Did the Bush administration claim Iraq was an imminent threat?

[BRussell]

Andrew Sullivan (http://www.andrewsullivan.com/) has an "imminent threat watch" in which he cites papers and politicians whenever they claim Bush described Iraq as an imminent threat. Sullivan claims it's a total lie, and Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat. He claims that Bush said exactly the opposite. For example, Bush said the following in his State of the Union:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.That seems to indicate that Bush was clearly saying Iraq was NOT an imminent threat, but we should attack before the threat becomes imminent.

On the other side, Josh Marshall wrote this piece (http://www.hillnews.com/marshall/110503.aspx) for The Hill in which he claims that, perhaps in slightly different words, the administration DID claim Iraq was an imminent threat.
Last October, a reporter put this to Ari Fleischer: “Ari, the president has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth.”

Fleischer’s answer? “Yes.”

In January, Wolf Blitzer asked Dan Bartlett: “Is [Saddam] an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home.”
Bartlett’s answer? “Well, of course he is.”

A month after the war, another reporter asked Fleischer, “Well, we went to war, didn’t we, to find these — because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn’t that true?”

Fleischer’s answer? “Absolutely.”

---

Here’s how Vice President Cheney described the threat in August 2002: “What we must not do in the face of a mortal threat is give in to wishful thinking or willful blindness.”

A month later, Bush called Iraq an “urgent threat to America.”

The next month, he described the threat like this: “Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. … Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

Or Fleischer two days after that: “Another way to look at this is if Saddam Hussein holds a gun to your head even while he denies that he actually owns a gun, how safe should you feel?”

Or the president justifying war as it got under way: “The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.”

I'm not particularly impressed with the Ari quotes. Ari could have been saying yes to other aspects of the questions rather than the specific 'imminent threat' line. It seems clear that neither Bush nor anyone else in the administration said "Iraq is an imminent threat." But did they try to leave that impression in so many words?

I don't know, but in my view, that's not really the point. The key issue is that they have tried to redefine the concept of imminent threat so that it includes, well, a non-imminent threat as well. It is generally considered acceptable under international law to attack another country if they pose an imminent threat to you. Israel attacked Arab countries who were massing troops in apparent preparation for an attack, for example. But with Bush's new policy, laid out in the now-infamous National Security Strategy, (http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html) they said we can engage in "preemptive" attacks if it looks like a country may be a threat in the future:
For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat-most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.

We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries.
...
To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

In my view, this is the key issue. Should we preemptively go to war even absent an imminent threat?

And this is where I think Sullivan is wrong is when he criticizes Clark (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=fisking&s=sullivan102703) for saying the following in a debate:
CLARK: I've been against this war from the beginning. I was against it last summer, I was against it in the fall, I was against it in the winter, I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now. It was an unnecessary war. There was no imminent threat.

Sullivan:No member of the administration used the term "imminent threat" to describe Saddam Hussein's Iraq. No one.

Clark didn't claim Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat. It's possible to be against the war in Iraq because it wasn't an imminent threat, without claiming Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat.

Check outthis piece (http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031103.html) in Spinsanity about the issue.

[giant]

This whole arguing about sound bytes is just rediculous.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3711.htm

[keyboardf12]

AS is a revisionist blogger in denial.

I forget the incredbile number but it was really high. The night the voted for the war resolution the number of congressman and senators that justified their vote with the words WWMD, nuclear, immenet threat was large.

That's what they get for believe dick cheney and his vice president...

[kneelbeforezod]

Perhaps they just meant that there was an imminent threat of Iraq becoming an imminent threat.

[Northgate]

Looks like conservatives learned a thing or two from Clinton. I thought Clinton was an utter fool for debating what the word "is" is. Therefore, I find it absolutely insulting to my intelligence that the right would use the same exact tactics by trying to redefine the term "imminent threat" and whether or not anyone in the administration used those exact words.

Who gives a f*ck what they actually said? It's the "message" they sent, not the words. I received the message loud and clear when Condalezza Rice said, and I'm paraphrasing here, "what proof do we need, mushroom clouds over Chicago?"

The Bush Spin Machine is in overdrive.

[BRussell]

I don't think it's nitpicky to ask whether they used the specific term 'imminent,' because that is a meaningful term in the justification of a preemptive war.

Put it this way. Which of these two options is worse:

1. The administration claimed the threat was imminent, but it really wasn't.

2. The administration said the threat was not imminent, but we should go to war just the same.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by BRussell
I don't think it's nitpicky to ask whether they used the specific term 'imminent,' because that is a meaningful term in the justification of a preemptive war.

Put it this way. Which of these two options is worse:

1. The administration claimed the threat was imminent, but it really wasn't.

2. The administration said the threat was not imminent, but we should go to war just the same.

BRussell I think it is interesting that you raise this topic. What got into you as to explore this subject?

Fellows

[chu_bakka]

I think the message they put out was complex...

Pound the Drum to get out the WMD message... but say we don't want to wait for them to have the chance to strike us... or wait for the capability to fully develop. It's a scarey message to put out. And fear brings the urge to take care of the problem sooner than later.

They were saying lets take care of it NOW. Which makes it SEEM imminent... We can't wait for the UN inspectors! Makes timing sound important... when in all reality... another 6 to 9 months would have not changed a thing... because... there was NO IMMINENT threat.

Keep the public off balance and scared... and they'll support us. They felt the sooner they got in there the sooner they could "fix and democratize" the Middle East.

A bold plan. But in the end just arrogant and naive.

[giant]

Originally posted by BRussell
The administration said the threat was not imminent, but we should go to war just the same.

But that's not what was said.

They made the argument that it needed to be done in order to avoid attack, plain and simple.

This discussion of specific terms is just a way for the Bush admin to pretend that they are not responsible. Just by virtue of this discussion in the media the Bush admin is partially vinticated, since imminent is not digested in the same way by everyone. While one small group may be debating the term on it's extremely narrow technical merits, most people see the word as meaning a 'coming' and 'urgent' threat, which certainly was the argument.

The is how the Bush admin (and all politicians in a jam) get away with this BS. The argument was made. They made the argument that it was an immenent threat in the common use of the word, even if the sound byte 'Iraq is an imminent threat' doesn't exist.

[groverat]

This Thread Is Pure Genius

[sCreeD]

This. Is. Hysterical.

