Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Replaced_Texan]

Lord help me when Pat Buchanan sounds like the voice of reason.

According to Newsweek, support for Bush's handling of the war has fallen for the first time below 40 percent – to 34 percent, with 61 percent now disapproving of his war leadership. Compare these numbers to the 68 percent support Nixon commanded on Vietnam after that Nov. 3 address, and the gravity of Bush's condition becomes evident.

Put bluntly, the bottom is falling out of support for the commander in chief. What is remarkable is that no Democrat has stepped forward, as Gene McCarthy did, to lead an anti-war crusade and call for a date certain for withdrawal of U.S. troops. Cindy Sheehan is filling that vacuum.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I could be wrong, but I thought that the US/UN destroyed tons of chemical and biological weapons in 1991, and that the existing known weapon sites were under inspection from then until 1998 (?), when the inspectors were kicked out.

I think that it was assumed that Hussein was trying to rebuild his program after he lost the first Gulf War, but I don't think that it was established that he did and that he therefore had tons of weapons in 2002.

FWIW, I don't think that Bush lied about WMD. As noted by lots of people here, everyone from Clinton to Kofi Annan to my friend Big Ed at the Fina station next door thought that Hussein was trying to get back into the WMD business. I do think that Bush and his admin exaggerated what evidence there was because they were convinced that they would find the proof after the invasion. I also think that they wanted to take him out so badly that they misled the country by linking him to 9/11 to get support for the war. I do agree that the world is a better place with him in jail, but I'm not sure that it is worth the price we paid and continue to pay, and there are lots of worse people running around that are more of a direct threat to us that we don't have the time or resources to deal with because our entire army is tied up in Iraq.

I also think that Powell was right, that we can't leave a country after breaking it. But I have a real problem with that being simply the end of the debate -- not one single person has been held accountable for all of the mistakes and goofs and errors in judgment. And these are not things or problems that were not predicted; instead, they were blithely dismissed when raised.

And we still are having problems getting our troops the equipment that they need -- did those of you who dismissed my Liberty Ship analogy last week see the stories about the production problems with the kevlar/ceramic vests for the troops? Why aren't those of you who are so outaged that a mother of a dead soldier dare question the president raising a ruckus over the continuing incompetence of a defense secretary who allows these problems to continue?

Finally, an rational, albeit misguided post.

The thing many fail to realize is that history is always cleaner with the distance of time. Many on this board would have us believe that past, "just" wars were executed perfectly, while at the same time screaming that the sky is falling with every wrong in Iraq.

This is a forest/trees issue. When all of us are sitting in our rocking chairs holding our grandchildren many years from now, I'm confident Iraq will be viewed as a historic, just war that had a transformative effect on the ME and the world.

[nononono]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not progress for women, but progress in the nation building effort.

Well, that's a hell of a nation that denigrates half its population.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not progress for women, but progress in the nation building effort.

Wait a minute. Bush has no interest in Nation Building. He said so in his campaign speeches.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not progress for women, but progress in the nation building effort.

What does that mean? I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse here, but if one of our reasons for going into this whole thing was to bring "freedom" to the Iraqi people, and after the dust settles and everything is said and done a good hunk of the population is left with substantially fewer liberties than they enjoyed for the previous four decades, how is that progress in any meaningful way?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I'm Not Ty, but one reason that we can probably rely upon our WMD experts now is because they've actually now had two plus years to physically search the country, anywhere and everywhere. Before the war, we didn't have that ability.

So, are you saying that our fine men and women in the military who are actually over there right now looking very hard for WMD or evidence thereof are incompetent? Or that when the war started, they allowed all the evidence to be trucked overland to Syria, even though getting rid of WMD was one of the reasons for the war?

Why do you hate America so?

Look in the mirror of liberalism and ask yourself that question. Then go ask your comrade Cindy Sheehan.

More substantively:

1. We had a decade of UN inspectors on the ground, Ty and your liberal pals have told us ad naseum the UN inspector regime was the way to go, so having our troops on the ground now should make us no more or less competent. Unless of course you are now acknowledging the UN couldn't do the job.

