Politics As Usual

[SlaveNoMore]

Skeks in the city
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.

This is the most idiotic thing I've read today*

* granted, I missed most of Atticus' recent replies to Club due to a 2 hour conf call

[SlaveNoMore]

From radio today

Vice Pres. CHENEY:
"... But it's very important that people understand these two differences. What The New York Times did today was outrageous. They do a lot of outrageous things but the headline, Panel Find Qaida-Iraq Tie. The press wants to run out and say there's a fundamental split here now between what the president said and what the commission said. Jim Thompson is a member of the commission who's since been on the air. I saw him with my own eyes. And there's no conflict. What they were addressing was whether or not they were involved in 9/11. And there they found no evidence to support that proposition. They did not address the broader question of a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida in other areas, in other ways...."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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?

Sir, you give her too much credit. Yesterday being Bloomsday, it's very end of Ulysses.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
From radio today

Vice Pres. CHENEY:
"... But it's very important that people understand these two differences. What The New York Times did today was outrageous. They do a lot of outrageous things but the headline, Panel Find Qaida-Iraq Tie. The press wants to run out and say there's a fundamental split here now between what the president said and what the commission said. Jim Thompson is a member of the commission who's since been on the air. I saw him with my own eyes. And there's no conflict. What they were addressing was whether or not they were involved in 9/11. And there they found no evidence to support that proposition. They did not address the broader question of a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida in other areas, in other ways...."

Silly Slave, you are ignoring that this has been a sustained effort on the part of the adminstration to link the two . . .

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
(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.

This makes no sense at all to me. If you've been following this story at all, you know that there were no real WMD, and that Ahmed Chalabi told us what we wanted to hear. What could we possibly find even now that would justify having gone to war to protect ourselves from Iraqi WMD? Give it up.

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

No, they really don't dispute it. From that same NYT article:

• The White House said on Wednesday that it did not see the commission's staff reports as a contradiction of past statements by Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and that the administration had always been careful not to suggest that it had proof of a tie between Mr. Hussein and Sept. 11.

In other words, they're talking about it in a way that is designed to convey the impression to the general public that there's still something there, while covering their ass from media who know better. They want it both ways.

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

The problem with the post hoc rationalizations for going to war with Iraq that you see from a lot of people is that they're not willing to apply the same standards to where we go from here -- it's only political CYA.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
From radio today

Vice Pres. CHENEY:
"... But it's very important that people understand these two differences. What The New York Times did today was outrageous. They do a lot of outrageous things but the headline, Panel Find Qaida-Iraq Tie. The press wants to run out and say there's a fundamental split here now between what the president said and what the commission said. Jim Thompson is a member of the commission who's since been on the air. I saw him with my own eyes. And there's no conflict. What they were addressing was whether or not they were involved in 9/11. And there they found no evidence to support that proposition. They did not address the broader question of a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida in other areas, in other ways...."

Sure. Iraq could have been supporting al Qaeda's non-core functions, like its initiatives into legitimate businesses in Cuba and Vegas. I'm sure the Commission, in its rush to prove or disprove connections between "Iraq" and "9/11," totally missed this and put aside and disregarded all the evidence of Iraq's many contributions to al Qaeda side projects other than "Death to America."

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This makes no sense at all to me. If you've been following this story at all, you know that there were no real WMD, and that Ahmed Chalabi told us what we wanted to hear. What could we possibly find even now that would justify having gone to war to protect ourselves from Iraqi WMD? Give it up.

I love how what you read is fact, but what I read is a pipe dream.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop No, they really don't dispute it. From that same NYT article:

• The White House said on Wednesday that it did not see the commission's staff reports as a contradiction of past statements by Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and that the administration had always been careful not to suggest that it had proof of a tie between Mr. Hussein and Sept. 11.

In other words, they're talking about it in a way that is designed to convey the impression to the general public that there's still something there, while covering their ass from media who know better. They want it both ways.

If I meant to suggest there was a Iraq connection to 9/11, it was unintentional. I have not seen any evidence of this. But I have seen evidence of harboring, at a minimum, which is enough for me in itself, and perhaps more. This is consistent with what the Admin is saying. See Slave's post above.

The problem with the post hoc rationalizations for going to war with Iraq that you see from a lot of people is that they're not willing to apply the same standards to where we go from here -- it's only political CTA.

What post hoc rationalizations? And if we had a military that was, say 2X what it is, I would go to Sudan.

edited to add: but I would not pull out of Iraq to go there.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
From radio today

Vice Pres. CHENEY:
"... But it's very important that people understand these two differences. What The New York Times did today was outrageous. They do a lot of outrageous things but the headline, Panel Find Qaida-Iraq Tie. The press wants to run out and say there's a fundamental split here now between what the president said and what the commission said. Jim Thompson is a member of the commission who's since been on the air. I saw him with my own eyes. And there's no conflict. What they were addressing was whether or not they were involved in 9/11. And there they found no evidence to support that proposition. They did not address the broader question of a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida in other areas, in other ways...."

Right. Because if there's one person in contemporary American politics who's not wearing ideological blinders when he looks at the world, it's Dick Cheney.

"Last Sept. 14, on Meet the Press, Cheney said that a U.S. success in Iraq will mean 'that we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.'"* Being a fair man, and careful to be accurate, surely Cheney has retracted that mistake, right?

