Keith "The Ripper" Olbermann on Bill "Crazed" Clinton

[MattKeil]

With video link. (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/25/olbermanns-special-comment-are-yours-the-actions-of-a-true-american/)

Mr. Clinton responded as you have seen.

He told the great truth un-told… about this administration’s negligence, perhaps criminal negligence, about Bin Laden.

He was brave.

Then again, Chris Wallace might be braver still. Had I — in one moment surrendered all my credibility as a journalist — and been irredeemably humiliated, as was he, I would have gone home and started a new career selling seeds by mail.

Awesome stuff. Keith better watch it, though. This is the kind of shit that makes your car run off the road and over a cliff in the middle of the night.

[Brian Rucker]

I really like that someone's coming out and saying what Keith does. And this might be a minor point compared to the much more important, bigger one, he addresses but I'm seeing alot of folks I like, including liberal Jonathan Alter who's a very sharp media critic, come out and question whether Wallace really is the kind of Hannity hitman FOX is famous for. He did it on Olbermann's very show last night. Clinton's going after him personally and losing his cool is certainly going to detract from anyone actually looking at the merits here. Hell, that was Jon Stewart's whole spin on the subject last night as well.

[quatoria]

It bugs me that almost all of the coverage of the event is ignoring the fact that Clinton was asked, by Wallace, to come on to talk about his charity work, and the recent efforts he's been making in that area. The accusations about 9/11 were clearly a pre-planned ambush after he'd gotten him there under false pretenses. Olbermann is right on the money.

[Brian Rucker]

Actually, half of the interview was supposed to be about the charity and the other half could be about any subject FOX wanted. That's what the reporting I'm seeing says. Not to defend Wallace overmuch. He could have brought up questions about any subject but instead ran with a line which is already tired and questionable. Maybe it was that he was getting so many emails he felt compelled to ask. The compound nature of the multipart question did make it seem ambushlike whether that was Wallace's intent or not. It also doesn't play to Wallace's defense that he kept trying to change the subject while Clinton was dismantling the very accusations that Wallace brought up.

[quatoria]

Yeah, maybe it was just the emails, Brian. Are you forgetting that this is the same Chris Wallace who called his father, Mike Wallace, 'senile' on national radio, after Mike Wallace publically questioned Bush's qualifications?

"He's lost it. The man has lost it. What can I say," the younger Wallace lamented to WRKO Boston radio host Howie Carr on Friday."

"He's 87-years old and things have set in," the Fox anchor continued. "I mean, we're going to have a competence hearing pretty soon."

I'm all for assuming good faith, but my faith is a bit strained where Chris Wallace is concerned.

[olaf]

Clinton lost his cool. Its funny to see people saying he humiliated Wallace. If it had been a Republican throwing a fit like that you guys would all call that one correct I guarantee.

Clinton had to know the question was gonna be asked in some form, he said as much during his tirade. And really it was a tame question. And obviously, the way he answered it its obviously a sore subject with him, he wishes he had done more, had gotten Bin Laden.

Also, stupid 9/11 movie aside, hinting that ABC is conservative or in some kind of anti-Clinton conspiracy is funny shit.

[Enidigm]

Remember though, his missile strike on Bin Laden was meant more to distract from his political ills at home than anything related to terrorism.

[noun]

If Clinton ever said "the sun will rise in the east" on camera, I'm willing to bet a sizeable angry horde would materialize to debunk that claim just because Clinton said it. What is it gonna take to get these people to stop thinking about the blowjob for just a minute and listen to his words?

Not even ex-President Nixon was treated this badly.

[Enidigm]

If Clinton ever said "the sun will rise in the east" on camera, I'm willing to bet a sizeable angry horde would materialize to debunk that claim just because Clinton said it. What is it gonna take to get these people to stop thinking about the blowjob for just a minute and listen to his words?

Not even ex-President Nixon was treated this badly.

Hey i don't disagree; but that doesn't mean his efforts - covert or otherwise -at countering Islamic terrorism were much more than a shield for his political misfortunes at home.

Clinton was generally a good president to have during a good time in American history, but while i don't jump on the Hillary Hate bandwagon, he was by no means a visage of perfection either.

It's just that it's still almost impossible to talk about Clinton rationally in today's political climate. The blinding hatred conservatives felt regarding Clinton's actions only slumbers, and even though he's almost 6 years out of power the "ties that bind" need only the slightest provecation to rear up again into a full-blown inferno.

[Charles]

If Clinton ever said "the sun will rise in the east" on camera, I'm willing to bet a sizeable angry horde would materialize to debunk that claim just because Clinton said it. What is it gonna take to get these people to stop thinking about the blowjob for just a minute and listen to his words?

I suspect that they'd only stop thinking about it if they managed to get one themselves. After all, it makes sense, dunnit? Conservatives are inherently prudish, so all those grumpy old men were never able to convince their prissy wives to suck wang, and so, inherently, since they can't get em, no one can. Especially not the president. Because that's just insulting!

[Huzurdaddi]

Clinton's going after him personally and losing his cool is certainly going to detract from anyone actually looking at the merits here.

You make it sound like it's an accident that the story is not the substance of Clinton's argument but rather the way in which he put it forward.

It's not.

The best that any liberal can hope for with the current media is to be ignored. This can be contrasted by the right where a drunk suffering early stage dementia can run for president and the media will run story after story about his 'ability' to think from his gut.

This administration, and their supporters on capitol hill, have commited more polticially fatal* decisions than any other in modern history and yet they are only in danger of losing a couple of seats in the House**. It's comical.

* only fatal if the press did what many of us consider it's job. But as we have learnt the hard way over the last few years it's real job is far different that what we would like.

** Note: my money is still on the Republicians keeping control of both Houses of Congress.

[GrinR]

Is this the same Olbermann who suggested that Bush put something in the hole where the WTC used to be? Presumably overriding multiple layers of local authority? It's the same claptrap I heard about Katerina - as if Bush should simply make things happen on the local level and to hell with the state and city.

It makes my head hurt to think about giving Bush even more executive power, particularly on the demand of those who assert he is grabbing too much as it is.

[Squirrel Killer]

** Note: my money is still on the Republicians keeping control of both Houses of Congress.
I want in on that action.

[noun]

You can't do it, can you?

Edit: in response to GrinR

[Stroker Ace]

Is this the same Olbermann who suggested that Bush put something in the hole where the WTC used to be? Presumably overriding multiple layers of local authority? It's the same claptrap I heard about Katerina - as if Bush should simply make things happen on the local level and to hell with the state and city.

It makes my head hurt to think about giving Bush even more executive power, particularly on the demand of those who assert he is grabbing too much as it is.Bush could use his pulpit to demand the NY government expedite the monument, but he hasn't, right? Same goes with Katrina... did he really think his Social Security sales pitch was more important than getting down to the Gulf Coast ASAP?

[GrinR]

You can't do it, can you?

Edit: in response to GrinR

I'll bite. I can't do what?

[GrinR]

Bush could use his pulpit to demand the NY government expedite the monument, but he hasn't, right? Same goes with Katrina... did he really think his Social Security sales pitch was more important than getting down to the Gulf Coast ASAP?

I'm certainly glad he didn't do that. It's a New York thing, and I wouldn't want Bush tainting it. Hell, even the 5 years of beaurocracy is NYC all over.

I'll leave Katrina for a different thread, I was just using it as an example.