What the sailors meant with the "Mission Accomplished" sign...

We neither said nor implied that Iraq was an imminent threat, all that talk about nuclear programs and mushroom clouds notwithstanding...

The murder of our troops by insurgents^H^H^H^H^H "enemies of freedom" is a sign of progress because...

If it weren't for the blood in the streets, this administration's antics would be a comedy routine.

Screed

[Scott]

For those that were too stupid to understand the reason; I understood the reason US "rushed" to war was that there was a huge build up and the on coming summer in Iraq, making war difficult. The goal of the France, Germany, Iraq alliance was to delay the war until it was too hot for the US to fight the war, or make even more dangerous. So the US had to act before that.


Or was I just the only one thinking clearly?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by giant
But that's not what was said.

They made the argument that it needed to be done in order to avoid attack, plain and simple. Yes, but to avoid an attack that might occur when? I think their argument was "yeah, we're not going to be attacked now, but we might be attacked at some point in the future, and so we need to attack them first."

The basic evidence for this is

1. the state of the union address, in which Bush said we can't wait until the threat is imminent, and

2. the National Security Strategy in which the logic of preemptive war is laid out.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by groverat
This Thread Is Pure Genius Feel free to clarify.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by chu_bakka
I think the message they put out was complex...

Pound the Drum to get out the WMD message... but say we don't want to wait for them to have the chance to strike us... or wait for the capability to fully develop. It's a scarey message to put out. And fear brings the urge to take care of the problem sooner than later.I think that's right. The argument was "they have WMDs now, and at some point in the future they might use them against us."

[Chinney]

Originally posted by BRussell
Feel free to clarify.

My experience is that he doesn't clarify or expand on his comments anymore, he just makes some inscrutible comment then "poof", disappears. I miss the old Groverat.

[Chinney]

Originally posted by BRussell
Put it this way. Which of these two options is worse:

1. The administration claimed the threat was imminent, but it really wasn't.

2. The administration said the threat was not imminent, but we should go to war just the same.

My view is that the Administration and its allies certainly suggested both: 1. that there was an imminent threat and 2. that the U.S. was entitled to go to war even in the case of a threat that was less than imminent.

Point (2.) is set out in the National Security Strategy. Point (1.) was perhaps less clearly and directly stated by the Administration, but we have to keep in mind that the Administration relied on arguments that the Iraq regime possessed WMD and that it could deploy them. The administration also positioned its claims within the context of the war on terrorism and the possibility of an unexpected attack. There was a strong suggestion that Iraq represented an imminent threat, even if these precise words were never used.

Further, the Administration was wrong regardless of whether it relied primarily on (1.) or (2.). The Administration and its allies did not have the intelligence basis to make the claim under (1.). Meanwhile, (2.) represents a dangerous doctrine that lowers the threshold for international conflict and which almost certainly violates international law.

It’s a tie!

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by Chinney
My view is that the Administration and its allies certainly suggested both: 1. that there was an imminent threat and 2. that the U.S. was entitled to go to war even in the case of a threat that was less than imminent.

Point (2.) is set out in the National Security Strategy. Point (1.) was perhaps less clearly and directly stated by the Administration, but we have to keep in mind that the Administration relied on arguments that the Iraq regime possessed WMD and that it could deploy them. The administration also positioned its claims within the context of the war on terrorism and the possibility of an unexpected attack. There was a strong suggestion that Iraq represented an imminent threat, even if these precise words were never used.

Further, the Administration was wrong regardless of whether it relied primarily on (1.) or (2.). The Administration and its allies did not have the intelligence basis to make the claim under (1.). Meanwhile, (2.) represents a dangerous doctrine that lowers the threshold for international conflict and which almost certainly violates international law.

It’s a tie!

Just thought I would weigh in and say that I believe you make valid points here Chinney.

Fellows

[giant]

Originally posted by BRussell
Yes, but to avoid an attack that might occur when? I think their argument was "yeah, we're not going to be attacked now, but we might be attacked at some point in the future, and so we need to attack them first."

The basic evidence for this is

1. the state of the union address, in which Bush said we can't wait until the threat is imminent, and

2. the National Security Strategy in which the logic of preemptive war is laid out.

Check out Bush's Cincinnati address, which was the one where he detailed the threat for the american people:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3711.htm

He claimed it was urgent

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by Scott
For those that were too stupid to understand the reason; I understood the reason US "rushed" to war was that there was a huge build up and the on coming summer in Iraq, making war difficult. The goal of the France, Germany, Iraq alliance was to delay the war until it was too hot for the US to fight the war, or make even more dangerous. So the US had to act before that.


Or was I just the only one thinking clearly?

Scott, was there an imminent threat to the United States, to justify your position? And if so, can you spell out exactly what that threat to the United States was?

Perhaps you don't remember that this (and other) war(s) in the current series were mooted back in the 1990s by the PNAC group (Feith , Perle, Wolfowitz, Kristol etc etc etc). In their mission statement, they said that these plans would be very slow to implement, unless there was some catastrophic event... a "New Pearl Harbor". (On the evening of 9-11, Bush wrote in his journal: "the new Pearl Harbor happened today). Iraq wasn't an "imminent threat" to the USA or any of its neighbors. But with the PNAC having such leverage on US foreign policy, Iraq never needed to be a threat: the war was to go ahead regardless...hence all the absurd reasons for the war stated by the administration, which they danced around like some grotesque game of musical chairs (WMD, oil, links with al Qaeda, regime change, liberation of the Iraqi people, and so on). Wolfowitz himself stated that it was extremely hard to find consensus on any of these reasons and they eventually came to a compromise and settled on WMD because that was the easiest sell to the American people, who were still reeling from the shock of 9-11. Now even the admin. has acknowledged that the WMD intel was fatally flawed, so they are spinning that "liberation of Iraq" nonsense...ie how very convenient, makes Bush look "charitable"... but that was never the reason for the war, and never could have been. Would the American people cough up $200 billion+ to bring freedom to the people of one middle eastern country? What a joke.

Without 9-11, the Iraq war would have been a complete nonstarter. The American people would never have stood for it....and neither would the British, Spanish, or Italian governments...or any other of the "coalition of the willing" (paid off or threatened). It required the "imminent threat" of Saddam and the FoxNews fantasy of his drones armed with bioweapons and chemicals, Rice and her mushroom clouds over Chicago and...buy that duct tape.

