to come over here? It's a brilliant plan!

4:59 PM  
Blogger Josh said...

An impractical plan for a number of reasons.

1. Again, most of the insurgents in Iraq are not foreign Al Qaeda types, but homegrown Sunni extremists and neo-Baathists. I've seen some estimates that say foriegn terrorists commit something like 5% of all attacks.

2. That's one expensive honeypot you got there. How many thousands of American casualties and hundreds of billions of dollars do you think its worth?

3. Iraq appears to be on the edge of complete collapse into civil war. US troops are going to have a difficult time killing foreign insurgents when they are barely able to keep order among the Sunnis and Shiites.

4. And finally, we aren't facing a traditional army with a finite amount of resources. The Islamists have a practically endless supply of recruits, and recruiting only becomes easier with the US in Iraq.

Maybe the war in Iraq actually did succeed in this honeypot approach in the short term. However, as the country falls apart the Islamists are just going to emerge more powerful because of the war has created a whole new generation of jihadists ready to give their lives in the war against the "infidels."

5:17 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Josh said,"Bush's policy of regime change in Iraq and his terror policy as a whole has been downright horrible. The invasion of Iraq has brought nothing but suffering and insecurity."

War is horrible,(WW2 cost us over 400,000 dead), but don't you think that this war could go a lot better if our OWN COUNTRY would get behind the effort and give our, willing and voluntary troops the morale support that they deserve? After all, they ARE there for you, whether you understand their mission or not.

5:17 PM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

Cliff, I sat this one out until I read your egregious analogy about what is going on in Iraq. It is most definitely not a carnival shooting gallery. There is no "putt-ding" to it.

My brother thankfully came home safely after his tour there in the National Guard (you know, the guys whose duty is to protect the homefront?), but my cousin did not. He suffered severe facial lacerations and his three year-old daughter has just now warmed up to the sight of him.

They and many of their still-active friends have all told me the same thing: that things are only getting worse, and that they have no clear mission other than to survive their shift each day. Several have told me that they are sick of having to keep their views to themselves publicly and that they respect Murtha more than their official C-I-C.

Also, every last one of those men has told me their equipment shortages are ridiculous. Many still don't have the fully armored Hum-Vees, and two of those guys are in Anbar Province.

I think people like you love to act the part of the tough guy, but if it was your ass sitting in a poorly armored Hum-Vee, apprehensively scrutinizing every pile of gravel and piece of trash and wondering if it contains the instrument of your death, you'd be a quivering mess. Your words sure do have all the bravado of someone who has no idea of what is going on.

In fact, your ballsy bluster coupled with your detachment from reality sound very much like another person who has no idea what is going on or what it's like to wonder if you're going to lose your face today. Unfortunately, that person is the reason we're in all this mess.

And there is something else I want you and others who try so desperately to conflate our criticism of that person with our not supporting our troops (let alone the f__king incendiary accusation that we're rooting for the enemy). Just because our knuckles don't drag the ground doesn't make us elitists. It doesn't make us terrorist-appeasers because know that an important component to winning the real war on terror, equal to the importance of our military, is that we uphold the standards that we helped set over the past century. We don't drink lattes and look down our noses at the people in those flag-draped coffins you hope everyone ignores (while they imagine it all to be a stupid shooting game on the midway). Those men are our men too.

But the smear of the left starts at the top, with Cheney and Rove and that other pansy ass that never wore the uniform, the one sending them to their deaths ill-equipped and undermanned. 'Portray the left as enemies of the state and terrorist cheerleaders and we can keep doing what we want.'

And the blogger has issued more than her share of not-so-subtle innuendo trying to cement this despicable conflation of protest and callous disregard for our troops. When the "tone" from her and others changes, mine will too.

Enough of your implied ownership of the flag, our troops, our freedom, and our collective love of country.

6:51 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

So why do they keep re-inlisting and in record numbers? Last year,my son enlisted in the Army right out of High School, and no he's not down and out, not a minority, not an
Army "brat" and he's not "too stupid" to know the difference, He's a Straight A student and KNEW exactly why he joined.
What do you say to that?

7:07 PM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

I forgot to add that while you and Carol want to claim our words are injurious to our troops and the war on terror, the real abandonment of them and our cause is the appalling way you and she clamor for tax cuts for the Waltons. They need a few dozen million extra dollars for their heavily guarded mansions in the Ozarks. Meanwhile, you take money from our kids to pay for this boondoggle, and then claim we can't afford to fortify our infrastructure here at home.