[bigdruid]

Bush could use his pulpit to demand the NY government expedite the monument, but he hasn't, right? Same goes with Katrina...

Precisely. Contrast Bush's response with LBJ's:

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=28648

And yet, as Grin, Rhino, and the rest of the right-wingers on this board continue to show, the Republicans are willing to forgive and explain away nearly anything this administration does.

[noun]

I'll bite. I can't do what?

Respond to the issue at hand without bringing up an unrelated and distorted version of an issue to tarnish the source. Like you just did.

[chet]

A fun thread to read, freepers going after clinton for attacking terrorists.
http://web.archive.org/web/20000903013102/http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a530320.htm

[GregB]

A fun thread to read, freepers going after clinton for attacking terrorists.


Priceless.

[Glenn]

The news of the attacks today in my opinion are nothing more than an attempt by our Coward and Thief to save his sorry butt. How many american lives will he sacrifice to save himself? How big a war will he start to save himself?

The biggest question of all is what is the congress going to do about this?

Stop this madness now!!!

Impeach, indict, imprison.
He's talking about Clinton, obviously.

[GrinR]

Respond to the issue at hand without bringing up an unrelated and distorted version of an issue to tarnish the source. Like you just did.

Olbermann is in the topic heading. I commented about the weight I give his current commentary based on his last screed. I think it's quite related, and noting the "tarnish" is not the same as creating it.

[MikeOberly]

A fun thread to read, freepers going after clinton for attacking terrorists.
http://web.archive.org/web/20000903013102/http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a530320.htm

Pretty funny stuff, especially:

I'm with you. I think it's the right move, but it's a pretty drastic switch from Clinton's established foreign policy on dealing with terrorists and terrorist nations: "You'd better behave yourselves, or by golly, I'll warn you again!"

As opposed to Reagan and Bush Sr.'s policy of dealing with terrorists/ terrorist nations: doing nothing at all (or, in the case of Iran, illegally selling them arms). Hezbollah didn't suffer so much as a wrist slap for murdering 278 marines.

[Odysseus]

Is this the same Olbermann who suggested that Bush put something in the hole where the WTC used to be?

Clearly the well is poisoned.

[GrinR]

Precisely. Contrast Bush's response with LBJ's:

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=28648

And yet, as Grin, Rhino, and the rest of the right-wingers on this board continue to show, the Republicans are willing to forgive and explain away nearly anything this administration does.

I hardly "explain away" anything this administration does. I've listed my issues with the Bush administration many times, if you cared to read what I wrote instead of imagining whatever you like. Bush's initial response to 9/11 was right on the money - I remember his being on ground zero, I remember the speeches he gave, and I remember thinking he was doing a lot better than I expected.

Since then, he and his administration have failed in an extraordinary way to communicate to the nation, and to the world, in almost every way. My having to endlessly explain the Bush Doctrine and the non-local nature of our enemy is a perpetual reminder of just how failed his administration's communications have been. He failed to capitalize on Katrina, by showing up with a posse and making his presence known (without needing to exert executive powers) for at least the few weeks it would have taken for the mainstream media to grudgingly cover it. He failed to fire George Tenet and god knows how many others who failed in their duty to protect the country and provide credible information. In just about every way he's failed to embrace US citizens and take them with him, choosing instead to lead by silently stomping forwards and complaining when no one blindly follows. I could go on, but that will do.

I would appeal to your sense of open dialog in not grouping me in with others; I think my faults stand quite well on their own.

[MikeSofaer]

As opposed to Reagan and Bush Sr.'s policy of dealing with terrorists/ terrorist nations: doing nothing at all (or, in the case of Iran, illegally selling them arms). Hezbollah didn't suffer so much as a wrist slap for murdering 278 marines.Reagan bombed terrorist camps in Libya, and Hezbollah's attack on the Marines was a legitimate military strike on a military target, not terrorist at all.

Before we had people killed in the US by foreign terrorists, there was very little public support for military action against them.

[MikeSofaer]

I've listed my issues with the Bush administration many times.Yeah, whenever I think about Bush, I think "If only he were doing a better job at showing us how right he always is!"

[Charles]

Bush's initial response to 9/11 was right on the money

"Open the malls, consume, consume."?

[Brian Rucker]

Wasn't Bush's initial response to 9/11 to sit in a kindergarten classroom and read a children's book. For, what, ten minutes or something? Not to nitpick, of course, but would that have been your reaction GrinR? How many hours, was it a full day or two, that passed between 9/11 and Bush's handlers setting up the photo-op on the smouldering site of the twin towers?

[GrinR]

Yeah, whenever I think about Bush, I think "If only he were doing a better job at showing us how right he always is!"

The claim was "And yet, as Grin, Rhino, and the rest of the right-wingers on this board continue to show, the Republicans are willing to forgive and explain away nearly anything this administration does."

I am not willing to do that, and I illustrated why. Did you just utterly and completely fail to read what I wrote? How about firing people post-9/11, do you think it was smart to retain everyone who just utterly failed? You do not have to agree with him, but most people I talk to (particularly here) don't even know what his plan is. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine)

I'm endlessly surprised at how difficult it is for many people here to differentiate between understanding something and agreeing with it.

[GrinR]

"Open the malls, consume, consume."?

*sigh* read it yourself. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010911-16.html)

[noun]

*sigh* read it yourself. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010911-16.html)

From that very text:

The functions of our government continue without interruption. Federal agencies in Washington which had to be evacuated today are reopening for essential personnel tonight, and will be open for business tomorrow. Our financial institutions remain strong, and the American economy will be open for business, as well.

In other words, "open the malls, consume, consume".

[Brian Rucker]

That's not a response that's a pep talk. Read some of what's been written about what actually went on inside the administration and it'll scare the crap out of you. Wolfowitz and the neocons inside the Pentagon were pushing from 9/11 on to get us inside Iraq. That was the goal for them. "Not enough targets in Afghanistan". From what I read it took Blair to ultimately get the Bush administration to go along with taking out the Taliban and al Qaida first before conflating that issue with their Iraq fetish. In return Blair was promised that we'd take the Israeli Palestinian peace process more seriously. Well, that didn't work.

Yes, the administration handled Afghanistan well and that's because the CIA was already in there with pre-Bush administration plans they were cutting loose. They had suitcases of cash, bribed warlords and the Northern Alliance ready to go.

What fucked everything up was and is and has always been the Iraq fetish. Different people in the administration, and around it, had differing motives but it all pointed in the same direction. 9/11 as an excuse to do what they'd been wanting to do anyhow for a decade and change.

[MikeSofaer]

Most people I talk to (particularly here) don't even know what his plan is. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine)

I'm endlessly surprised at how difficult it is for many people here to differentiate between understanding something and agreeing with it.I'm pretty sure that most people here understand the theoretical framework which underlies the President's rhetoric. Most of us even think it's a good framework, and approve of its use in the invasion of Afghanistan. Why do you think it's not understood? Most of the disappointment with El Jefe here is related to a belief that the doctrine was misapplied in the invasion of Iraq, and the belief that aggressive strategic goals do not justify a loosening of tactical standards.

There is also the occasional suspicion that the doctrine is for public consumption only, and Bush makes all his real decisions using a calculus of personal loyalty and pride.

[GrinR]

From that very text:
In other words, "open the malls, consume, consume".

