Still Hating America.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
He is someone who hates the US and has bad stuff he could give to other people that hate us, but before 9/11 we didn't know how much they hated us. after 9/11 we know they hate us really a lot.

(a) Why do you think he hated the U.S.?

(b) No matter how much he hated us, he was unlikely to give WMD to people who aimed to overthrown his regime and replace it with a theocratic state.

(c) Before 9/11, we did know how much they hated us. You may not have, but we did.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The 9/11 attacks didn't change the underlying facts, true. But they drastically changed people's understanding and awareness of the threats we faced. That's the key. Politicians are people too, and responsive to people.

Maybe on a purely objective level, there was a heightened or exaggerated reaction to 9/11 -- but that is also human nature.

Politics and foreign policy aren't an academic exercise -- which is why a guy like George W Bush can become President.

I agree that they changed the political environment, sure, but that's not what Hank was saying.

9/11 didn't do much to change an objective understanding of the threat posed by Iraq.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
(c) Before 9/11, we did know how much they hated us. You may not have, but we did.

dude, that's the only excuse clinton has for allowing Afghanistan to go on, so you may want to edit this- although I'll change the point to "how far they'd go to kill americans," if you can live with that.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I agree that they changed the political environment, sure, but that's not what Hank was saying.

9/11 didn't do much to change an objective understanding of the threat posed by Iraq.

you defended not invading Afghanistan pre 9/11 by citing a lack of public support. After 9/11, even a lack of support would not have stopped Afghanistan from being invaded because we knew that the attacks were getting worse.

maybe there was mixed evidence on Iraq having WMDs, but a prudent President simply could not ignore the evidence that pointed to it being there. I realize you would have choosen differently. i remember your posts. And I very impressed that with hind sight you and some authors paint all sorts of pictures.

But the fact remains w/o the invasion there would still be a big question mark sitting in Iraq. And the question mark carried a possibility far worse than this war's most extreme downside, however messy it is.

you would have been on the other side of the decision, I know, and in the Obama extreme.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
dude, that's the only excuse clinton has for allowing Afghanistan to go on, so you may want to edit this- although I'll change the point to "how far they'd go to kill americans," if you can live with that.

Bush "allowed Afghanistan to go on" as well, and he did it for good reasons. One, they hadn't attacked us, so we really didn't have a good reason to go to war with them. Two, Afghanistan is a land-locked nation surrounded by countries like Iran that we're not tight with, so there wasn't a whole lot we could do. Three, for reasons that made a lot of sense to everyone at the time, our policy towards Pakistan limited what we could do.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you defended not invading Afghanistan pre 9/11 by citing a lack of public support. After 9/11, even a lack of support would not have stopped Afghanistan from being invaded because we knew that the attacks were getting worse.

Did you defend not attacking Japan before Pearl Harbor? Or do you think FDR screwed the pooch by not getting the drop on them?

[] there was mixed evidence on Iraq having WMDs

Thanks for coming around on this one.

a prudent President simply could not ignore the evidence that pointed to it being there. I realize you would have choosen differently. i remember your posts. And I very impressed that with hind sight you and some authors paint all sorts of pictures.

A prudent President should not have ignored the evidence presented to him. What he or she then decides to do, prudent or otherwise, is the key question.

If you remember my posts, then you ought not imply that I've changed my tune in hindsight.

But the fact remains w/o the invasion there would still be a big question mark sitting in Iraq. And the question mark carried a possibility far worse than this war's most extreme downside, however messy it is.

Yes. A benefit of invading Iraq is that we are now certain that it did not have WMD. I grant you that. However, in the scheme of things I don't give a lot of weight to it, relatively speaking.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
they were in charge while 9/11 was being planned. if clinton had been in power 9/12 he would have invaded Iraq.

But I'm not even arguing that. My point was assume:

1 9/11
2 Sadaam hates the US
3 Iraq has WMDs

I agree Gore might well have choosen differently than bush. I think the voters sensed that with Kerry also.

I don't do hypotheticals.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Bush "allowed Afghanistan to go on" as well, and he did it for good reasons. One, they hadn't attacked us, so we really didn't have a good reason to go to war with them. Two, Afghanistan is a land-locked nation surrounded by countries like Iran that we're not tight with, so there wasn't a whole lot we could do. Three, for reasons that made a lot of sense to everyone at the time, our policy towards Pakistan limited what we could do.

Of course, Bush couldn't change a policy to be hands off Afghanistan in the 8 months he was President before 9/11.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Did you defend not attacking Japan before Pearl Harbor?

How old did Fringey say I look?

Yes. A benefit of invading Iraq is that we are now certain that it did not have WMD. I grant you that. However, in the scheme of things I don't give a lot of weight to it, relatively speaking.

well, my point was we don't have the unanswered question of whether WMDs were given to our enemies yesterday, or will be next month. Of course after the invasion, those with an ax to grind suddenly see which evidence to ignore and which was the very best.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Of course, Bush couldn't change a policy to be hands off Afghanistan in the 8 months he was President before 9/11.

Naturally. He was too busy rattling sabers with China.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I don't do hypotheticals.

you have to add in the litigation angle to make it seem not just dodging- so you could say "I am high enough up in my organization to be seen as speaking for it, thus I cannot afford to answer hypotheticals."

[Replaced_Texan]

So the Government finally caved and is allowing larger selection of symbols to be placed on the headstones of fallen soldiers who are burried in National cemetaries.

I scrolled through the new list, happy to see that the Wiccans finally had their way (), when I noticed this:

CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST (Cross & Crown) Not shown because of copyrights.

and

MUSLIM (Islamic 5 Pointed Star) Not shown because of copyrights.

Hank, you're an IP lawyer. Explain.

Should any of you have reason to be in a position to select an image for my government issued tombstone, go with the Humanist Emblem of Spirit:

[Shape Shifter]

Hank wanted me to cite some blogs, so I poked around a little bit and found this one. I hadn't listened to Rush Limbaugh before, and now I see what I've been missing. I must admit, he's got some good lines:

• "The only question I have about Sheryl Crow is, what is she going to do about the excrement for brains that she has? And these people wonder why Karl Rove has no desire to talk to them?"

Thing is, though, he seems a little obsessed with poop hygiene.

• "Sheryl Crow, let me just warn you about something: if you actually try this -- only use one square of toilet paper for every bathroom visit -- the only thing you're going to be attracting in the next couple of days is flies."
  
  "If it could be shown that Al Gore and Rosie O'Donnell will only use one square of toilet paper, then I'll join this club. But the dirty little secret is I have a bidet. I've never figured out how to use the stupid thing, though; they were put in when I had no choice in the matter."

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...100.guest.html



Ah, no wonder:

• "You said you only want to lose 15 or 20 pounds? Hell, I used to be able to do that going to the bathroom."

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...100.guest.html

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
He is someone who hates the US and has bad stuff he could give to other people that hate us, but before 9/11 we didn't know how much they hated us. after 9/11 we know they hate us really a lot.

Yes. It is exactly this kind of simplification that got us into this.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
has been drafting a reply to something for about a half hour. when you see it, no matter how half baked, know that is was a considered and thought out attempt to engage. Please respond with all due respect.

Actually, some of us work for a living (sort of).