Politics As Usual

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Only the sense that there were also connections between Al Qaeda and the U.S., or Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia, and Al Qaeda and any other country in the Middle East. Maybe not Israel, I'll grant you.

Untrue. There was far more than that, though how much more and whether it was nefarious enough is still cloudy in my mind.

Find me where I said "solely." To the contrary, I recognize that the administration floated more than one justification. I happen to think that WMD were most important to most Americans, but 9/11 upset a lot of people, as you may have noticed.

fair enough.

Read Kaplan's piece and tell me where I'm wrong. Bush et al. have, over a long period of time, made statements about Iraq and Al Qaeda that, while allowing the sort of wiggle room you pointed to, were plainly designed to leave people with the impression that there was some there there when, as the (bi-partisan) 9/11 commission just pointed out, it was not so. He's still at it. Are you too simple-minded to perceive what they're up to? Or do you not think the regular statements over many months make for a "sustained" campaign?

I disagree with you on the reasons for the wiggle room. I think they really believe all this and have evidence to back it up, but perhaps not beyond a reasonable doubt, which apparently is what is needed these days.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
...(d) the war will be viewed as a watershed moment similar to WWII when the history is written.*

*I may be proven wrong on (a) and the connections in (b) may not have justified war.

And do you think this administration has any control over that watershed moment?

This war will be a lesson on the limits of warfare; yes, we could win the war, but our ability to translate power into real control of the development of post-war Iraq is limited, and the types of changes that the West wants there are ones that take generations, not merely years.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I have been saying all along that remaking the middle east was my top priority. I haven't been coy about this. I also believe (a) there were or still are WMDs, (b) there were AQ connections, (c) the war was justified on humanitarian grounds, and (d) the war will be viewed as a watershed moment similar to WWII when the history is written.*

*I may be proven wrong on (a) and the connections in (b) may not have justified war.

What more has to happen for you to admit you were wrong on (a)?

After the 9/11 commission report yesterday re (b), do you now concede you were wrong? If not, do you think the "connections" (and I use that term loosely) described in it warranted war?

On (c), what other countries ought we invade right now on humanitarian grounds? There is genocide going on in Sudan, a country with many "connections" (in the non-loose sense) to Al Qaeda.

On (d), I'm afraid we agree completely, but for different reasons.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Untrue. There was far more than that, though how much more and whether it was nefarious enough is still cloudy in my mind.

* * * * *

I disagree with you on the reasons for the wiggle room. I think they really believe all this and have evidence to back it up, but perhaps not beyond a reasonable doubt, which apparently is what is needed these days.

Have you read anything about what the 9/11 Commission said yesterday? They called bullshit:

• The staff of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks sharply contradicted one of President Bush's central justifications for the Iraq war, reporting on Wednesday that there did not appear to have been a "collaborative relationship" between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The assertion came in staff reports that offer a chilling, richly detailed chronology of the Sept. 11 plot and rewrite much of the history of the attacks.
  
  As for Iraq, the commission's staff said its investigation showed that the government of Mr. Hussein had rebuffed or ignored requests from Qaeda leaders for help in the 1990's, a conclusion that directly contradicts a series of public statements President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney made before and after last year's invasion of Iraq in justifying the war.
  
  "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States," one of the staff reports released on Wednesday said. "Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded." The report said that despite evidence of repeated contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 90's, "they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

That's from today's NYT.

We gave money to what is now Al Qaeda, back when it was fighting the Soviet Union. If you're going to say that Iraq's "connections" with Al Qaeda prove anything, you should say worse about us.

[Gattigap]

"and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes."

What is this? A Lynne Cheney excerpt?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
And do you think this administration has any control over that watershed moment?

I'm not sure what you mean in your question, but the US will be viewed as the catalyst for changing the region for the better.

This war will be a lesson on the limits of warfare; yes, we could win the war, but our ability to translate power into real control of the development of post-war Iraq is limited, and the types of changes that the West wants there are ones that take generations, not merely years.

Yes, and by the way, just because I support the decision to go to war does not mean I believe the execution has been good. It has been terrible. And yes, at least a generation, but it will happen.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What more has to happen for you to admit you were wrong on (a)?

After the 9/11 commission report yesterday re (b), do you now concede you were wrong? If not, do you think the "connections" (and I use that term loosely) described in it warranted war?

On (c), what other countries ought we invade right now on humanitarian grounds? There is genocide going on in Sudan, a country with many "connections" (in the non-loose sense) to Al Qaeda.