Open for business means the economy. Production, trade, investment, etc. are all under that rubrik. Considering how my company went under because the VC money we were scheduled to get (had already been approved) was frozen post-9/11, I'd say there is more to it than malls and consumption.

Also, I didn't bother to actually figure out the percentage, but to focus on a handful of words in a lengthy speech is the definition of tunnel vision. In this case, tunnel vision with an erroneous conclusion.

[GrinR]

I'm pretty sure that most people here understand the theoretical framework which underlies the President's rhetoric. Most of us even think it's a good framework, and approve of its use in the invasion of Afghanistan. Why do you think it's not understood? Most of the disappointment with El Jefe here is related to a belief that the doctrine was misapplied in the invasion of Iraq, and the belief that aggressive strategic goals do not justify a loosening of tactical standards.

There is also the occasional suspicion that the doctrine is for public consumption only, and Bush makes all his real decisions using a calculus of personal loyalty and pride.

It's not understood because the error of imagining the response to 9/11 was, is, should have been going after OBL and the select few behind the plot itself is repeated as if it's what the President has said. He's never said that or anything like it, ever! How many times has someone here asked why we're in Iraq, much less why we're in Iraq instead of Afghanistan?

You don't have to agree with the reasons, and I certainly understand that many here think the reasons are high grade compressed bullshits, but to even ask the question when the answer is readily available betrays the administration's total failure to communicate their objectives.

[Enidigm]

...but to even ask the question when the answer is readily available betrays the administration's total failure to communicate their objectives.

... or, perhaps, that those asking the question simply don't believe what the administration's objectives are in reality.

Like, as previous posters have noted, many figures in the administration wanted us in Iraq before 9/11, than these objectives seem more like ex post facto rationalizations for a policy they had already decided upon for their own personal reasons, reasons that were generally not made part of the public dialog during the spin up to the war, but were not politically feasible until after 9/11.

If you can accept that these men had ulterior motives for going to war, and then accept their justifications for war - even though these justifications are completely different than their own reasons - as valid on their own, well... I guess the question is who is manipulating whom?

And, just like how many people were infuriated that Clinton disgraced the office of President and then managed to get off from lying under oath, many today feel equally or even greater disbelief when dragged into a war under false pretenses and against the advice (by and large) of our military intellegence establishments; or equally, watch the intellegence community become a politicized and hollow rubber stamp for executive policy as independent operatives are driven out of the system in favor of those with proven and lopsided political loyalties ready to tow the party line.

It's another way of saying "actions speak louder than words". There are too many glib and nice phrases from this administration yet so little in the way of new ideas or actual results in fufilling their goals.

[noun]

...to focus on a handful of words in a lengthy speech is the definition of tunnel vision. In this case, tunnel vision with an erroneous conclusion.

Irony, thy name is GrinR.

[MikeSofaer]

How many times has someone here asked why we're in Iraq, much less why we're in Iraq instead of Afghanistan?It may be that the question is not what the doctrine is, but how Iraq fits into the doctrine. Iraq did not sponsor terrorism against America, after all, and was a sworn enemy of Islamist extremism.

Perhaps people feel that the doctrine was an excuse to invade Iraq, not a reason, and that is why it is so hard to justify using said doctrine.

[Charles]

That's not a response that's a pep talk. Read some of what's been written about what actually went on inside the administration and it'll scare the crap out of you. Wolfowitz and the neocons inside the Pentagon were pushing from 9/11 on to get us inside Iraq. That was the goal for them. "Not enough targets in Afghanistan".

I just started reading Against All Enemies last night. And yeah, scary shit.

[MatthewF]

God that freep thread is awesome. My favorites:

This is so sad. Afgahnistan ought to be our ally.

He's banking on a "rally-around-the-flag" (and the president) response from the sheeple. Will it work?? Maybe for a short time!

THIS COWARD MAY CAUSE A WAR JUST TO TAKE THE FOCUS OFF OF HIMSELF

Nevertheless, we have undertaken a unilateral act of war -- without a declaration of war, without even any congressional oversight or approval. This is yet one more in a long line of Clinton's abuses of power.

An American president would not fabricate a plan of military action to keep the heat away from himself or improve his chances of being reelected.(Or would he?)

And #1 favorite:

The real question is what we're NOT hearing is if the strikes were conducted with the approval of Afghanistan & Sudan; and IF those other soverign states KNEW of our intention to launch attacks inside their territory. If not, slick has now marked America as a terrorist nation and committed an international act of war. This absolutely AIN'T no coincidence, folks. BC is dangerous and must go NOW!

Reading this stuff is absolutely eerie.

[GrinR]

... or, perhaps, that those asking the question simply don't believe what the administration's objectives are in reality.

If you can accept that these men had ulterior motives for going to war, and then accept their justifications for war - even though these justifications are completely different than their own reasons - as valid on their own, well... I guess the question is who is manipulating whom?

It's another way of saying "actions speak louder than words". There are too many glib and nice phrases from this administration yet so little in the way of new ideas or actual results in fufilling their goals.

(edited down for space)

Excellent points! Certainly, if you do not believe what the "cover story" is then these question make a lot more sense. I guess there is little disconnect for me between what this administration says they're going to do and what they actually do. It's one of the things I really like, actually. Now as for whether or not the reasons they are doing these things are the "actual" reasons (however that may be determined), it's hard for me to see them doing something different from what the "cover story" is because they have a long record of doing exactly what it is they say (cover story or no).

Also worth noting is that although there is an appealing consistancy, and aggression in its pursuit, from this administration, it's painful to watch when it is pointed in the wrong direction.

[GrinR]

Irony, thy name is GrinR.

Is there a pointless pot-shot quota? If so, let me know when you reach it.

[GrinR]

It may be that the question is not what the doctrine is, but how Iraq fits into the doctrine. Iraq did not sponsor terrorism against America, after all, and was a sworn enemy of Islamist extremism.

Perhaps people feel that the doctrine was an excuse to invade Iraq, not a reason, and that is why it is so hard to justify using said doctrine.

It was hardly a sworn enemy. Saddam's Iraq was a classic rogue nation - he was in it for himself and no one else, period. He'd happily work with anyone so long as it furthered his own power and/or lined his pockets. As the Duelfer report spells out, and the Kay report before that, Saddam was hell bent on acquiring WMDs however possible. He even changed the Iraqi flag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Iraq) in an effort to appear more Muslim, and if I felt it would make any difference I'd repost the small, but I think credible, connections Saddam had with Islamic terrorism. The key here is that Iraq, of all the possible targets, would be the easiest to tackle after Afghanistan (and so it has been, despite everything.)

As for excuses to liberate Iraq, we needed none. They had violated UN Security Council resolutions for a decade, while appearing to both have and be developing WMDs. That was enough.

[Brian Rucker]

You have to understand, GrinR, I don't think many of us doubt that this administration has ideological reasons for pushing the Doctrine it did. This is part and parcel of neoconservative ideology. Might makes right so let's make sure we're the mostest rightest. The UN and multilateralism holds us back from our duty to keep the world in line and secure for, well, us (and Israel).

Why do you think we completely blew off NATO's historical precident of offering to come into Afghanistan at our side?! We wanted to make the point we didn't need anyone's approval or help. We'd carry our own goddamn water, thank you very much, because we didn't want any "allies" getting in our way with concerns about the next phase. Iraq (then Syria and Iran).