The war happened, and as a result US interests could well be under a greater "imminent threat (from terrorists) than before the war. The entire Bush team is a national security liability at best.

[EMGeneratr]

While they may deny that they came out and SAID it was an imminent threat, their actions and tones certainly conveyed the message. Talking about mushroom clouds over Chicago, and possible biological weapons strikes at a whim of Saddam... Even if they didn't come out and lable Iraq as part of the Axis of Evil (I love that speech), doesn't that convey a sense of threat to you?

[chu_bakka]

Scott's point is that we needed to go to war before summer for strategic reasons... there waas no threat reason... why not wait until September? They didn't want to wait because the argument to go to war would become weaker and weaker... and a possible diplomatic solution may have become available.

Germany and France are no heros. They could have done other things than just oppose the US to try to slow the US down. But the administration was already posturing... that it didn't matter what the UN did.

The Whitehouse had set the ball rolling last september... and they weren't going to stop it for any reason. It didn't fit into their re-election strategy.

They thought they could get in and out of Iraq in 18 months... and starting the war later would put the plan behind schedule. TOO CLOSE TO THE ELECTION.

Guess what George... Pre-Emptive War is a bad idea.
And he's the first to start one for the US.

[groverat]

My experience is that he doesn't clarify or expand on his comments anymore, he just makes some inscrutible comment then "poof", disappears. I miss the old Groverat.

ennui

--

Expansion!

This is a thread directly about semantics from politicians. The circular arguments are 100% certain to arise and they are built right in to the subject, there is no hope at all for clarity, much less resolution.

Now I understand that almost nothing on message boards that finds resolution or clarity, but almost nothing is more than nothing. And starting a thread that's doomed from the start is hilarious to me.

Hence: This Thread Is Pure Genius.

It's not an attack on BRussell, it's a comment on the golden nature of the thread itself.

[aapl]

Seems to me that the imminent threat is the Islamic "house of learning", and those parties that support to them madrasas, both actively and passively. Many Western thinking government are just as culprit here as the Arab/Islamic governments. Destroying the buildings and those in them, alone is not the optimum solution. But it will slow them down. The show of power is important, as it is part of a psychological war. And that is the key. Rumsfeld is correct in asking question about the war for the heart and mind. And my intuition tells me that an approach that uses total and complete humiliation is the best way to go. Call it the wrath of Kahn the sequel. (Reference is to the Mongols)

[chu_bakka]

Umm... what?

your point is?

[aapl]

Originally posted by chu_bakka
Umm... what?

your point is?

I'll assume this is for me..

Point is,
the question posed was regards an imminent threat to the US and I guess western values in general. I pointed out where that imminent threat lies.

Further,
the politically "correct" muzzle the leftist pinkos have managed to put on free thought and speech is an insidious device used in the benefit of their political cousins: the Marxists/Islamicists. Islam is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of war, expansion, subjugation and worst kind of imperialism. And it should be treated in the same manner as Communism/Nazism/Fascism was.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

All those who want their old AppleOutsider back, here is your G5. Happy days are here again.

Mika, my friend, welcome home.

We missed you.

[aapl]

:)

*hugs* and *kisses*

[jimmac]

Bush lied about his justification for us needing to go to war. That's all we really need to know.

[addabox]

Originally posted by aapl

Further,
the politically "correct" muzzle the leftist pinkos have managed to put on free thought and speech is an insidious device used in the benefit of their political cousins: the Marxists/Islamicists. Islam is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of war, expansion, subjugation and worst kind of imperialism. And it should be treated in the same manner as Communism/Nazism/Fascism was.

Islam is being treated the same as Communism, that is, as an all purpose cover for the worst kind of abuses, foreign and domestic. It seems we always need a "demon" to keep attention off the ever denied promise of American equality and justice.

Oh, and you're an idiot.

[chu_bakka]

the PC muzzle... nice spin...so if it's not christian it's an imminent threat?

Do you know that the Muslim faith is the largest religion in the world?

I don't think anyone can point a finger at any other culture and say they're the war mongers... that's not being PC... it's being realistic.

There's a big difference in fighting a holy war and fighting a cold war.

You can use all the non "PC" language you want... it's a free country.

You rightwingheadupyourassneoconservativewarmongering tool.

[Chinney]

Originally posted by addabox
Oh, and you're an idiot.

Well, in keeping with the original theme of this thread, as started by BRussell, I think we should decide whether

1. appl is an idiot.
2. appl is a bigot.

Thoughts?

[addabox]

Originally posted by Chinney
Well, in keeping with the original theme of this thread, as started by BRussell, I think we should decide whether

1. appl is an idiot.
2. appl is a bigot.

Thoughts?

Hmmm.... I gonna stick with idiot, acting as a precursor for biogtry.

[aapl]

Originally posted by chu_bakka
the PC muzzle... nice spin...so if it's not christian it's an imminent threat?

Do you know that the Muslim faith is the largest religion in the world?


So was/is communism. That means it must be good.



Originally posted by Chinney
I think we should decide whether

1. appl is an idiot.
2. appl is a bigot.

Thoughts?

LOL. That was just too predictable.



BTW,
Any time you have the likes of your Sammi Joe's bemoaning US foreign policy in the Middle East, you know you're doing something right.

] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8260-2003Nov6.html

[Northgate]

:rolleyes:

Just what we need around here, another black and white, blinded by the right, holy versus evil, inarticulate, neo-con that only flames hatred and adds NOTHING to the general conversation.

Bravo.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by Chinney
Well, in keeping with the original theme of this thread, as started by BRussell, I think we should decide whether

1. appl is an idiot.
2. appl is a bigot.

Thoughts?

People! In an Indian theatre show, appl's entrance would've been preceded by flashing lights and the sound of thunder.

He is The Villain.

Where've you been? It's Mika. It's PC*KILLA. He's not like you and me. He dodges suicide bombs in Haifa every day.

In answer to your question, Chinney, he's both.

[aapl]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
People! In an Indian theatre show, appl's entrance would've been preceded by flashing lights and the sound of thunder.

He is The Villain.

Where've you been? It's Mika. It's PC*KILLA. He's not like you and me. He dodges suicide bombs in Haifa every day.