2. Explain how it is not plausible that in the run up to the War Saddam moved weapons close to the Syrian border and upon the first air attacks moved them into Syria? Intelligence suggests his son(s) and other members of his family went there for period. Also, explain why this is not plausible and especially in light of the fact that we came in from the south, not from the Syrian border?

[nononono]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
What does that mean? I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse here, but if one of our reasons for going into this whole thing was to bring "freedom" to the Iraqi people, and after the dust settles and everything is said and done a good hunk of the population is left with substantially less liberties than they enjoyed for the previous four decades, how is that progress in any meaningful way?

Well, I do think notions of self-determination are progress, as well as democracy, and not having a brutal dictator with powerful sadistic sons. But treating "women's rights" as something to be dealt with only by the "soft side" of the UN is baloney. This isn't about the right to wear exposed bra straps; it's about practical ownership of other human beings.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
What does that mean? I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse here, but if one of our reasons for going into this whole thing was to bring "freedom" to the Iraqi people, and after the dust settles and everything is said and done a good hunk of the population is left with substantially fewer liberties than they enjoyed for the previous four decades, how is that progress in any meaningful way?

It's progress as compared to where we started (i.e., a totatlitarian, brutal, oppressive regime). I also am not convinced that women will have fewer liberties than they had with Saddam, although I admit I have not seen the language proposed in the draft constitution.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It's progress as compared to where we started (i.e., a totatlitarian, brutal, oppressive regime). I also am not convinced that women will have fewer liberties than they had with Saddam, although I admit I have not seen the language proposed in the draft constitution.

Women had the vote a few months back. Does the new constitution take that away, or is everyone here just creating new things wrong?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Run a search re the Gorelick Wall here, and you will find that I posted on it several times while you were gone. It's like the Syria thing, or Hank's belief that the inspectors thought there were WMD -- no matter how many times it's debunked, you will keep trotting it out.

As for Able Danger, please explain to me why Clinton "is responsible for" Able Danger.

None of those things have been debunked in than in the land of spurious reasoning aka the people's republic leftwingia.

The failure to effectively utilize the intelligence of Able Danger because of the Gorelick Wall is Clinton's fault. Failing to properly address Islamic terrorism aggressively after WTC I, OK City, the Cole, Khobar Towers et al. is Clinton's fault. Shooting a camel in the arse with a cruise missile does not cut it.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you'd look into it, you'd find out that the Iraqi Search Group (I think that's its name -- David Kay ran it) was run by our government. So relying on its findings is not exactly like just finding something in some article.

The same government whose intelligence that Bush relied on for WMDs pre-War you criticise. You can't have your cake and eat it too Ty. You are either anti-intelligence or not. Choose!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
None of those things have been debunked in than in the land of spurious reasoning aka the people's republic leftwingia.

The failure to effectively utilize the intelligence of Able Danger because of the Gorelick Wall is Clinton's fault. Failing to properly address Islamic terrorism aggressively after WTC I, OK City, the Cole, Khobar Towers et al. is Clinton's fault. Shooting a camel in the arse with a cruise missile does not cut it.

Ty: Bullshit Clinton was really active on this.
Hank: What did he do.
Ty: He gave Bush a plan in Jan. 2001 that Bush ignored.
Hank: He developed a plan for the next President to implement?
Ty: Bullshit Clinton was really active on this.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Wait a minute. Bush has no interest in Nation Building. He said so in his campaign speeches.

Irrelevant. The NRZ has not been repealed. If Arafat's words from the 90s are not probative as to the bad intentions of the Palestinians, then Bush's 1999 and 2000 speeches are off limits. Thanks for playing though.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I was right, you were pulling that moral relativity shit.

Interesting that none of the Palestinian apologists who reside here have stepped up to defend Palestinian MODERATE Hanan Ashrawi's refusal to give Israel any credit for carrying out the Gaza pull out and further who created the explicit standard that linkage between Gaza and the West Bank is required.

These people have obviously repudiated Arafat's guiding philosophy. Wonk was right to take me to task for invoking his words which no longer have any effect.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ty: Bullshit Clinton was really active on this.
Hank: What did he do.
Ty: He gave Bush a plan in Jan. 2001 that Bush ignored.
Hank: He developed a plan for the next President to implement?
Ty: Bullshit Clinton was really active on this.

What does the blogosphere say?