It was only the fact the public seemed leery of invading Iraq without international support that forced Bush and the administration to go to the UN. And even then they didn't go back a second time for an (legally necessary) explicit authorization of force because they knew they'd lose the vote.

To my eyes it seems that those pushing the neoconservative ideology, the strict constructionist ideology and the imperial executive ideology and others all used 9/11 to push plots and plans they'd had cooking for ages. Hell, look at PNAC's own report. They wanted a "Pearl Harbor" event so they could launch operations against Iraq and various other powers in the middle east. This back in the 90's. It's no secret.

How can you not be suspicious when you've got Feith saying that they just went along with WMD to sell the war because it seemed to be the most effective strategy. The Chief of Staff for the President commenting that you don't roll out an advertising campaign before the fall. God, there are so many other examples of this kind of cynicism it's impossible to think these were serious minded people laying out their real case for war with the American people. They don't fucking trust the American people. No pictures of coffins. Oh, that's not looting that just freedom's booty call.

In the immortal words of South Park's Jimmy, "I mean, come on."

These guys just say any fucking thing that comes into their minds. Why should we have any faith or confidence in them?

[Jakub]

Clinton lost his cool. Its funny to see people saying he humiliated Wallace. If it had been a Republican throwing a fit like that you guys would all call that one correct I guarantee.

Clinton had to know the question was gonna be asked in some form, he said as much during his tirade. And really it was a tame question. And obviously, the way he answered it its obviously a sore subject with him, he wishes he had done more, had gotten Bin Laden.

Also, stupid 9/11 movie aside, hinting that ABC is conservative or in some kind of anti-Clinton conspiracy is funny shit.
I'm hardly part of the hippie-liberal brigade here, but I think Clinton got the better of that exchange. Honestly, it seems like Clinton is the only Democrat with a backbone, an audience, and a message.

[MikeSofaer]

Saddam's Iraq was a classic rogue nation - he was in it for himself and no one else, period. He'd happily work with anyone so long as it furthered his own power and/or lined his pockets.

....

As for excuses to liberate Iraq, we needed none. They had violated UN Security Council resolutions for a decade, while appearing to both have and be developing WMDs. That was enough.Indeed, Saddam was in it for his own power. That's why he didn't work with the Islamists, they wanted religious authority in power in Iraq most of all, and he wasn't religious.

It's true that Iraq was consistently in violation of its obligations under the Desert Storm treaty, and we may have been entitled to do what we did. That doesn't mean it was wise, however.

I don't think the Iraq war meshes with a doctrine about pre-emptive strikes to prevent state-sponsored terrorism. Iraq may have been an easier target than the states that actually sponsor terrorism, and it's Arab, but it wasn't the kind of target the Bush Doctrine called for.

[GrinR]

You have to understand, GrinR, I don't think many of us doubt that this administration has ideological reasons for pushing the Doctrine it did. This is part and parcel of neoconservative ideology. Might makes right so let's make sure we're the mostest rightest. The UN and multilateralism holds us back from our duty to keep the world in line and secure for, well, us (and Israel).

It's not the best phrasing, and certainly not how I'd put it, but let's say it is. What's wrong with that? I have a hard time getting myself to see the world's worst countries and not wanting to do something about it, particularly when they represent a critical, growing danger to civilization itself.

I guess from my vantage, I don't understand why the western world (meaning Europe, including the UK, and Australia) wouldn't support the removal of a megalomaniacal dictator gathering WMDS, or the aggressive hunt and elimination of Islamists (Al Qaida or otherwise). I have gone on the assumption that their goverments either are too timid or are too financially reliant (or both) to join us.

The question stands though: What is wrong with pursuing and eliminating bad people?

[GrinR]

Indeed, Saddam was in it for his own power. That's why he didn't work with the Islamists, they wanted religious authority in power in Iraq most of all, and he wasn't religious.

It's true that Iraq was consistently in violation of its obligations under the Desert Storm treaty, and we may have been entitled to do what we did. That doesn't mean it was wise, however.

I don't think the Iraq war meshes with a doctrine about pre-emptive strikes to prevent state-sponsored terrorism. Iraq may have been an easier target than the states that actually sponsor terrorism, and it's Arab, but it wasn't the kind of target the Bush Doctrine called for.

I ask without duplicity: Which country would you have picked?

[MikeSofaer]

They represent a critical, growing danger to civilization itselfThey represent what? Why don't you tell us all how they will destroy civilization itself if they aren't stopped.What is wrong with pursuing and eliminating bad people?Sometimes it's not worth the cost.

[Glenn]

I ask without duplicity: Which country would you have picked?Thinking like this is why we will inevitably blow up the moon someday.

[Charles]

I ask without duplicity: Which country would you have picked?


Dartboard at a world map.

[MikeSofaer]

I ask without duplicity: Which country would you have picked?I don't think another invasion would have been necessary. Most people in power want to remain in power and respond to a credible threat. After Afghanistan we had such a threat, and I would have leaned very hard on the Saudis to end the flow of money to Wahabbi institutions. If they could not, then perhaps an end to the Saud monarchy would have been necessary, but I think they could have pulled it off given the right incentives. Similarly with Musharaf in Pakistan. At this point we are less of a threat than we were after Afghanistan, and I think that means we have less leverage over Saudi Arabia and Pakistan than we did before we went into Iraq, which is too bad.

More to the point, terrorism is not usually about nations, Afghanistan was the exception to that rule. Terrorism is about NGOs, and they can be destroyed without going to war against the nation they inhabit. We bombed the Libyan camps without starting a full war with Libya, and we could have acted similarly with respect to the schools and institutions of terror around the world. In the end, I think most governments would have gone along with it to preserve their power.

[Nick Walter]

The question stands though: What is wrong with pursuing and eliminating bad people?

Why do you hate American troops?

[Brian Rucker]

Because sometimes the best strategy isn't to leap out of an airplane with the tommy guns roaring and mowing down everyone in sight. Look at what Iraq's brought us? And was Saddam really gathering WMDs? Why not work with our allies and respect them if they have legitimate problems with our approach? If they're really as corrupt as some on the right believe, then expose them. Walk into the UN and drop the papers on a desk. "Okay, France, this is all the money that Saddam promised your oil companies for X, Y and Z and here are all the kickbacks you were getting. Now, world, who's side are you on?"

If there's still hesitation maybe the issue is bigger than that? Maybe people think we have an ulterior motive? Maybe they are troubled by the precidents we are setting in a more philosophical context. Work it out.

I can't shake the feeling that Bush wanted to rush into Iraq as fast as possible before what public support he had for the invasion petered out. That was what the panic was about. That's why we were bleeding Afghanistan for elite troops and special forces and plopping them into Kuwait. The invasion was always going to happen. And the sense that nothing else mattered had me highly suspicious. I was reading stories from Pincus and others about the intelligence community's doubts regarding Iraq's WMD program and links to al Qaida at the same time I was discovering who PNAC was and what roles they were now playing in the push for the war in Iraq.

I watched Powell's presentation at the UN and I didn't see anything that was a "slam dunk" myself, to use Tenet's words. The same Tenet that Powell forced to sit behind him, inside the camera frame, when he gave his performance. If Powell was going down he wasn't going down alone...