In answer to your question, Chinney, he's both.

Hassan, my love, I'm just an lowly amateur compared to you. I pay you my homage.

[chu_bakka]

It's a religion. Different than a political system.

We seem to be getting along with China pretty well.

And we have many allies who's citizens are primarily Muslim.

According to you we still have alot of work to do to convert a vast majority of the world's population to our "westerm" ways. And apparently you think we should do it ruthlessly through force.

Doesn't sound like democracy in action to me.

[aapl]

Originally posted by chu_bakka
It's a religion. Different than a political system.

We seem to be getting along with China pretty well.

And we have many allies who's citizens are primarily Muslim.

According to you we still have alot of work to do to convert a vast majority of the world's population to our "westerm" ways. And apparently you think we should do it ruthlessly through force.

Doesn't sound like democracy in action to me.


I think I made the point to point out that force can only be part of solution..

[chu_bakka]

I think your point was "COMPLETE HUMILIATION". And to insult those of Islamic faith.

Sounds like a winning strategy.

[aapl]

Well, I think Afghanistan was such a complete humiliation..
No reason as to why the same tactics could not be used to similar affect elsewhere.

[chu_bakka]

Ohhh right... Shock&Awe. Another great strategy.

Countries don't get much more ripe than Afghanistan ...
Poor. No Conventional Military. No infrastructure. Bush's Greneda.

Dont get me wrong. Afghanistan was necessary. And relatively easy. And Bush is still screwing it up. We're really nurturing democracy there. Leaving it to the warlords and poppy growers again.

Neoconservatives are all about theory... but no substance.

[MaxParrish]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Scott, was there an imminent threat to the United States, to justify your position? And if so, can you spell out exactly what that threat to the United States was?


I never cease to marvel at the selective memory of the politically passionate, even regarding the events that occurred less than a year ago. Have extensively discussed and debated these issues with many of my peers over the last year, and participated in numerious posts, it astounds me that how quickly axe grinding revisionism can recast history, namely that Bush lied, that he "told us the threat was imminent”.

Sigh, wrong! He did’nt. Nor did his administration, nor his mainstream supporters. What he and his supporters did say that it was very uncertain just how close Saddam was to developing and/manufacturing WMD, or if he could deploy a nuclear bomb within the near term (a year or two) – especially if he obtained fissionable materials. But the WMD argument advanced by his administration, and his supporters, was that given Saddam’s meglomanical and psychopathic history, his obstructive and suspicious coverups, and the the fearful uncertainity, it was “URGENT” that the issue be delt with, preferably through long overdue regime change.

Now one may argue that, in retrospect, it was not urgent. However, one ought to at least acknowledge that the urgency was driven by 9/11, continually deferred American plans to deal with Saddam (dating back to the expulsion of UN inspectors several YEARS previously) AND the near impossibility of maintaining indefinitely the force levels necessary to extract compliance, or to force compliance through war before summer weather.

There is no reason, other than hysteria, for left critics to continue to invent history – Bush may, or may not, have been wrong in his reasons for pressing war, but setting up a straw position to bash leaves the impression that his critics aren’t secure enough to confront his actual policy statements.

The question to Scott ought to have been: "What was so urgent to justify your position ?" (although even that is leading).

[Chinney]

WMD - 45 minutes

[addabox]

Originally posted by MaxParrish
I never cease to marvel at the selective memory of the politically passionate, even regarding the events that occurred less than a year ago. Have extensively discussed and debated these issues with many of my peers over the last year, and participated in numerious posts, it astounds me that how quickly axe grinding revisionism can recast history, namely that Bush lied, that he "told us the threat was imminent”.

Sigh, wrong! He did’nt. Nor did his administration, nor his mainstream supporters. What he and his supporters did say that it was very uncertain just how close Saddam was to developing and/manufacturing WMD, or if he could deploy a nuclear bomb within the near term (a year or two) – especially if he obtained fissionable materials. But the WMD argument advanced by his administration, and his supporters, was that given Saddam’s meglomanical and psychopathic history, his obstructive and suspicious coverups, and the the fearful uncertainity, it was “URGENT” that the issue be delt with, preferably through long overdue regime change.


Bush on October 7, 2002


There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.

So the threat was not "imminent" but failure to act immediately conjures up the spectre of Hussein handing over his (nonexistant) bio and nuke weapons to terrorists just like the people who hit the World Trade Center "on a whim". Like, could be tommorrow.

And you seriously want to play a little semantics game where the use of the word "imminent" signals some kind leftist revisionist history.

I've said it before, you people have no shame.

[MaxParrish]

Originally posted by sammi jo
...Perhaps you don't remember that this (and other) war(s) in the current series were mooted back in the 1990s by the PNAC group (Feith , Perle, Wolfowitz, Kristol etc etc etc). In their mission statement, they said that these plans would be very slow to implement, unless there was some catastrophic event... a "New Pearl Harbor". (On the evening of 9-11, Bush wrote in his journal: "the new Pearl Harbor happened today)...the war was to go ahead regardless...hence all the absurd reasons for the war stated by the administration, which they danced around like some grotesque game of musical chairs (WMD, oil, links with al Qaeda, regime change, liberation of the Iraqi people, and so on). Wolfowitz himself stated that it was extremely hard to find consensus on any of these reasons and they eventually came to a compromise and settled on WMD because that was the easiest sell to the American people, who were still reeling from the shock of 9-11...they are spinning that "liberation of Iraq" nonsense...ie how very convenient, makes Bush look "charitable"... but that was never the reason for the war, and never could have been. Would the American people cough up $200 billion+ to bring freedom to the people of one middle eastern country? What a joke.
Your fevered speculations provides us with a sinister and breathless storyline: “they (the PNAC group) said that these plans would be very slow to implement, unless there was some catastrophic event…a “New Pearl Harbor” (On the evening of 9-11, Bush wrote in his journal: ‘the new Pearl Harbor happended today’)” and “Iraq never needed to be a threat: the war was to go ahead regardless…hence all the absurd reasons for the war…they danced the grotesque game…etc. etc.”

I think one ought to unravel your theatrical thread and provide a more dispassionate and balanced story.