Chemical plant security regulations? Naw, the chemical lobby says it's too expensive. What do you want to bet the CEO of Dow doesn't live downwind of the plant?

Pony up the money if you're so committed to the war effort.

7:10 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Oh...I forgot, my son also has three other friends that did the same thing!

7:11 PM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

"What do you say to that?"

I say we as a country should live up to the example that he and 99.99% of our troops set and conduct ourselves with the utmost restraint and respect on the world stage. If our allies don't respect us, we're seriously f__ked.

No, I am not advocating putting our national security in the hands of others (the way the blogger and her president are all too eager to frame the issue). I'm talking about how the little man in charge has severely diminished our credibility and our stature at a time when we need it the most.

7:16 PM  
Blogger Josh said...

War is horrible,(WW2 cost us over 400,000 dead), but don't you think that this war could go a lot better if our OWN COUNTRY would get behind the effort and give our, willing and voluntary troops the morale support that they deserve? After all, they ARE there for you, whether you understand their mission or not.

I think that the war would be doing alot better if the military had been given the supplies and troop levels required from the start. I think that having enough troops that many at the top of the military recommended then and continue to recommend now would have a great positive effect. I think that the left's failure to provide morale support exists only in your head, and that you are conflating criticism of the administration with support of the troops.

Unfortunately, I also think that the very premise of the war was flawed to failure. More troops, better equipped, would be doing better, but I couldn't see the war having any different outcomes strategically in the long run.

7:23 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

As I said earlier, what we ALL need to do in this country, starting with myself, is to make sure that we SUPPORT THIS EFFORT! No more of this childish, "Bushie lied,"
crap. If our president lied, then why did all the lame brain fools in congress, Democrat and Republican, fall for it! If they knew it was a lie, why were they ALL stupid enough to jump off the cliff like lemings? NONE
of them deserve to be in congress if they're that lame. Sounds like a school
yard,"teacher, he did it also" NONSENCE! Also, how
evil is would be for those same lawmakers, for whatever reason, to send our finest into war, and then spit on the effort later. That's dispicable!

Ladies and gentlemen on this site, let's stop fighting about how we got into Iraq, Now is the time
to get behind the effort and see it to the end, OK?

7:43 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

We ALL bought this war, those of us who vote. Can any of us say that we know of ANY elected official, of ANY party, that knew the
truth at the time we first went, and didn't say ANYTHING about it when they should have? If Bush "lied" then where is the evidence of that? Those who criticize now, had more than three years to produce evidence of a lie, but where is it? If so, Who? When? Where? What did they say? Hind sight is easy, but pointing fingers afterwards is CHEAP!

8:08 PM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

When Colin Powell delivered what I presumed to be solid intel to the UN, I set aside my suspicion that something didn't smell right. It turns out that he had serious misgivings about much of it, as did the CIA. They knew Curveball was a liar. Every single thing that has come to light since then regarding the pre-war, behind-the-scenes strongarming that went on has only validated what my nose told me.

Bush had a personal ax to grind. The neocons had a theory to test out. And Cheney and his war-based and oil-based buddies had some money to make.

But I do not speak for my fellow lefties, many of whom knew it didn't add up. So when you say, "we ALL bought this war," no, we didn't. The momentum of 9/11 whipped up a frenzy of emotions which always snuffs out objectivity, especially when that frenzy is fed cherry-picked intel.

8:41 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Hopeless!

8:46 PM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

I agree, it is a hopeless situation that your clone in the White House has gotten us into.

8:49 PM  
Blogger Josh said...

This is getting kind of old, but as far as evidence for lying here ya go.

In September of 2002 Vice President Cheney appeared on meet the press(transcript linked below) and said the following:

Specifically aluminum tubes. There’s a story in The New York Times this morning-this is-I don’t-and I want to attribute The Times. I don’t want to talk about, obviously, specific intelligence sources, but it’s now public that, in fact, he has been seeking to acquire, and we have been able to intercept and prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel, the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge. And the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and enhance it into highly enriched uranium, which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb.

This was not a true statement. The tubes Iraq had acquired were of wrong size and material to be used in centrifuges. The tubes were actually for rockets. The question is, did Cheney know it was false when he said it?