It seemed to me we were just going to make things an order of magnitude worse. We still hadn't got bin Ladin and now we're going into this potential malestrom of historically bad juju? Shiia, Sunni and Kurds all looking for payback with each other and each with potential grudges against the US? Yes, even the Kurds. We betrayed them and the Shi'ia after the Gulf War by encouraging uprisings and then abandoning them to Saddam's mercy. That slaughter of the Kurds is what turned several ostensible liberals into latecomer neocons because of its viciousness until we secured the airspace.

Yes, Saddam was a shit. But invading the middle east completely validates al Qaida's accusations against us. We're invading crusaders after the oil and out to make war on Islam. And domestically we had the religious right, and goons like Ann Coulter, feeding that very flame. Hell, even Bush mentioned a "crusade" before they managed to inform the poor dear what implications that had to Muslims.

I'll confess it seemed likely that Saddam had some remnant WMD left over from the 90's but the reporting Pincus and Priest had done made me doubt it was a threat worth fanning the flames of extremism over. Especially considering the degree to which Saddam and al Qaida were reportedly at odds. And what about Iran?

Meanwhile, we had a president on TV railing about good and evil, and America's special divine purpose as the best nation in the world and our duty to bring a better life to everyone on the planet - and this kind of talk tends to make me think of historical leaders whose names tend to kill threads. That kind of blindness given our own historical involvement with Saddam and with bin Laden, directly and indirectly, just made me cringe. The world isn't like that. And the world's citizens are aware the world isn't that black and white as well.

You might start out slaying monsters but you always have to beware lest you become a monster yourself.

This is more of a gut level response than a clinical analysis but it's after 5 and I need to be heading home.

[Anders Hallin]

The question stands though: What is wrong with pursuing and eliminating bad people?
Because unless you get to the source of the problem, more of them will be created. This can happen in several different ways, like someone stepping up to fill the void left by the last one, or the power vacuum in a situation of lacking democratic institutions lead to civil war, or that the nation you bombed may not have liked the "bad person" very much, but still have nationalist pride, or what is considered "bad" changes all the time and the supposed liberators almost always manage to fit the criteria for certain regions in the world, creating even more conflict.
There is also the problem that the notion to spread democracy and free speech through force of arms is incredibly costly and time consuming while killing people, not to mention that conversion at gunpoint is far from a proven method. Any method attempted will be incredibly time consuming and costly, of course, but it won't kill people, and if it's based on the "soft powers" of persuasion the long term effects is more likely to stick.
It also completely ignores the economic factors that might motivate someone to be "bad" to the perceived rich.

[GrinR]

They represent what? Why don't you tell us all how they will destroy civilization itself if they aren't stopped.Sometimes it's not worth the cost.

I don't need to tell you - they have been telling you for decades. Read what they are publishing - their words, not mine.

"Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders."

If you want a picture of Islamist rule, look at the Taliban. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban)

[Charles]

I don't need to tell you - they have been telling you for decades. Read what they are publishing - their words, not mine.



If you want a picture of Islamist rule, look at the Taliban. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban)

Yeah, cause like, christians are all about tolerance.

[MikeSofaer]

I don't need to tell you - they have been telling you for decades. Read what they are publishing - their words, not mine.They're going to kill us all through terrorism? Literally all of us, using P2P filesharing-style organizational mayhem? Normally that sort of work requires an army of some kind.

I'm not doubting their goals, I'm doubting their capabilities. Destroy civilization? Do you have a plausible scenario where they actually succeed at that?

[GrinR]

Yeah, cause like, christians are all about tolerance.

It's hard to take anyone seriously who would compare Christianity to Islamism and find them similar in any way. Take a look around, my friend, tell me where you see anything vaguely similar to the Taliban regime here in the USA, or Europe, or Australia, or the UK, or hell, RUSSIA for that matter.

[Huzurdaddi]

Honestly, it seems like Clinton is the only Democrat with a backbone, an audience, and a message.

There is a reason for that. He will not run for office again. Were he running for office that little speach ( which I loved ) would be played ad nausiem on all cable news a-la the Dean scream.

For liberals* there is no such thing as good press anymore. Any 'error' or any action which can be interpreted or spun as an error is fatal for liberals. The press will hound them relentlessly. Which is why liberals are now afraid to say or do anything, which of course is more ammunition for those that want to attack them.

When the media is controlled by one side it's over. Stick a fork in them.

* calling Clinton a liberal is pretty laughable, actually. Nixon would probably consider Clinton closer to Goldwater than to himself.

[MatthewF]

I don't need to tell you - they have been telling you for decades. Read what they are publishing - their words, not mine.

Did you learn nothing from the Iraq war? Saying you want something does not mean the same thing as actually being able to carry it out. I believe it was either you or rhinohelix in the "Decency" thread that brought up the talking point of "Even if he didn't have WMD's, he wanted them, so the war was justified." Look, I want to break my neighbor's neck when he bangs on the wall at 2am, but that doesn't mean I should be arrested for murder.

[GrinR]

Look at what Iraq's brought us? And was Saddam really gathering WMDs? Why not work with our allies and respect them if they have legitimate problems with our approach? If they're really as corrupt as some on the right believe, then expose them. Walk into the UN and drop the papers on a desk. "Okay, France, this is all the money that Saddam promised your oil companies for X, Y and Z and here are all the kickbacks you were getting. Now, world, who's side are you on?"

Iraq's brought us an opportunity to show that a flawed democracy is better than an efficient dictatorship. Yes, Saddam was doing everything in his power to acquire WMDs - no one disputes this. How do you expose them without the evidence you need (and didn't even know about) kept in a country that's actively hiding it?

We have the evidence now and no one cares, I'm not sure why it would have made any difference then, either. The "traditional allies" were never going to help us in Iraq, period. That was made obvious by the run-up.

[GrinR]

Did you learn nothing from the Iraq war? Saying you want something does not mean the same thing as actually being able to carry it out. I believe it was either you or rhinohelix in the "Decency" thread that brought up the talking point of "Even if he didn't have WMD's, he wanted them, so the war was justified." Look, I want to break my neighbor's neck when he bangs on the wall at 2am, but that doesn't mean I should be arrested for murder.

If you've broken your other neighbors neck, and you're threatening to mix deadly gas that would kill everyone in the neighborhood, yes, you should be arrested.

Saddam already used chemical weapons on civilians. He already invaded a neighboring country. He already stated his position against the USA.

Waiting for the acutalization of WMDs in Saddam's hands would leave us with another North Korea or Pakistan - something we cannot allow.

[MatthewF]

It's hard to take anyone seriously who would compare Christianity to Islamism and find them similar in any way. Take a look around, my friend, tell me where you see anything vaguely similar to the Taliban regime here in the USA, or Europe, or Australia, or the UK, or hell, RUSSIA for that matter.

He said Christianity isn't exactly tolerant. And he's right. You've got guys blowing up abortion clinics, you've got the KKK, you've got these nutballs (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9102443/), or these nutballs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity), or these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_Army_%28revolutionary_group%29), don't forget these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedomites) too.

The essence of any organized religion that promotes conversion is, well, intolerance.

[Charles]

It's hard to take anyone seriously who would compare Christianity to Islamism and find them similar in any way. Take a look around, my friend, tell me where you see anything vaguely similar to the Taliban regime here in the USA, or Europe, or Australia, or the UK, or hell, RUSSIA for that matter.


Go back a few hundred years and things change. But then again, we're far ahead of these other nations. In time, they'd reach where we are. If we don't kill them all first.