The “plans” of PNAC (a private, non-profit group started in 1997) was vetted in their policy document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (2000). It laid out the key goals of its authors: to transform American military by making its combat forces lighter, more mobile, and technologically advanced; to redeploy and/or reorient forces from a potential “European” conflict against the Soviet Union to other potential areas of trouble, particularly the far east; to halt the development of expensive force systems (e.g. the crusader artillery system) so as to fund the transformation; to better prepare the American military for growing constabulary missions (e.g. Kosovo); to maintain American military preeminence; and to defend and expand zones of democracy.

Of course, the authors recognized, as do most bold and imaginative government planners, that military culture and congressional politics are so powerful as to derail any radical break with previous doctrine and existing pork barrels – and in fact, Rumsfeld’s attempts prior to 9-11 for force restructuring met with fierce, and successful resistence. But 9-11, a Pearl Harbor in most people’s view, recast a reticent (and almost isolationist) President and empowered his embattled Secretary, and propelled the neo-cons into the main currents of military/political debate.

Wolfowitz himself stated that it was extremely hard to find consensus on any of these reasons and they eventually came to a compromise and settled on WMD because that was the easiest sell to the American people, who were still reeling from the shock of 9-11. Now even the admin. has acknowledged that the WMD intel was fatally flawed, so they are spinning that "liberation of Iraq" nonsense...ie how very convenient .
It wasn't so cynical. State and Defense participants had different degrees of consensus as too the need for a war to resolve their different concerns (WMD, liberation, terrorism) – the one aspect all agreed on was the over-riding fear of Saddam’s WMD intentions and his program. While Powell and the State Department may have not justified the war in other terms initially, others in the administration (including Bush) made it very clear that there were other compelling reasons for the war: Saddam’s brutality and genocide, his support of terrorism, Saddam’s aspirations for an imperial empire, and the importance of oil. I would recommend you get a copy of “The War for Iraq: Saddam’s Tyranny and America’s Mission” published before the war is an excellent summery of Bushs thinking and his administration’s rationale for the pending war.
Without 9-11, the Iraq war would have been a complete nonstarter. The American people would never have stood for it....and neither would the British, Spanish, or Italian governments...or any other of the "coalition of the willing" (paid off or threatened).
There we agree. 9-11 transformed the President and the public. It established a new doctrine of pre-emption, and it gave impulse to the neo-conservative (and neo-liberal) view of pro-active democratization.
The war happened, and as a result US interests could well be under a greater "imminent threat (from terrorists) than before the war.
Perhaps, or perhaps it merely expressed an inevitable (and pre-existing) clash of civilizations. It may well be that counter-attacking Muslims and dictators will create more terrorists and dictators, but the history of appeasement is that sooner, or later, one will not have a choice – and the choice is best made earlier than later.

[midwinter]

Harumph.

Jeez people. Here's how you do it.


Step 1: Imply that SH is cozy with al Qaeda
Step 1.5: Raise the terrah alert
Step 2: Back off of that and say that SH is cozy with "al Qaeda-like" terrorist organizations
Step 2.5: Lower the terrah alert
Step 3: Start rattling sabres about SH and WMD
Step 3.5: Raise the terrah alert again
Step 3.75: Raise it again
Step 4: Hammer home that SH is a madman bent on acquiring WMD; imply that he has them or may be on the verge of having them. Or might be thinking about trying to have them. Or knows a guy who knows a guy who saw some once.
Step 4.5: Lower the terrah alert
Step 4.75: Raise it, then lower it again.
Step 5: Remind everyone that the enemy hates America just because. Especially the liberals.
Step 6: Every time you mention the War on Terrah/Afghanistan/9.11, mention SH and his WMD in conjunction.
Step 7: Eventually stop talking about the War on Terrah/Afghanistan altogether; focus entirely on SH, his terrorist ties, and his WMD

In other words, sow confusion about the relationship between SH and 9/11 and terrorism, then convince people that SH had WMD. The people can draw the conclusion for themselves that CLEARLY SH and his WMD, like all terrorist attacks (see how we were constantly warned about possible attacks? At any moment? Be on alert!), is an *immanent threat*.

And therefore Iraq = Immanent threat.

You get the war you want without having to lie! It's all about what the meaning of "is" is....

Cheers
Scott

[chu_bakka]

Wow. You do a good job (max) of regurgitating the Bush Neoconservative doctrine.

Saddam was not a threat. A bad man yes. They were saying he was a threat... if not imminent... incredibly dangerous. OOOO we don't know when he'll strike us with his big bad WMDs.

There are more terrorists in Iraq now than were there before the war.

The administration had so many excuses to go into Iraq.

WMD (we know where they are... roughly... we need more time, time we wouldn't give the UN inspectors)

Links to Al Qaeda (proven unlikely if not false Atta never met with an Iraqi spy)

Links to Ansar al Islam (actually they were in the Kurd controlled north near the Iranian border)

Seeking out nuclear capabilities (we're not sure how close they are to having weapons grade materials... now we know.)

They were coming up with every reason they could. Yes 9/11 happened... but it had nothing to do with Iraq... which was well contained. They had a THEORY, and they wanted to see it through... despite the lack of evidence, world support or any experience at nation building.

[MaxParrish]

Originally posted by addabox
Bush on October 7, 2002

There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.

So the threat was not "imminent" but failure to act immediately conjures up the spectre of Hussein handing over his (nonexistant) bio and nuke weapons to terrorists just like the people who hit the World Trade Center "on a whim". Like, could be tommorrow.

And you seriously want to play a little semantics game where the use of the word "imminent" signals some kind leftist revisionist history.

I've said it before, you people have no shame.
It is certainly no game, semantic or otherwise. Either Bush said the phrase attributed to him, or he did not. Either Bush, as concurrently claimed by the left, intentionally “lied” about the immeniance of the threat, or he did not.

Unfortuntily, gaggles of liberal and leftist researchers have poured through the administration documents and media archieves to examine every utterence of George Bush hoping to find the “smoking gun” – to little avail.

What he did say was something quite different. At the United Nations he described the threat, not as imminent, but as “grave and gathering” - an obvious reference to Winston Churchills warning several years prior to WWII of Nazi Germany’s rearming.

Bush 's followup State of the Union address made it very plain: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."

Bush stated clearly that he did not wish to wait for Saddam to “rearm”, or wait until the threat becomes "imminent" --- just how much plainer could he be ?