* Kaplan's piece in Slate, today.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I love how what you read is fact, but what I read is a pipe dream.

What are you reading? There's no there there. There's no WMD, but you want to wait five years to be sure? Give me a break. Do you dispute that Chalabi was feeding us misinformation? Come on -- it's been reported everywhere by now.

If I meant to suggest there was a Iraq connection to 9/11, it was unintentional. I have not seen any evidence of this. But I have seen evidence of harboring, at a minimum, which is enough for me in itself, and perhaps more. This is consistent with what the Admin is saying. See Slave's post above.

Iraq harbored who? Remember, Zarqawi's group (Ansar al Islam (sp?)) was operating in part of northern Iraq not under Iraqi control.

What post hoc rationalizations? And if we had a military that was, say 2X what it is, I would go to Sudan.

I didn't say you. I'm saying, I get tired of reading that from others.

But does this mean you'd pay more in taxes to enlarge the military to invade Sudan?

[SlaveNoMore]

This was supposed to be the 9/11 Commission, correct?

The one that was supposed to investigate what happened on SEPTEMBER 11th, how our goverment responded, and what needs to be fixed to prevent/minimize any further events from occurring in the future.

Tell me again why this became the "Finger-pointing-and-lets-switch-the-subject-to-weigh-in-on-the-Iraq-War" commission?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What are you reading? There's no there there. There's no WMD, but you want to wait five years to be sure? Give me a break. Do you dispute that Chalabi was feeding us misinformation? Come on -- it's been reported everywhere by now.

I've posted many articles on both WMDs and the connections, which you summarily dismiss. That's fine. Forget the articles. Every intelligence agency in the world thought they were there and they weren't basing the analysis on Chalabi. Where did they go? I have never heard a satisfactory answer to that question. I doubt they were destoyed, that just doesn't make sense. They are either still there or were moved.

Iraq harbored who? Remember, Zarqawi's group (Ansar al Islam (sp?)) was operating in part of northern Iraq not under Iraqi control.

Other members of AQ.

But does this mean you'd pay more in taxes to enlarge the military to invade Sudan?

If, after cutting other bs spending/subsidies, we needed to raise taxes I probably would.

eft

[SlaveNoMore]

sgtclub
I've posted many articles on both WMDs and the connections, which you summarily dismiss. That's fine. Forget the articles. Every intelligence agency in the world thought they were there and they weren't basing the analysis on Chalabi. Where did they go? I have never heard a satisfactory answer to that question. I doubt they were destoyed, that just doesn't make sense. They are either still there or were moved.

I'm underwater today and tomorrow. Club, you have my proxy.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore

This was supposed to be the 9/11 Commission, correct?

The one that was supposed to investigate what happened on SEPTEMBER 11th, how our goverment responded, and what needs to be fixed to prevent/minimize any further events from occurring in the future.

Supposed to be, and is. They determined that al qaeda did 9/11 without the involvement of Iraq.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What post hoc rationalizations? And if we had a military that was, say 2X what it is, I would go to Sudan.

It is pretty easy to have 2x more deployable military strength. All we need is a combination of good diplomacy and additional reserves.

But why 2x for Sudan? If you are focused on a humanitarian missian to Sudan, it is a relatively easy task -- there is a clean geographic break between the north and south, you need to soften up defenses enough to get a few thousand person force stationed in a cordon across the middle of the country, and then you can handily protect the Christian south and contain the north.

If you have broader geo-political goals, you need control of the ports and the Nile around Khartoum (but probably not Khartoum itself until it's just given to you). Both are strategically relatively simple and exposed locations; stay out of the swamps and you'll be OK. Of course, you probably want to protect the oil pipeline, and that would likely be the most significant military task.

None of this requires 2x troop strength. If we're just separating the country, we won't need to do much to police the south, since it really will be fairly friendly territory given that it is overwhelmingly Christian, armed, and seeking autonomy, and the North we'd not be occupying, just containing. This is the sort of military task we could assign to Italy if we had her support. Of course, we've got Poland, and with a little bit of help from our planes, they could take care of the rest.

There is even an easy exit strategy - split the country up, and let the South self-govern. Give them military and humanitarian support for 10-15 years, and we'd have a success on our hands. Of course, if you get more ambitious, and want to do something with the North, you have bigger issues, but we can deal with humanitarian issues without doing that.

So why the hestiancy? Sudan's three steps below Afghanistan in terms of a military target, and significantly easier politically. I have my own reasons for not ordering Poland in tomorrow, but what are yours?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
This was supposed to be the 9/11 Commission, correct?

The one that was supposed to investigate what happened on SEPTEMBER 11th, how our goverment responded, and what needs to be fixed to prevent/minimize any further events from occurring in the future.*

Tell me again why this became the "Finger-pointing-and-lets-switch-the-subject-to-weigh-in-on-the-Iraq-War" commission?

Well, the President said Iraq needed to be fixed to prevent/minimize further events. Either that, or you and Club are the only people IN THE WORLD smart enough to have heard him differently.

It's hard to win on Topicality under either a Policymaker or Critic of Argument Paradigm. You're looking for the Hypo Testing Paradigm, which is down the hall next to the Philosophy Department.

*EMPHASIS ADDED.