But I guess patience is something that's been lost with the advent of technology.

[MatthewF]

If you've broken your other neighbors neck, and you're threatening to mix deadly gas that would kill everyone in the neighborhood, yes, you should be arrested.

Saddam already used chemical weapons on civilians. He already invaded a neighboring country. He already stated his position against the USA.

Waiting for the acutalization of WMDs in Saddam's hands would leave us with another North Korea or Pakistan - something we cannot allow.

Oh god, here we go. And did you just basically imply that we should have invaded North Korea and Pakistan before they gained nuclear capabilities? I haven't seen Pakistan drop any nukes on anyone. Or North Korea either. Hmm. But we have. Hmmmmmm.

[GrinR]

He said Christianity isn't exactly tolerant. And he's right. You've got guys blowing up abortion clinics, you've got the KKK, you've got these nutballs (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9102443/), or these nutballs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity), or these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_Army_%28revolutionary_group%29), don't forget these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedomites) too.

The essence of any organized religion that promotes conversion is, well, intolerance.

You are citing Christian fundamentalist fringe groups, not Christianity. These groups can be compared with Islamists.

You're also confusing evangelism with conversion-by-force. Refusing to be Christian carries the penalty of punishments you don't believe in (hell). Refusing to be Islamist carries the penalty of beheading or slavery.

[GrinR]

Oh god, here we go. And did you just basically imply that we should have invaded North Korea and Pakistan before they gained nuclear capabilities? I haven't seen Pakistan drop any nukes on anyone. Or North Korea either. Hmm. But we have. Hmmmmmm.

We never should have let North Korea or Pakistan get nukes in the first place. I'm sure you'll come back here (assuming you can) and say, "huh, I guess I was wrong," the first time NK or a Pakistani fringe group uses those weapons to kill millions, right? Somehow I think not.


(I'm not even going to bother with the silly "the USA is the only country to have used nuclear weapons" nonsense. Take it to Democratic Underground or Kos or something.)

[MatthewF]

Sorry, I guess I should have used the term "Christianist." And I'm not confusing evangelism with anything. I said, very simply, that any religion that promotes conversion as strongly as Christianity will breed intolerance. Do not twist my words.

I would also like to remind you that Islamists, like these Christianists, are to Islam what they are to Christianity. So you basically just agreed with me.

[MatthewF]

We never should have let North Korea or Pakistan get nukes in the first place. I'm sure you'll come back here (assuming you can) and say, "huh, I guess I was wrong," the first time NK or a Pakistani fringe group uses those weapons to kill millions, right? Somehow I think not.


(I'm not even going to bother with the silly "the USA is the only country to have used nuclear weapons" nonsense. Take it to Democratic Underground or Kos or something.)

Take that, future self!

[Squirrel Killer]

When the media is controlled by one side it's over. Stick a fork in them.
Tell me again, who owns CNN?

[Robert Sharp]

Oh god, here we go. And did you just basically imply that we should have invaded North Korea and Pakistan before they gained nuclear capabilities? I haven't seen Pakistan drop any nukes on anyone. Or North Korea either. Hmm. But we have. Hmmmmmm.

Yes, we should have. It's too late now though. Actually, we did TRY with North Korea, though it was 50 years ago. It wasn't feasible and then we had bigger problems (USSR). IF Iraq was gearing up to get nukes, it's a good thing we stopped it.

However, I think it's FAR too early to say that the current or future state of Iraq under democracy is/will be better thant it was under Saddam.

[Erik Andersson]

It's hard to take anyone seriously who would compare Christianity to Islamism and find them similar in any way. Take a look around, my friend, tell me where you see anything vaguely similar to the Taliban regime here in the USA, or Europe, or Australia, or the UK, or hell, RUSSIA for that matter.

I think you could argue that the Christians in Rwanda were worse than the muslims in Afghanistan. This doesn't say much about Christianity itself, but it might suggest that the problem isn't the religion as much as it is other factors.

[MatthewF]

I disagree. I don't think Pakistan will ever use them, and I don't think North Korea will either. Unless someone uses them against them first, of course, in which case it doesn't really matter since we'd be approaching a mutually assured destruction scenario no matter where the nukes first hit. And in fact, I'll make an HRose-esque prediction right now that the next country to use nukes will be the good 'ol US of A. That's fucking irony right there.

[Sebmolo]

A fun thread to read, freepers going after clinton for attacking terrorists.
http://web.archive.org/web/20000903013102/http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a530320.htm

Hilariously, that thread has now been deleted. Even more hilariously, anyone posting that link on free republic gets banned immediately. Try it - it took about five minutes for me.

FREEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

[GrinR]

Yes, we should have. It's too late now though. Actually, we did TRY with North Korea, though it was 50 years ago. It wasn't feasible and then we had bigger problems (USSR). IF Iraq was gearing up to get nukes, it's a good thing we stopped it.

However, I think it's FAR too early to say that the current or future state of Iraq under democracy is/will be better thant it was under Saddam.

Funny, Iraqis disagree. (http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1389228)

More stats (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-gallup-iraq-findings.htm)- actually very interesting reading if you go through it.

[Andrew Mayer]

You are citing Christian fundamentalist fringe groups, not Christianity. These groups can be compared with Islamists.


This is a perfect example of the dishonesty of your arguments. You think you can keep breaking things down, or redefining sections of things until it makes you right. It doesn't work that way. It, in fact, makes you wrong.

Why you want to keep making arguments to justify a failed philosophy is quite honestly beyond me. When does the moment of enlightenment come?

Have you ever changed your opinion for reasons of logic based on the results of what has occured? Do you honestly think that there will ever be a time or set of conditions under which your current belief system will do anything but light fires and spill more blood?

From what you've described in this forum previoiusly hubris and righteousness seem to be your main points of justification.

[GrinR]

I disagree. I don't think Pakistan will ever use them, and I don't think North Korea will either. Unless someone uses them against them first, of course, in which case it doesn't really matter since we'd be approaching a mutually assured destruction scenario no matter where the nukes first hit. And in fact, I'll make an HRose-esque prediction right now that the next country to use nukes will be the good 'ol US of A. That's fucking irony right there.

I feel safer knowing you don't think they'll use them. I can sleep well knowing I have the Aegis of Scry's Hopes protecting me.

Give me a break, between Pakistan's capitulation to the Taliban (and frankly, they aren't exactly pro-western democracy to begin with), North Korea's necrocracy, and Iran's rush to nuclear armament, you're telling me you think the USA is the biggest threat? Really?

[GrinR]

This is a perfect example of the dishonesty of your arguments. You think you can keep breaking things down, or redefining sections of things until it makes you right. It doesn't work that way. It, in fact, makes you wrong.

The original comparison was between Islamism/The Taliban and Christianity itself. That was an erroneous comparison. I pointed that out and then illustrated the difference between fringe fundamentalists like the Islamists and the KKK and the main religions - Islam and Christianity.

It will do to simply point out if I'm in error, Andrew, I don't need the ethics lesson.

[DerekSnider]

Give me a break, between Pakistan's capitulation to the Taliban (and frankly, they aren't exactly pro-western democracy to begin with), North Korea's necrocracy, and Iran's rush to nuclear armament, you're telling me you think the USA is the biggest threat? Really?

Hasn't the US already proved this?

[MatthewF]

Necrocracy? North Korea is run by zombies!