And, one should note, that it was certainly plain enough for numerous Democrats at the time, including Senators Kennedy and John Kerry. They were opposed the resolution authorizing the use of force precisely because it wasn't hinged to an imminent threat from Iraq (Kerry ultimately flip-flopped). Senator Robert Byrd even offered an amendment requiring that imminence become the standard for war. After a debate, he lost.

The trigger happy left has, of course, hoped to create a new mythology of imagined transgressions based on their own lexicon of coded meanings – providing reassuring “amens” to a frustrated liberal choir with revised history.

No, this issue is not one of semantic games; it is one of intellectual integrity and honesty. So in the search for shame, I suggest one starts at home.

[bunge]

Originally posted by MaxParrish
No, this issue is not one of semantic games; it is one of intellectual integrity and honesty.

Of which Bush showed none. You're delusional if you believe Bush didn't try to lead Congress and the public to believe that Iraq was an imminent threat.

[addabox]

Originally posted by MaxParrish
The “plans” of PNAC (a private, non-profit group started in 1997) was vetted in their policy document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (2000). It laid out the key goals of its authors: to transform American military by making its combat forces lighter, more mobile, and technologically advanced; to redeploy and/or reorient forces from a potential “European” conflict against the Soviet Union to other potential areas of trouble, particularly the far east; to halt the development of expensive force systems (e.g. the crusader artillery system) so as to fund the transformation; to better prepare the American military for growing constabulary missions (e.g. Kosovo); to maintain American military preeminence; and to defend and expand zones of democracy.

Um, and the "plan" to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Specifically. As articulated in a letter to Clinton in 1998.

There we agree. 9-11 transformed the President and the public. It established a new doctrine of pre-emption, and it gave impulse to the neo-conservative (and neo-liberal) view of pro-active democratization

9/11 did not estabilish any doctrine. That was left to the oportunists in the white house.

Perhaps, or perhaps it merely expressed an inevitable (and pre-existing) clash of civilizations. It may well be that counter-attacking Muslims and dictators will create more terrorists and dictators, but the history of appeasement is that sooner, or later, one will not have a choice – and the choice is best made earlier than later.

Counter-attacking Muslims? History of appeasment? Those phrases would only make sense if we were at war with a standing army of "Muslims" with a unique state.. Terrorism is neither a state nor a religion, it is a strategy.

The language of WWII is not only misleading in this context, it is tragically wrong-headed. This notion that these are the opening battles in a vast war between the (secular, liberal) west and the (backward, fanatical) east it just another chapter in "America needs a giant, fiendishly organized, implacibly evil enemy with No Regard For Human Life to keep the money flowing to the military and its contractors", the bed time story that has kept us awake nights now for over 50 years.

[MaxParrish]

Originally posted by midwinter
Harumph.

Jeez people. Here's how you do it.


Step 1: Imply that SH is cozy with al Qaeda
Step 1.5: Raise the terrah alert
Step 2: Back off of that and say that SH is cozy with "al Qaeda-like" terrorist organizations
Step 2.5: Lower the terrah alert
Step 3: Start rattling sabres about SH and WMD
Step 3.5: Raise the terrah alert again
Step 3.75: Raise it again
Step 4: Hammer home that SH is a madman bent on acquiring WMD; imply that he has them or may be on the verge of having them. Or might be thinking about trying to have them. Or knows a guy who knows a guy who saw some once.
Step 4.5: Lower the terrah alert
Step 4.75: Raise it, then lower it again.
Step 5: Remind everyone that the enemy hates America just because. Especially the liberals.
Step 6: Every time you mention the War on Terrah/Afghanistan/9.11, mention SH and his WMD in conjunction.
Step 7: Eventually stop talking about the War on Terrah/Afghanistan altogether; focus entirely on SH, his terrorist ties, and his WMD

In other words, sow confusion about the relationship between SH and 9/11 and terrorism, then convince people that SH had WMD. The people can draw the conclusion for themselves that CLEARLY SH and his WMD, like all terrorist attacks (see how we were constantly warned about possible attacks? At any moment? Be on alert!), is an *immanent threat*.

And therefore Iraq = Immanent threat.

You get the war you want without having to lie! It's all about what the meaning of "is" is....

Cheers
Scott

The majority of electorate may not be as conversant in the details of a major issue as you are, but they seem more perceptive to the underlying truth. While the links between Al Queda and Iraq have been murky, it is untrue and misleading that there was a lack of evidence of such links. Iraq was strongly involved in the 1993 WTC bombing and subsequently protected several of the principals involved - at least one of which has close relatives in Al Queda leadership. Iraq’s ambassador to Turkey met with Bin Laden in 1998 (in Afghanistan), reputedly to offer him Iraqi refuge. Before that, when Osama lived in Sudan, Iraq funneled funds to the radical Islamic regime in the Sudan and to their supporter Osama Bin Laden. It is believed that, in 1994, Iraq directly supplied Osama with funds to support the Islamic radicals in Algeria that were seeking to overthrow the government. More recently, after the World Trade Center destruction, an Al Queda senior terrorist, was hospitalized in Baghdad and treated for his wounds (and released)and then resided in Iraq. It is known that Al Queda and Iraq have participated in conference(s) of terror groups in Lebanon.

In seeing the connection, the public perceives the larger, essential truth, i.e.; Saddam Hussein was a terrorist and a supporter of terrorism. Iraq was one of the principals of the 93 WTC bombing. Iraq dispatched two agents to kill President Bush in Kuwait in the early 90s. Iraq has provided haven and home for five or six other terrorist groups including: the Abu Nidal organization, the MEK (Muslim), PFLP, (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) and the PKK (Kurdish). At least two terrorist training camps (one at Salmon Pak) were established in Iraq. In other words, the electorate understands, that the essential truth is that in this war against the U.S. and its allies, one does not need to make such granular distinctions between two declared enemies and mutual supporters of terrorism – anymore that one would have to make such distinctions regarding Japan and Germany.

[giant]

Originally posted by MaxParrish
Iraq’s ambassador to Turkey met with Bin Laden in 1998 (in Afghanistan), reputedly to offer him Iraqi refuge.
I don't have time for all the skewing you've done here, but all we have to do is look at this one, which is considered prime evidence that no relationship could exist between the two groups as the idea was rejected flat-out by bin laden.