On (d), I'm afraid we agree completely, but for different reasons.

(a) - 5 years or so must go by. The hunt for WMDs is still ongoing and the fact that small traces have been found leads me to believe greater quantites were or are still there.

(b) - the Administration disputes this, and the few facts that have come out are suspicious. Time will tell.

(c) - Sudan would be very high on my list, though I don't think we have the capabilities right now.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Gattigap
"and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes."

What is this? A Lynne Cheney excerpt?

Kate Bush lyric?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not sure what you mean in your question, but the US will be viewed as the catalyst for changing the region for the better.

Just as likely an outcome will be that history writes that we destabilized one of the principal countries containing the Islamic revolution, and while we focused on Iraq, central Asia and Saudi Arabia came unglued. (BTW, this scenario is a popular strategic exercise right now in the military -- what do we do if simultaneous crises erupt in the Caucasian mountains, Uzbekistan, and Saudi Arabia?).

And, remember, we, through our installation and support of the Shah, have been a significant catalyst thus far for the Iranian revolution; Kermit Roosevelt never really planned it, but he, along with Khomeni, have to be viewed as the parents of that revolution.

Yes, and by the way, just because I support the decision to go to war does not mean I believe the execution has been good. It has been terrible. And yes, at least a generation, but it will happen.

The way it was executed is going to be a significant part of the war's legacy. When you unleash war, this is one of those foreseeable consequences. In the past recent engagements in Iraq and the Balkans, there was extraordinary effort given to containing the impact of war, and, indeed, it was at the very heart of the way Powell, for example, conducted war.

This administration, however, seems to be pursuing an ideological course that is at odds with and specifically seeks to undermine the Geneva Convention, from Guantanamo to A.G.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
This administration, however, seems to be pursuing an ideological course that is at odds with and specifically seeks to undermine the Geneva Convention, from Guantanamo to A.G.

It's completely consistent with the Bush Doctrine, which is that the U.S. cannot bind itself to any treaties that constrain our ability to act unilaterally in defense of our strategic interests, and extant treaties can never be construed to mean we are so constrained. Like our membership in the U.N., the existence of which we need to acknowledge only when we agree with it.

Which is a little stupid, like saying that we won't sign any contracts that prescribe our rights or give others any remedies against us.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch

There are perhaps 10,000 neocons in the U.S. who think that re-making the Middle East justifies the death of 1,000 or more American lives. The problem is, they told the other 250 million of us a bunch of other shit that wasn't true (for whatever reason; at this point I don't care).

That's exactly the problem. Congress and the American public would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER have supported the Iraq war if the Bush-ies hadn't sold the war with a bunch of bullshit lies. Heads should roll for that.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

This administration, however, seems to be pursuing an ideological course that is at odds with and specifically seeks to undermine the Geneva Convention, from Guantanamo to A.G.

Hey now, the Geneva Convention never extended to Atticus -- he isn't a signatory.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't think anyone wants to rehash this debate, but:

1. I think materiality should be judged in connection with the case that procurred the lie. If my memory serves me, the case was thrown out after he lied under oath. Query whether the same result would have been reached had he told the truth.

2. I understand why he lied - it's very human in that situtation. But I also think it is really, really wrong - especially to the plaintiff. Whether he should have been thrown out of office, in hindsite, I don't know. But I think the impeachment was appropriate to at least slap the wrist and give faith in our system that no one is above the law.

1. The Judge in the Jones case held a big-assed investigation and hearing, and issued an opinion on precisely this point. She determined that the lie did not affect the outcome of the case (which doesn't dispose of the "materiality" issue).

2. You know this was pressed just because he was a Democrat who inspire exceptional dislike, even hatred, in many key Republicans. Was it worth crippling our government for 3 years?

P.S. Clinton's approval ratings after the impeachment, and upon leaving office, are a whole shit-load higher than Bush's are now. So what do you think the "common man" would say?

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
...that at the mere demand for a donation, the "unemployed-male-known-as-Not Me" immediately ceased posting and went into hiding?

Who else do we want to knock into retirement? NFH?

I've tried to donate, but never got a response to my PM or e-mail. Paypal baffles me. Where do I send the cheese? [I'll just send a check or something, because I don't care.]

S_A_M

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Hey now, the Geneva Convention never extended to Atticus -- he isn't a signatory.

Plus, the guys in my basement are all non-uniformed irregulars and "stateless" combatants. I'm nothing if not scrupulous.