[Jason McCullough]

I guess the 50 years the USSR didn't use the bomb don't count. Not awful enough with their gulags and tyranny?

The evidence so far, and what we've seen of politics and diplomacy, seems to indicate that it would take a literally totally insane leader surrounded by a literally totally insane cult government to use nuclear weapons on another nuclear power. Don't even start with "Pakistan's military are insane Muslims or Kim Il Jong is insane or Iran is insane because they're anti-semitic" - no, they aren't. They're highly opposed to the US and the west, and engage in extra-legal international actions like kidnapping, but at no point have any of them demonstrated even a shred of the suicidal insanity required to attack another nuclear power with nuclear weapons. Remember one kooky dictator can't launch; it takes a government. Even Fascist germany wasn't crazy enough; Hitler issued orders far less nuts and they were disobeyed by his government.

There's no reason to suspect "dictator blows the shit out of the united states" is anything but a fantasy scenario.

Give me a break, between Pakistan's capitulation to the Taliban (and frankly, they aren't exactly pro-western democracy to begin with), North Korea's necrocracy, and Iran's rush to nuclear armament, you're telling me you think the USA is the biggest threat? Really?

Necrocracy? Kim's in his 50s.

Pakistan is a threat only to the interests of India; North Korea is a threat to the existance of South Korea, and Iran is a threat to United States and Israeli interests in the middle east.

What you probably mean by threat - "a threat to the existance of another country", as in invading, annexing, and subjugating - only North Korea satisfies. China and the US, however, have that threat at the same level it's been since the end of Korean War. They can kill lots of Republic of Korea civilians if they want in an attempted invasion, but it'd be a suicidal action where we stomp them out of existance in retaliation.

[Glenn]

Funny, Iraqis disagree. (http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1389228)

More stats (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-gallup-iraq-findings.htm)- actually very interesting reading if you go through it.
Beyond the fact that neither of those actually addressed the statement you were responding to:
The first poll is ten months old.
The second is two and a half years old.

[MatthewF]

I feel safer knowing you don't think they'll use them. I can sleep well knowing I have the Aegis of Scry's Hopes protecting me.

Give me a break, between Pakistan's capitulation to the Taliban (and frankly, they aren't exactly pro-western democracy to begin with), North Korea's necrocracy, and Iran's rush to nuclear armament, you're telling me you think the USA is the biggest threat? Really?

And I feel safer knowing we're not annihilating hundreds of thousands of innocent people because GrinR can't sleep without his wittle safety blanky of destruction. I wonder, do you think it's a good idea that someone invade us because we might use nukes some day?

[Robert Sharp]

Beyond the fact that neither of those actually addressed the statement you were responding to:
The first poll is ten months old.
The second is two and a half years old.

And both polls showed the majority of Iraqis were NOT of the opinion that things are better now. Did you read them? Or am I misunderstanding what I am looking at?

[DerekSnider]

And I feel safer knowing we're not annihilating hundreds of thousands of innocent people because GrinR can't sleep without his wittle safety blanky of destruction. I wonder, do you think it's a good idea that someone invade us because we might use nukes some day?

Well, if they're following our example, yes. But that's the thing, isn't it?..it's only ok when the US is the invader.

[Andrew Mayer]

It will do to simply point out if I'm in error, Andrew, I don't need the ethics lesson.

Isn't the ethics of the situation exactly what we're arguing?

I'm making a case here for what I percieve to be a fundamentally dishonest point of view in the "neocon" rhetoric that you seem to have internalized.

Beyond that, I'd say the lack of ethics, that is, the beleif that the forcing the world to the philosophical ends so that you can justify the means, is what made the neocons such useful fools for this administration (for a time).

Say what you like about the new left, but the point is to find a system that works to make a better world, and not to endlessly justify one that doesn't. The fact that so much of today's right wing still doesn't get that is evident in the way they keep pretending they're fighting the hippies of forty years ago. Oh, and the fact that their leaders are the same folks from thirty years ago.

[bago]

Take a look around, my friend, tell me where you see anything vaguely similar to the Taliban regime here in the USA

Jesus Camp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5389mUpg_jM)

[Brian Rucker]

Here's an interesting poll, GrinR, not from a year ago.

The unrelenting violence and chaos of Iraq have taken their toll on the people there, according to a new study of Iraqi public opinion. The study, based on two surveys of over 2,300 Iraqis in 2004 and 2006, found increased feelings of powerlessness, insecurity, xenophobia, and pessimism, along with a striking level of distrust of U.S. intentions. At the same time, the surveys found a surprising rise in support for secular politics and nationalism, even as sectarian militias may be pulling the country toward all-out civil war. Sponsored by the National Science Foundation, the project was done by Profs. Mansoor Moaddel of Eastern Michigan University and Ronald Inglehart and Mark Tessler of the University of Michigan.

The growing sense of insecurity affected all three of Iraq's major ethnic and religious groups. The number of Iraqis who "strongly agreed" that life is "unpredictable and dangerous" jumped from 41 percent to 48 percent of Shiites, from 67 percent to 79 percent of Sunnis and from 16 percent to 50 percent of Kurds. Xenophobia is also pervasive: Ninety percent of Iraqis would not like to have Americans or British as neighbors. Nor were fellow Muslims spared: Sixty-one percent of Iraqis preferred not to have Iranians or Jordanians living next door, while 71 percent hoped to avoid a Turkish neighbor.

There was more bad news for U.S. officials, who have worked hard to convince Iraqis that American intentions in Iraq are noble. The most recent survey, done in April this year, found almost no Iraqis who felt the United States had invaded to liberate their country from tyranny and build a democracy. Asked for "the three main reasons for the U.S. invasion of Iraq," fully 76 percent cited "to control Iraqi oil." That was followed by "to build military bases" (41 percent) and "to help Israel" (32 percent). Fewer than 2 percent chose "to bring democracy to Iraq" as their first choice.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060817/17iraq.htm

Let's face the fact that whatever's going on over there it's not going to be good for us. One way or another the Shi'ia will take over, Iran will back them, and civil war is going to break out between them and the Sunni. Hell, many folks say we're already there. And this helps America how?

I won't even start in on the NIE that was released.

Iraq's brought us an opportunity to show that a flawed democracy is better than an efficient dictatorship. Yes, Saddam was doing everything in his power to acquire WMDs - no one disputes this. How do you expose them without the evidence you need (and didn't even know about) kept in a country that's actively hiding it?
Evidently there were elements in the American intelligence community who were disputing it through back channels to Pincus and Priest because I was reading precisely that before the war. Or at least that his efforts were ineffectual and we had no reliable intelligence about the state of his WMD stockpiles. That's certainly not justification to start a war. Not in the realm we laughingly call the real world.

I don't think most Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam. I don't they believe they are either but I do think that the majority of Iraqis, the Kurds and the Shi'ia, are very happy to see him gone. The Shi'ia so they can seize power in central and southern Iraq, bouyed by Iranian support over the long term and certainly after we're gone, and the Kurds can continue to angle for their independant Kurdistan in the north. The Sunni are pretty much screwed but even I'd have a hard time arguing they didn't bring that on themselves to an extent. In any case the outcome isn't going to be worth what we spent to achieve it and that was predictable from the outset. Pro-Iran, anti-Israel, central government. Kurdistan tempting fate with Turkey. And the Sunni locked in a permanent state of civil war with the central regime. A regime we trust so much they don't get tanks or helicopters or aircraft or anti-aircraft weaponry. They're gonna be able to hold it together but I don't doubt that Iran will do a better job kitting them out when we're gone.