Oh, MEK has not used terrorism for decades and we all know that the pentagon supported it until the state department intervened. PFLP is not a threat to the US (well, none were). So good job at basically being dishonest.

I can't believe people like you are still at this. Have you even bothered to research Wohlstetter or read The City and Man? I didn't think so. I can give you a whole reading list on intel if you would like to get a clue.

For now, I'll just leave you with this:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/wot/iraq/allegedtiestoalqaeda.html#b%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A 0%20Allegation%202.%A0%20Al%20Qaeda%20allegedly%20 collaborated%20with%20Saddam%20Hussein%20to%20supp ort%20the%20anti-Kurd%20group,%20Ansar%20al-Islam.

Edit: I just can't pass this up

Originally posted by MaxParrish
At least two terrorist training camps (one at Salmon Pak) were established in Iraq.
Apparently you really haven't been keeping up:

Sabah Khodada, an Iraqi Army captain, said that the September 11th operation “was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam,” and that Iraq had a program to instruct terrorists in the art of hijacking. Another defector, who was identified only as a retired lieutenant general in the Iraqi intelligence service, said that in 2000 he witnessed Arab students being given lessons in hijacking on a Boeing 707 parked at an Iraqi training camp near the town of Salman Pak, south of Baghdad.

In separate interviews with me, however, a former C.I.A. station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people. (At the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and America favored Iraq.) Iraq then sought assistance from the West, and got what it wanted from Britain’s MI6. The C.I.A. offered similar training in counter-terrorism throughout the Middle East. “We were helping our allies everywhere we had a liaison,” the former station chief told me. Inspectors recalled seeing the body of an airplane—which appeared to be used for counter-terrorism training—when they visited a biological-weapons facility near Salman Pak in 1991, ten years before September 11th. It is, of course, possible for such a camp to be converted from one purpose to another. The former C.I.A. official noted, however, that terrorists would not practice on airplanes in the open. “That’s Hollywood rinky-dink stuff,” the former agent said. “They train in basements. You don’t need a real airplane to practice hijacking. The 9/11 terrorists went to gyms. But to take one back you have to practice on the real thing.”

Salman Pak was overrun by American troops on April 6th. Apparently, neither the camp nor the former biological facility has yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war.

From Hersh's Selective Intelligence

[chu_bakka]

Links please.

You act like this is all evidence of something. These are all tenuous and flimsy at best.

I say it's stretching.

There is NO connection between 9/11 and Iraq. NONE.

There were more links between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia to Al Qaeda than there ever were with Iraq.

Libya, Iran, Syria all have many more ties to terrorist groups than Iraq.

There were more terrorist cells in Italy, Spain and Germany than were in Iraq!

There a many more countries that are far more tolerant of terrorist groups than Iraq was.

[MaxParrish]

Originally posted by addabox
Um, and the "plan" to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Specifically. As articulated in a letter to Clinton in 1998.
What of it (or the dozens of other plans concocted in the aftermath of the 91 Gulf war)?
Counter-attacking Muslims? History of appeasment? Those phrases would only make sense if we were at war with a standing army of "Muslims" with a unique state.. Terrorism is neither a state nor a religion, it is a strategy.

The language of WWII is not only misleading in this context, it is tragically wrong-headed. This notion that these are the opening battles in a vast war between the (secular, liberal) west and the (backward, fanatical) east it just another chapter in "America needs a giant, fiendishly organized, implacibly evil enemy with No Regard For Human Life to keep the money flowing to the military and its contractors", the bed time story that has kept us awake nights now for over 50 years.
Just a “strategy” murdered 3000 people on September 11th? Are you serious?

What Bin Laden and Bush know, that you don’t, is that we are at war, not with a strategy but with a cause and a culture. No, not a war against a single state or an entire culture, but against Islamic based global terrorism and those who would support or harbor it. To all but the densest, it is obvious that virtually all global terrorists are from Muslim countries - all of them march under a banner of Islamic religion and Muslim culture – all of them believe in the Jihad, and perfidy of the West.

What many naive liberals ignore is that “peaceful” Islam has grown increasingly intolerant and sectarian in the last century. Unlike an earlier era, Islam is now conformist and puritanical: taking the opposite path of Christianity, which has become far more diverse. Wahabbi’s, the most virulent and powerful strain of Islam, have banned hundreds of historical works by Islamic scholars of law, theology, etc. because they are “heretical” and Wahabbi’s have the funding (from Saudi Arabia) to suppress the dwindling numbers “moderates” who will not bend to their doctrines. Wahabbism now makes of 80% of U.S. Muslim clerics (is it any wonder when the U.S. military recruits “moderates” it ends up with a spy cell and free lancing traitors?)

When the Arab streets erupt in joy at the death of Americans, when Pakistani tribes hide Bin Laden and his lieutenants, when Saudi Arabia funds fanatics and shields terrorists, when fanatics (who would otherwise be killing each other) flow into Iraq because a western nation is attacking a “brother” Muslim – then one would be a fool to dismiss “terrorism” as simply a strategy.

War is upon us, Bush knows it, Bin Laden knows it, and the Arab street knows it. And the game is simple: Muslim terrorists will attack the west with impunity; and if we strike back, and the Islamic world and the Arab street will erupt.

So be it. In war against of terrorism and Islamic despotic regimes there may be an unavoidable clash of two civilizations. If so, let that be the choice of the Islamic world. Until then, our policy stands: support terrorism and you support your own destruction.

[NaplesX]

Lot of unsupported pseudo facts flying around here.

You all act as if you know what the pres knows, or what intel officials know. Who knows what they know and can't tell us. I think a lot of you that are trying to impute this pres may be eating crow when it all shakes out. The PRELIMINARY Kay report looks pretty damning and Kay seems pretty confident about finding the goods.

It seems the dems are screaming about the bad intel that the pres made the decision based on. But was it not them that decided that since the cold war was over there was no more need for human intelligence. I will look it up, but I have never heard this president blame the culprits for lack of intel.

Let's just forget WMD, UN sanctions, threats to other countries in the region and stuff like that. Let's look just inside Iraq. Just since 1991 it is estimated that over 200,000 Shiites have 'disappeared' or if you choose to believe the Iraqi people, have been killed by Saddam's thugs. BLA BLA BLA, you say?

