Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
You can start your list with Chirac, Galloway, Nader, . . .

Who's Galloway? Does he make that cheap California white wine?

Oh, and you forgot Chomsky. And Fidel Castro.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
are you a congressman? because otherwise he's not lying to congress.

Not a congressman, but I was song-selection Chair for the Whiffenpoofs Senior Year, and that is a tough election to win.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I was song-selection Chair for the Whiffenpoofs Senior Year, and that is a tough election to win.

Particularly for a Harvard man. you should be ashamed.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
that cheap California white wine?(sic)

Believe me when I say I speak for bilmore. You, Larry and Atticus give us more cheap California White Whining than we can swallow.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
You can start your list with Chirac, Galloway, Nader, . . .

And Dennis Kucinich.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I would have thought you tough-on-terrorists guys would have screamed bloody murder at the thought that the Bushies passed up a chance to take out a terrorist, but I guess that was just a pose.

I'm confused. Are you complaining that it's hypocritical for conservatives not to complain about this, or are you saying, substantively, that we should have done this?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm confused. Are you complaining that it's hypocritical for conservatives not to complain about this, or are you saying, substantively, that we should have done this?

According to NBC News, military sources say they had an "airtight" plan to attack Zarqawi's operation, but the administration feared that doing this would undercut their case for war against Iraq. In other words, the administration subordinated the war on terrorism to its desire to invade Iraq. Zarqawi has killed many people since then.

I would have thought that Hank would be appalled by this, but evidently not. He's defending the administration. Evidently he was in favor of the war on terrorism because it was advancing the administration, and not the other way around.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
According to NBC News, military sources say they had an "airtight" plan to attack Zarqawi's operation, but the administration feared that doing this would undercut their case for war against Iraq. In other words, the administration subordinated the war on terrorism to its desire to invade Iraq. Zarqawi has killed many people since then.

I would have thought that Hank would be appalled by this, but evidently not. He's defending the administration. Evidently he was in favor of the war on terrorism because it was advancing the administration, and not the other way around.

I'm not finding this on NBC. Any luck on a link?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm not finding this on NBC. Any luck on a link?

I found it by searching on MSNBC for "airtight." Here it is:

• With Tuesday’s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.
  
  But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.
  
  In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.
  
  The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.
  
  “Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.
  
  Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.
  
  The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.
  
  “People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.
  
  In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.
  
  The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.
  
  Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.
  
  The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late — Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. “Here’s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we’re suffering as a result inside Iraq,” Cressey added.
  
  And despite the Bush administration’s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi’s killing streak continues today.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I heard interesting commentary yesterday on this, which basically said that Bush is getting a raw deal on this because, although he agrees with a constitutional amendment, he did not sign up to the one that has been proposed, and apparently there is another one floating around which would basically say that each state gets to decide what counts as marriage in that state and what marriage from other states to recognize.

That other amendment is, if accurately described, redundant. There is already law interpreting the Full Faith and Credit Clause to have a "trap door" for when a foreign state's judgment offends a deeply held public policy. States aren't required to recognize another state's marriage decree if it violates a deeply held public policy against consanguinity or (sigh) polygamy.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

I'd like to see some attribution for this statement. I expect that we'll see some reaction from the admin soon on this.

Thinking back to that period, I can see why Bush & Co. might regard a major incursion into/attack on a part of Iraq, during the UN runup, to be a very problematic thing. Remember, at the urging of the loyal opposition, they were holding off on things until the world could render its yea or nay. To maybe jeapordize the ability to get Saddam out in order to get this lesser thug might not have been a good choice.

But, I do have to say it's humorous to see Bush being attacked now because of his obsession with building coalitions.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
Interestingly enough, there were mass demonstrations this morning in Iran - moderates who were protesting their own government's suspected leading role in planning and carrying out those attacks.

During the daylight raid on the Fallujah police station many witnesses claimed the gunmen were speaking Farsi, which I gathered meant they were saying that they were Iranian. A few days later the US military came out with a statement that in fact the gunmen were not iranian but were sunnis looking to free one of their own who was arrested for a part in another bombing.

In other words, I'm not sure anyone knows who's doing all this, and I include the US forces in that assessment. My point was more that when the US forces are looking for a honcho who could plan what by all accounts was a sophisticated simultaneous assault, they come up with this dude that we could have taken out a few years ago.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
We were bombing aa batteries that targeted our jets. This would have been blowing up stuff in the no-fly zones, that were created to keep Saddam from blowing up stuff there. See?

Sort of, except that US aircraft were blowing up a lot more stuff than just aa batteries. The generals called it "preparing the battlefield" in the prewar briefings.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'd like to see some attribution for this statement.

As would I, but we should not be surprised that someone who reports to Rumsfeld would wish to be anonymous here.

I expect that we'll see some reaction from the admin soon on this.

Yes. Maybe a non-denial denial.

Thinking back to that period, I can see why Bush & Co. might regard a major incursion into/attack on a part of Iraq, during the UN runup, to be a very problematic thing. Remember, at the urging of the loyal opposition, they were holding off on things until the world could render its yea or nay. To maybe jeapordize the ability to get Saddam out in order to get this lesser thug might not have been a good choice.

Maybe. Or maybe the military sources are right when they say that Bush & Co. wanted to be able to point to Zarqawi as a reason to invade. That's what some people were saying at the time. As the administration's credibility has ebbed on all of this, it sounds more and more plausible.

But, I do have to say it's humorous to see Bush being attacked now because of his obsession with building coalitions.

If you were allowed to re-write this story, no doubt you would make it a comedy instead of a tragedy.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I found it by searching on MSNBC for "airtight." Here it is:

A couple of questions:

Was our intelligence poor or was it good? You can't have it both ways.

If he had a ricin weapons lab, doesn't that support invasion of Iraq on WMD grounds?

[edited for spelling and formate]