We have the evidence now and no one cares, I'm not sure why it would have made any difference then, either. The "traditional allies" were never going to help us in Iraq, period. That was made obvious by the run-up.

And why do you think that was? I tend to think that like me they thought this was a crazed ideology completely out of hand and creating pretexts for preventative wars without seeking proof or international consensus. "We're threatened, we think, and even though we can't prove it we're attacking. So, you're good with that right?"

That's gonna sell. Unless someone considers that every other nation in the world can start using that very justification.

[Shadarr]

Asked for "the three main reasons for the U.S. invasion of Iraq," fully 76 percent cited "to control Iraqi oil." That was followed by "to build military bases" (41 percent) and "to help Israel" (32 percent). Fewer than 2 percent chose "to bring democracy to Iraq" as their first choice.
All that proves is that Iraqis aren't stupid.

[Huzurdaddi]

We're losing sight of the real issue, how much of Huzurdaddi's money am I getting?

It would be wonderful if you were right. We only have to wait about 5 weeks to see.

Tell me again, who owns CNN?

Don't tell me that you are comparing the influence of Ted Turner (~2% of time warner and he resigned in 2003 ) with that of Rupert Murdoch ( chairman & CEO and I have no idea of his percentage ownership, but I'm pretty sure it is greater than 2%).

BTW, Chet awessome find.

[Squirrel Killer]

It would be wonderful if you were right. We only have to wait about 5 weeks to see.
While we still haven't agreed to stakes, I'll take that as accepting the bet.

Don't tell me that you are comparing the influence of Ted Turner (~2% of time warner and he resigned in 2003 ) with that of Rupert Murdoch ( chairman & CEO and I have no idea of his percentage ownership, but I'm pretty sure it is greater than 2%).
No. I'm comparing the political leanings of Time Warner (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D000000094) to the political leanings of the News Corporation (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=B&cycle=2006).

[shift6]

As opposed to Reagan and Bush Sr.'s policy of dealing with terrorists/ terrorist nations: doing nothing at all (or, in the case of Iran, illegally selling them arms). Hezbollah didn't suffer so much as a wrist slap for murdering 278 marines.
Wow.

I'm hardly part of the hippie-liberal brigade here, but I think Clinton got the better of that exchange. Honestly, it seems like Clinton is the only Democrat with a backbone, an audience, and a message.
He is, and that's why the party has been fumbling like a bunch of blind quadrapalegics in a dark room ever since. They almost had Howard Dean who might have had a message, but noooo...

I ask without duplicity: Which country would you have picked?
Afghanistan. Or possibly France, but that's just a personal opinion.

* calling Clinton a liberal is pretty laughable, actually. Nixon would probably consider Clinton closer to Goldwater than to himself.
With possibly a very few specific exceptions, how was he not a liberal during his administration?

The essence of any organized religion that promotes conversion is, well, intolerance.
I'd say the extreme is intolerance, not the bare essence. If it is the bare essence, then these "extremists" aren't really extreme, are they?

Don't even start with "Pakistan's military are insane Muslims or Kim Il Jong is insane or Iran is insane because they're anti-semitic" - no, they aren't.
I agreed with the entire rest of your post, but I'm just checking: did you say here that Kim isn't insane? Because bro, the dude's fucking batshit. :)

[Jason McCullough]

He might be, but he's surrounded by a total enormous army of people who aren't cultists. According to the last months' atlantic monthly, he lost control over some areas in the 1990s that started setting up independent military fiefdoms.

It'd pretty much take bin Laden running a country of country of commited Jihadis to qualify for the suicidial dictator nuke scenario.

[bago]

They hate our liberties. Therfore let us sacrifice them so that they won't hate us as much.

1st, 4th amendment and rights dating back to the 12th centurey, lets give them up. Then we wil be safe.

[Elton]

With possibly a very few specific exceptions, how was he not a liberal during his administration?
On the stuff that matters (at least to me -- economic issues), Clinton was not at all left-wing. He spent a huge amount of political capital pushing through NAFTA, with the help of congressional Republicans. Cut spending in order to balance the budget. Put some teeth into welfare to encourage/force people to get jobs, against the dire predictions of Democrats. (He's also pro-death-penalty.)

Going to the don't-ask-don't-tell policy with regards to gays in the military was a liberal stance, as was the attempt to push through the national health care plan. But those five issues are the only domestic ones I remember him spending time on, and he was conservative on three of them. I might be missing some big ones, but the point stands. Hillary might have been a flaming liberal back then, but Bill sure wasn't.

(Barring the sexual escapades Clinton is the Practically Perfect Politician from my standpoint. Mostly liberal socially, mostly conservative economically, and charismatic/emotive enough to push through stuff that his base hated and still maintain a 60% approval rating despite the impeachment proceedings. (Even if I found him rather loathesome at the time, not because of the blow-job itself but because it was so brazen and irresponsible and he carried such an attitude of "I'm too important to the nation to be brought down by my indiscretions".))

[DerekSnider]

Here's an interesting poll, GrinR, not from a year ago....


But the old poll's are more accurate!

[Robert Sharp]

They hate our liberties. Therfore let us sacrifice them so that they won't hate us as much.

1st, 4th amendment and rights dating back to the 12th centurey, lets give them up. Then we wil be safe.

Rights? In the 12th century? That seems unlikely, considering rights weren't really even invented as such until much later. But your joke still works...or is it a joke, if it makes me cry?

[MarchHare]

Rights? In the 12th century? That seems unlikely, considering rights weren't really even invented as such until much later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_carta


The influence of Magna Carta outside England can be seen in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. Indeed just about every common law state has been influenced by Magna Carta, making it one of the most important legal documents in the history of democracy.


The Magna Carta, FYI, granted the right to due process, which Bush and his cronies have clearly taken away from certain terrorist suspects imprisoned (some were later released) at Guantanimo and elsewhere without ever having been given a trial, and, in some cases, without ever having been charged with a crime.

[Brian Rucker]

Yet an even newer poll.

WASHINGTON -- About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, and slightly more than that want their government to ask U.S. troops to leave within a year, according to a poll in that country.

The Iraqis also have negative views of Osama bin Laden, according to the early September poll of 1,150.

The poll was done for University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

A State Department poll found that two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces, according to the Washington Post.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/74559,CST-NWS-iraqpoll28.article

They don't like bin Laden but they're all for killing us. Hey, what? I thought...

[Robert Sharp]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_carta



The Magna Carta, FYI, granted the right to due process, which Bush and his cronies have clearly taken away from certain terrorist suspects imprisoned (some were later released) at Guantanimo and elsewhere without ever having been given a trial, and, in some cases, without ever having been charged with a crime.

I'm aware of the MC, actually. I'm saying that human rights, in the sense used today (as inviolable) is a newer idea. The rights in the MC were more of an agreement between nobles and the king than a true system of rights for the people, much less for enemies of the state (who had no rights, theoretical or otherwise).

[AndrewM]

How many hours, was it a full day or two, that passed between 9/11 and Bush's handlers setting up the photo-op on the smouldering site of the twin towers?

Didn't (according to Woodward) Cheney say on 9/12 that we needed to invade Iraq? So I don't think their response was that slow.