Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You're just trying to fuck with us now. This, i know, isn't from sometihng you read from Club. Wait, by credited, do you mean without support on one of the unlimited blogs you read.

The source is David Kay. Google it, Chinaski.

S_A_M

BTW -- Your icon -- in addition to being a picture of the most assholish GP you know, also bears a resemblence to one of the most annoying GPs I know. When I figured that out, I understood why every post of yours annoyed me for the first few weeks.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Is "Frisco" the name of a place in that area, or was the guy living here at the time?

Apparently it's deep in the heart of Texas.

http://www.ci.frisco.tx.us/

Fun Fact - it's the home of the largest mall in North Texas!!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The military wanted to take out Zarqawi (= war on terrorism), but the political leadership were worried about undercutting the rationale for the war on Iraq (= not war on terrorism). I'm talking about this NBC News story, not about everything.

Which gets us back to the idealogical differences between the 2 sides (Iraq = war on terror v. Iraq = not war on terror).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Which gets us back to the idealogical differences between the 2 sides (Iraq = war on terror v. Iraq = not war on terror).

Ideological is a good word for it. Suffice it to say that the connection between Iraq and the war on terror was that if we can install a functioning democracy in Iraq that will become a beacon in that region of darkness, we will have taken a big step toward drying the swamp in which Al Qaeda lurks. But if there was much support for that rationale for the war, Cheney would not have had to spew that crap about Hussein and Zarqawi before the war, and the administration would not have had to fear that taking Zarqaqi out might undermine the case for the war.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Ideological is a good word for it. Suffice it to say that the connection between Iraq and the war on terror was that if we can install a functioning democracy in Iraq that will become a beacon in that region of darkness, we will have taken a big step toward drying the swamp in which Al Qaeda lurks. But if there was much support for that rationale for the war, Cheney would not have had to spew that crap about Hussein and Zarqawi before the war, and the administration would not have had to fear that taking Zarqaqi out might undermine the case for the war.

I think you are taking too narrow a view of the world, and I can't figure out if it's because you are blinded by your dislike for Bush or because you really and truly believe that the war was not a net gain for both the safety of the US and the world as a whole.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think you are taking too narrow a view of the world, and I can't figure out if it's because you are blinded by your dislike for Bush or because you really and truly believe that the war was not a net gain for both the safety of the US and the world as a whole.

I am a pessimist about the reconstruction of Iraq. (Which is to say, I really do think the world will be a worse place, net-net as you would say, for what we have done.) But I really am trying to keep the focus specifically on this Zarqawi thing. If the Bush Administration really had faith in this drain-the-swamp thing, they wouldn't have worried that taking out Zarqawi would undermine the war effort. That worry only comes up because they were self-consciously trying to sell the war on false pretenses.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I am a pessimist about the reconstruction of Iraq. (Which is to say, I really do think the world will be a worse place, net-net as you would say, for what we have done.) But I really am trying to keep the focus specifically on this Zarqawi thing. If the Bush Administration really had faith in this drain-the-swamp thing, they wouldn't have worried that taking out Zarqawi would undermine the war effort. That worry only comes up because they were self-consciously trying to sell the war on false pretenses.

There is an alternative scenario that doesn't involve false pretences - the administration in good faith believed Iraq had WMD, they were in the process of building a coalition to oust Saddam, and didn't want to waste political capital on a relatively (to Saddam) small fish.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Apparently it's deep in the heart of Texas.

http://www.ci.frisco.tx.us/

Fun Fact - it's the home of the largest mall in North Texas!!

Yes. It is deep in the heart of suburban sprawl. AKA somewhere between Plano and Oklahoma.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I apologize for lumping you with Hank, who was assuming the story was true. You're hoping it turns out to be false.

Short summary of long answer Ty.

If W pulled the plug on a sure hit to take out a guy we knew was an al queda tied threat, and pulled the plug only because W wanted to tell the world the existance of the guy in Iraq was further justification for attacking Iraq, then I would be outraged.

You are several steps away from that though.
First, when you think sure hit, remember the 2 sure hits on Saddam during the war. Second, deciding not to take an early strike into a soverign country because it might reduce our liklihood of convincing people they should join in a coalition is a fundamentally different animal then not doing it because you want to say he's still there.

Ty, your point is his group mostly killed Iraqis, not Americans. When you say mass-murdered, keep in mind he doesn't equal Uday- the college years. But if it was proven that the hypo of my 1st paragraph were true, I'd be pissed.

Note also, when we did blow up a car with a guy who was part of the Cole bombing, in Yeman, the liberals on this board were shocked that W would go so far as to act in a way that does not give the man who killed dozens of US sailors due process. If W had okay'd the assination of this guy, would you have brought up due process isssues?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
BTW -- Your icon -- in addition to being a picture of the most assholish GP you know

See fringe not everyone ignores me!

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
See fringe not everyone ignores me!

I've been quiet because I was slowly putting posters on ignore.

Ironically, you were the only one not on ignore.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I've been quiet because I was slowly putting posters on ignore.

Ironically, you were the only one not on ignore.

Good taste and discerning intelligence is not ironic.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
all while avoiding (knock on wood) ANY terrorist attacks in the US.

If Al Gore had been president instead of GWB, half of Manhattan would be gone by now.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The military wanted to take out Zarqawi (= war on terrorism), but the political leadership were worried about undercutting the rationale for the war on Iraq (= not war on terrorism). I'm talking about this NBC News story, not about everything.

It is a bogus story. End of story.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
There is an alternative scenario that doesn't involve false pretences - the administration in good faith believed Iraq had WMD, they were in the process of building a coalition to oust Saddam, and didn't want to waste political capital on a relatively (to Saddam) small fish.

I don't understand where this idea comes from that they would have had to "waste" political capital in order to waste this guy. Who was going to be upset? This was a terrorist group operating in Kurdistan, out of Saddam's control. The notion that someone would have seen this as an incursion on Saddam's sovereignty is laughable -- it was in the no-fly zone. "Small fish" to Saddam? No one is suggesting that this guy was allied with Saddam.