Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
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.

My impression was that we were bombing in the no-fly zones during that time despite the loyal opposition. I remember that the bombing was given as a reason why the govt didn't want a group of those spunky human shields couldn't come down through Turkey and the north (I think they eventually had to bus through Syria).

And although I do confess to being the Charles Shaw of whiners, allow me to say now that I don't support the human shield crowd. I only mention their role because I remember this story. I'd try to dig up a cite but I'm already wasting too much time serial posting after spending too much time at lunch.

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

I guess it is, if you look at it that way. Unsurprisingly, I see this differently, as perhaps a more clear illustration of how the Iraq war distracted us from fighting the al Qaeda terrorists who picked a fight with us in the first place.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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

How am I trying to have it both ways?

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

Not unless you're paying attention only to the sort of crap Cheney was selling before the invasion. Zarqawi's group was operating in a part of Iraq outside of Hussein's control, in the no-fly zone. If we were concerned about Zarqawi's ricin, we should have bombed it. Instead, we didn't bomb it, to ensure that we could invade Iraq, which turned out not to have WMD.

[bilmore]

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

No, I'd be more interested in someone explaining what was actually said instead of someone's interpretation of it.

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.

Ebbed? Only in your mind, son. The "if we repeat it enough, it's true" meme only works for the true believers. I'm sure you're still looking for all of that missing museum treasure, too.

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

Tragedy? We liberated a country from a mass killer, killed fewer people per day of war than in an average day under Saddam while doing so, are rebuilding the country's sadly neglected infrastructure and are growing a new, freer society, have huge and widespread support and general good-feeling from the country's inhabitants (not counting, of course, the thugs who simply want to become the next Saddam themselves), convinced Libya to become a WMD-free zone, ended a lot of financing of Pal terrorism, really pissed off the Iranian mullahs, and we've done it all on a fairly small budget for such achievement. Yeah, I'd write it as a comedy, and the people who continue trying to spread the myth that we screwed up would be the Newmans.

I saw a blurb somewhere about a new weapon the army is sending in to Iraq this week for crowd dispersal. It's a sound generator, which can send a focused beam of intensely painful noise at a target. I immediately thought of Josh.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, I'd be more interested in someone explaining what was actually said instead of someone's interpretation of it.

OK. Me, too. Particularly because Jim Miklazewski (sp?) and NBC News are such partisans about these sorts of stories.

Ebbed? Only in your mind, son. The "if we repeat it enough, it's true" meme only works for the true believers. I'm sure you're still looking for all of that missing museum treasure, too.

All those stories about the Credibility Gap are all in my mind, too. You and I both know that no WMD have shown up, and neither has most of what was looted from the museum.

Tragedy? We liberated a country from a mass killer, killed fewer people per day of war than in an average day under Saddam while doing so, are rebuilding the country's sadly neglected infrastructure and are growing a new, freer society, have huge and widespread support and general good-feeling from the countries inhabitants (not counting, of course, the thugs who simply want to become the next Saddam themselves), convinced Libya to become a WMD-free zone, ended a lot of financing of Pal terrorism, really pissed off the Iranian mullahs, and we've done it all on a fairly small budget for such achievement. Yeah, I'd write it as a comedy, and the people who continue trying to spread the myth that we screwed up would be the Newmans.

The story I was talking about was the failure to kill Zarqawi. When you write things up, you'll be ignoring that. Tellingly enough.

I'm not going to argue with you about how it's all going to turn out. We shall see. I hope you're right, and fear you're not.

I saw a blurb somewhere about a new weapon the army is sending in to Iraq this week for crowd dispersal. It's a sound generator, which can send a focused beam of intensely painful noise at a target. I immediately thought of Josh.

Ha.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
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.

Wait a minute. Where in the article do you see this statement? Or are you interpreting "they didn't want to undercut the invasion of Iraq" as meaning this?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

What continues to elude me, though, is why neither you nor Hank can find it in you to criticize the administration for passing up a chance to take out a terrorist because it might interfere with the invasion of Iraq. No matter how wonderful a story that invasion may become, it is abundantly clear now that Iraq was no threat to us through WMD or terrorism. As I said, your commitment to the war on terrorism seems to take you only so far as it improves President Bush's chances for re-election. If true, this story is absolutely devastating, but you guys are so blinded by unswerving support for your side that you have lost all sense of proportion.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Wait a minute. Where in the article do you see this statement? Or are you interpreting "they didn't want to undercut the invasion of Iraq" as meaning this?

That's how I interpret this sentence:

• 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.

You also have to remember that administration officials -- in particular, Cheney -- were touting Zarqawi's camp as a tie between Hussein and terrorism, eliding the fact that it was in a part of the country he didn't control. Here's Matt Yglesias in Tapped:

The backstory here is that before the war Ansar al-Islam was an organization with some link to al-Qaeda (the extent of these links remains unclear) operating in Kurdish territory in northern Iraq, outside of the control of Saddam Hussein's military and police apparatus. The Bush administration response to this was to mount a sustained campaign of dissembling, lacing statements and television appearances with references to a terrorist group operating "inside Iraq" with no mention made of the fact that though it was technically inside Iraqi borders it was outside of the Iraqi government's sphere of control. As a means of selling the war to the American public, this was highly effective since the deception was essentially unchallenged in the mainstream media (though it also hurt U.S. credibility abroad, complicating diplomatic efforts), but it always suffered from a key logical flaw: We were free to attack Ansar's camps whenever we wanted to without toppling the Iraqi regime since the camps were located within the U.S.-patrolled no-fly zone. As I wrote last November:

• Early in the war, U.S. forces targeted the group's camps with widely-reported strikes, coverage of which did not take the time to note that joint action with Kurdish forces against these terrorists could have been undertaken without launching a broader attack on the Hussein regime, which had been prohibited from launching military operations in the area for several years thanks to the vigilance of U.S. and British air power. Indeed, the fact that America had been conducting military strikes within the Iraqi no-fly zone where Ansar operated for several years, and had committed itself to fighting a war on al-Qaeda over a year before the launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom should have given some pause to those relaying tales of the group's threatening nature. If Ansar's activities really did pose a significant threat to the United States, then we should have attacked them at the earliest possible opportunity, but it seems that the administration found them to be more useful alive, as a bogus argument in favor of war, than dead.

I took the failure to act as evidence that people within the government didn't view the Ansar threat as real, but NBC now tells us that military experts believed it was a danger to the United States. Their advice, as usual, was simply overlooked by administration appointees in the name of political expediency. Unfortunately, many people may now be dead as a result.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
As I said, your commitment to the war on terrorism seems to take you only so far as it improves President Bush's chances for re-election.

So you think that we view 9/11 as a photo op? Atticus, would you give me the link to your outrage post so I can bitch slap Ty.

Ty, substantive answer tomorrow. I'm off for some Barolo and pasta.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
What continues to elude me, though, is why neither you nor Hank can find it in you to criticize the administration for passing up a chance to take out a terrorist because it might interfere with the invasion of Iraq.

A. Too many of these stories end up later being either completely discredited, or put into context that makes things more clear, to get worked up about anything based on a blurb like what you've shown.

B. Don't know about Hank, but I considered, and still consider, that our move to depose SH was a very worthwhile thing, both for our own purposes and for the purposes of Iraqis, and indeed that whole part of the world. I view the taking out of Thug #2 as a very secondary consideration, and would not have wanted us to give the L.O. more reason to crow about warlike behavior during the UN courting period - it wouldn't have been worth it.

C. I think you have hit upon the most strained, and least likely, interpretation of what "undercut its case" means.

D. "Abundently clear"? You take far too much upon yourself.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
A. Too many of these stories end up later being either completely discredited, or put into context that makes things more clear, to get worked up about anything based on a blurb like what you've shown.

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

B. Don't know about Hank, but I considered, and still consider, that our move to depose SH was a very worthwhile thing, both for our own purposes and for the purposes of Iraqis, and indeed that whole part of the world. I view the taking out of Thug #2 as a very secondary consideration, and would not have wanted us to give the L.O. more reason to crow about warlike behavior during the UN courting period - it wouldn't have been worth it.

Translation: If the President wanted to put the war on terrorism on the back burner so he could invade Iraq, that's A-OK with me.

Fair enough. The American people are not with you on this one, but that shouldn't change your mind.

C. I think you have hit upon the most strained, and least likely, interpretation of what "undercut its case" means.

Suggest an alternative, however unlikely. We've already considered and destroyed the notion that anyone would have objected to our bombing a terrorist camp in the no-fly zone.

D. "Abundently clear"? You take far too much upon yourself.

How long ago was the war? And where are the WMD? And the links to terrorism? Thanks for playing. Your own defenses of the war say a lot of things, but defending America from Hussein is no longer one of them. Res ipsa loquitur.

[notcasesensitive]

Odd article about a local candidate for House and his interactions with the GOP in our weekly rag this week: http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues...l/1/index.html

This is not to say that the Dems are any better. It does amuse me that this guy didn't back down however.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Interesting. Andrew Sullivan points out that Cheney didn't say that he supports the FMA -- he said that he supports the President.

More than that Ty (I watched that piece of the interview).

When Blitzer quoted Cheney's 2000 statements back to him, and asked about the FMA, Cheney first said that he had previously stated his position on the issue. However, the President had made the policy decision, as is his right. When Blitzer tried to prod him further, Cheney said that he advises the President on the issues of the day, and never tells anyone what advice he gives the President. He then said that the President had made the decision and that he supports the President. (reiterated that statement again in response to the next question).

So, he clearly signalled his disagreement with the Administration policy on the FMA, FWIW.

S_A_M

To anyone who sez: STP, I Say: "Don't you ever hit the elevator button when its already lit?"

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Translation: If the President wanted to put the war on terrorism on the back burner so he could invade Iraq, that's A-OK with me.

How is the war on terror on the back burner? Just because we haven't caught OBL? Seems to me we've killed or captured at least as many terrorists in Iraq as Aphganistan, while at the same time pursuing a LONG TERM strategy on the war on terror, rather than a quick fix, all while avoiding (knock on wood) ANY terrorist attacks in the US.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Odd article about a local candidate for House and his interactions with the GOP in our weekly rag this week: http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues...l/1/index.html

This is not to say that the Dems are any better. It does amuse me that this guy didn't back down however.

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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
How is the war on terror on the back burner? Just because we haven't caught OBL? Seems to me we've killed or captured at least as many terrorists in Iraq as Aphganistan, while at the same time pursuing a LONG TERM strategy on the war on terror, rather than a quick fix, all while avoiding (knock on wood) ANY terrorist attacks in the US.

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.