Turns out, one year before, when the intelligence that Cheney was referencing was first recieved, the Department of Energy had told the administration that the tubes were completely wrong for enriching uranium and were more likely to be used in rockets. From the New York Times, linked at the bottom:

But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.

Now, when one's nuclear experts say that a particular item is not suitable for nuclear development, don't you think it's just a wee bit dishonest to go on national TV and say the exact opposite?

There is a similar story to nearly every piece of evidence the administration used in the case for war. Intelligence services come a across a piece of information, but its validity is seriously doubted by at least some experts. Nevertheless, Bush or one of the top members of his cabinet tout that discovery as fact in making its case for war.

Cheney on Meet the Press

New York Times article on the aluminum tubes

8:56 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Duke-stir, Josh and Editor, So What? What difference does all that make now? Right of wrong, aren't we way past that? What do any of you hope to accomplish with your facts and figures? There is NOTHING any of you can say or do that is going to change ANYTHING. I am proposing that we, as a nation, (I hate this term) move on. Why can't we do that?

9:44 PM  
Blogger Josh said...

No, I don't think that we're way past anything, as long as deceitful and incompetent administration is still in power and still able to do harm to America and the world.

9:54 PM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

I agree, let's move on out of Iraq. Sooner rather than never.

I do not agree, however, that there is no point in arguing about how we got into Iraq. It is an extremely important one. As I've said before, the point will never be moot because of what it should teach us if/when the next attack occurs: that we need to compartmentalize our emotions and our judgment and not shake the two together into one big molotov cocktail.

Furthermore, the best chance we have in regaining any measure of the goodwill we had flowing to us after 9/11 -- goodwill that is essential toward a GLOBAL effort to fight a GLOBAL war -- is to acknowledge to the world that we erred. It is not something that we can cover up. It is on full display.

And the best way of atoning for the seriously botched portrait of democracy the finger-painter has produced is to elect a body or two to reign him in until his time in office mercifully ends. And then elect a statesman, someone who has a working understanding of the complex world we live in and at least a whiff of a plan to navigate our way through it that doesn't rely on dropping daisy cutters wherever, whenever.

But that's just the idealist in me talking, the one who thinks our still-great nation should be represented by a great man who isn't ashamed to admit that he spent his whole life preparing for this moment, instead of stumbling onto it.

10:03 PM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

for duke,

What I don't buy is that you think you have the insight to think something smelled bad when you listened to Powell. No. I'd lay my money on a more likely scenario, that you wouldn't trust anything out of this admin due to your irrational hatred of Bush. It just sounds better to you to sit there at this time and pretend you knew "the truth" back then. Right.

I also question your line about what "they and many of their still-active friends" have to say, as if you've interviewed hordes of troops. Look, here's a few things to keep in mind. Right off, Cliff countered that with tales of his kid in the service. I have heard quite a few interviews on programs like Laura Ingraham where the troops DO know the mission and support it fully. The point being, that angle of debate goes nowhere. (BTW, despite their feelings, I'm grateful for their service and may God Bless them all.)

Another thing to consider is that there will always be those who believe more and better equipment is needed, no matter how much is there already. And as true as it may be, it's always been the case in every war that some, if not most, had needs they felt or weren't truly being met. You read accounts from as far back as the Revolutionary War, Civil War, or the accounts dramatized in "Band of Brothers", particularly the part about Bastogne. Troops always complain, and they have that right just because of the constant danger, and they always will. And just like on the job, there are troops who feel the boss is an idiot. It will always be thus. It's not a phenomenom unique to this war or the admin.

And another thing, Bush DID wear the uniform. He didn't see action, but he was training as a pilot. Idiots don't get to train as a pilot. And the idea that he's not upholding the standards that we helped set over the past century is assuming more than you could ever know. SOME think he's breaking laws and violating the Constitution and defying the Geneva Convention. Others DON'T. And should there always be enough that do, that doesn't mean they are right. And they aren't right applying standards to a situation for which the standards weren't designed to take into account. You accuse Cliff and myself and Carol of not dealing in reality, yet you've created your own little reality that states that Bush is somehow evil or incompetent, and support it by only listening to those who disagree with the guy. Considering your side has done so much to frustrate the efforts of this admin, leaking info, making false accusations about intentions, etc. shows that it is YOUR side with the wrong idea about fighting the "real" WOT.

10:10 PM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

Josh,

First, I appreciate the tenor and tone of your arguments. We don't often see it from "the other side". Thanks.

I think the point about France is that it is another example of the uselessness of the appeasement strategy. The feelings of the enemy is irrelevant to the point as appeasement is in one form or another, being put forth by the left. The argument being that there would be fewer or even no attacks if we didn't go into Iraq. Considering how many attacks there were before Iraq, it's a poor argument. But Iraq is often held up as an excuse for jihadist activity by the jihadists themselves. I agree however, that as they are westerners, France should not feel they are safe from attack.

Sadam's offer to Palestinian families of suicide murderers might not have anything to do with AlQueda, but it is, even in it's lame amount, public support of terrorism. The WOT is not just a war against AQ, but against terror, with the focus on Islamofascism. Now, there's always the claim that Hussein and the boys were secular, but his support of the Palestinians puts him in the terroist supporter group. The point is, that ties to AQ are a single issue, but not the only issue that supports the decision to go to Iraq. For example, many whine about WMDs, but we didn't need to find any, Hussein hadn't accounted for them to satisfy UN resolutions. And since he used them, it was reasonable to assume he still had them if he didn't have proof they were destroyed. It was the lack of proof that was a justification, no matter what our flawed intel said about WMDs. He also repeatedly fired on our planes patrolling the no fly zone. And that we didn't war on his ass the moment we learned that he tried to hit Bush 41 shocks the hell out of me. If that's not a reason to go to war, attempts on our president, what is? So he showed over and over that his existence as head of Iraq was a very bad idea for the world, and removing him from power was and remains a very good thing. All the flawed intel shows us is that we need to get back to the time when we had humans gathering itel and not just electronics.

"The invasion of Iraq has brought nothing but suffering and insecurity."

No. That was ongoing. Terrorists were doing that already. Hussein was doing that already. We did not bring it but to those who were causing it all. We only joined the fight rather than trying to stay out of it. But we suffered with both WTC attacks and the attacks on our embassies and military sites, and our security was breeched then. So suffering and insecurity is not alone, but has us finally doing something about it.

10:40 PM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

No Marshall, I have not interviewed "hordes" of servicemen. Nor has Ingraham, who unlike me, cherry-picked hers, or at least only aired the ones who supported her case.

I was wrong for stating that Bush never wore the uniform. It's just so easy to forget, you know? I see that studied, self-conscious swagger of his on jobsites every day.

I understand how you could arrive at your thesis that I have rearranged my history of feelings to camouflage the "fact" that I have always hated Bush and would never have bought anything he said anyway. I can only tell you that that is not the case. You will probably choose to disbelieve. That is okay.

While it is true that I never voted for the man, I did not hate him until it became evident to me that he had had this shadow policy of invading Iraq all along and that he had used grossly misused my country's resources -- namely, its young men and women -- in such a reckless and thoughtless manner.

I was as enraged as everyone else on 9/11 and was gung ho for going into Afghanistan to find bin Laden. Toby Keith had nothing on me. And I admit it was the lingering adrenalin that, along with "evidence" presented by someone like Powell, whom I regarded as very credible, caused me to not question the timing of this war like I should have. And as for the effectiveness of the war toward fighting the jihadists, Josh enumerated very well the ways in which this is a fool's errand.

Regarding your statement that I have created my "own little reality that states that Bush is somehow evil or incompetent, and support it by only listening to those who disagree with the guy," that actually is not true. You would not know this, but I listen to Rush sometimes. Granted, I'm usually forced because that's what so many in my industry are tuned in to. But I actally listen. And I'm here, aren't I?

And finally, much to everyone's relief, I am calling it a night. And I may not be back for a while. But as you might expect from me, it is not a sign of surrender.

10:43 PM  
Blogger Editor said...

Cliff,

Read these government reports if you want to know what happened.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf


al Qaida:

Former CIA Director George Tenet had modified his position on the terrorist link at the request of administration policymakers.

Nuclear & Biological Weapons:

False information from the Iraqi National Congress, an anti-Saddam group led by then-exile Ahmed Chalabi, was used to support key U.S. intelligence assessments on Iraq. As of 1996 the CIA wanted to sever ties with INC as it knew it had been infiltrated by anit-American elements.

Biological Weapons:

Intelligence was supplied by one discredited source named “Curve Ball”.

According to the report, postwar findings indicate that Saddam "was distrustful of al-Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime."

Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."

The report is a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein was linked with al-Qaida.

10:45 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google