Let's break it down:

That's over 18,000 people a year. Murdered. Over 1500 people a month. Murdered. More than 50 people a day. Murdered. More than 2 people per hour, 24 hours a day. Murdered.

Did I mention they were MURDERED. These people died in mass graves often buried alive. They were gunned down falling into trenches and bull dozed over the same day.

Back to putting the atrocity into perspective:

The tragedy would take more than 65 9/11's, more than 1190 Oklahoma Bombings, and more than 18,000 California Wildfire's to parallel the deaths that took place at the hands of the administration of Iraq, namely the SH regime.

What makes it worse, if you can immagine that, is the fact that most of these murders were committed soon after the 1991 Shiite uprising.

Go ask the Kurds in the north about how they were treated. How about the Kuwaiti's? The list goes on and on. The Iraqi's will be digging up mass graves for a decade.

These crimes on large chunks of humanity should have been enough to go in. Shame on us for not acting sooner.

These were reasons the pres gave to justify removing that evil. Why are you all ignoring these facts? It is a sad state of affairs when people care more about political 'brownie points" so they can say "I was right you were wrong" than they do for other humans.

My 2 pennies.

[stupider...likeafox]

Originally posted by MaxParrish

Bush 's followup State of the Union address made it very plain: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."


This has been quoted twice now as evidence that he didn't say that Iraq was an "imminent threat".

Yet that is exactly what he is saying!

His first sentence clashes with the rest, he claims people want to wait until the threat is imminent, then argues against waiting until *after* an attack has occured, which implies an attack is imminent.

A classic "junior" tactic of combining sophistry with stupidity.

[stupider...likeafox]

Originally posted by MaxParrish

Just a “strategy” murdered 3000 people on September 11th? Are you serious?


Are you trying to get your own talk-show?

Lets see, addabox says:

Terrorism is neither a state nor a religion, it is a strategy.


you say:

Just a “strategy” murdered 3000 people on September 11th?


So you think that a state or a religion murdered 3000 people? And that "strategy" plays no part in the deaths (or murders) of people in wars (or terrorist attacks)?

Are *you* serious?

It's no wonder you have trouble understanding the problems in the semantic wrangling discussed in this thread if this truly reflects your ability to use and understand language (or you could just be a blinkered partisan).

[giant]

Hey, look. MaxParrish lied, got called on it and he just went on ignoring it. How cute.

These people that base their world views on a series of falsehoods are funny.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Lot of unsupported pseudo facts flying around here.

Such as?

You all act as if you know what the pres knows, or what intel officials know.

That's because we do. It looks like you have some studying to do before you make a whole bunch of assumptions about how the world works. I can give you a reading list about intelligence if you would like to learn about it.

The PRELIMINARY Kay report looks pretty damning and Kay seems pretty confident about finding the goods.

Hey, look what this silly man said, everybody. He's goofy.

What makes it worse, if you can immagine that, is the fact that most of these murders were committed soon after the 1991 Shiite uprising.

Where do you people come from? What ever happened to learning about things before making such strong opinions?

[giant]

Originally posted by MaxParrish
[B]What of it (or the dozens of other plans concocted in the aftermath of the 91 Gulf war)?

Just a “strategy” murdered 3000 people on September 11th? Are you serious?

Brzezinski put it well at the NASSP Conference:

"I think that calls for serious debate in America about the role of America in the world, and I do not believe that that serious debate is satisfied simply by a very abstract, vague and quasi-theological definition of the war on terrorism as the central preoccupation of the United States in today's world. That definition of the challenge in my view simply narrows down and over-simplifies a complex and varied set of challenges that needs to be addressed on a broad front.

It deals with abstractions. It theologizes the challenge. It doesn't point directly at the problem. It talks about a broad phenomenon, terrorism, as the enemy overlooking the fact that terrorism is a technique for killing people. That doesn't tell us who the enemy is. It's as if we said that World War II was not against the Nazis but against blitzkrieg. We need to ask who is the enemy, and the enemies are terrorists.

But not in an abstract, theologically-defined fashion, people, to quote again our highest spokesmen, "people who hate things, whereas we love things" — literally. Not to mention the fact that of course terrorists hate freedom. I think they do hate. But believe me, I don't think they sit there abstractly hating freedom. They hate some of us. They hate some countries. They hate some particular targets. But it's a lot more concrete than these vague quasi-theological formulations."

http://www.centerforamericanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?cid=%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D&bin_id=%7B9F92BF4B-1E80-45E3-AFC8-F1672CFC4A4C%7D

What many naive liberals ignore

It's crystal clear that you haven't studied this. You talk in abstractions and make false claims (such as the one about Salman Pak). So really, you aren't in any sort of position to point fingers.

then one would be a fool to dismiss “terrorism” as simply a strategy.
Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

[aapl]

Anyone here watch the Terminator movies?

[MaxParrish]

Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
This has been quoted twice now as evidence that he didn't say that Iraq was an "imminent threat".

Yet that is exactly what he is saying!

His first sentence clashes with the rest, he claims people want to wait until the threat is imminent, then argues against waiting until *after* an attack has occured, which implies an attack is imminent.

A classic "junior" tactic of combining sophistry with stupidity.
There are no semantics to “wrangle” or hidden implications. Bush argues against waiting until the threat is made manifest (and thus "imminent") PRECISELY because that may not happen in time to take action. Bush is NOT saying the threat is imminent, or that an attack will happen soon, he saying it’s unpredictable and difficult to foresee - therefore, he expresses urgency.

The distinction shouldn’t be difficult for someone who is so self-assured about understanding language. You should know what “an imminent threat” means. For example, if Bush had said: “We have conclusive information that Saddam Hussain is about to launch a major military strike on the United States. The threat is imminent and we must take action” – well THAT’s imminent.

Got it?
So you think that a state or a religion murdered 3000 people? And that "strategy" plays no part in the deaths (or murders) of people in wars (or terrorist attacks)?

Are *you* serious?

It's no wonder you have trouble understanding the problems in the semantic wrangling discussed in this thread if this truly reflects your ability to use and understand language (or you could just be a blinkered partisan).
Huh ? Who said strategy had no part in terrorism ? Once again you go ballastic over imagined meaning, I said that Addabox's maintaining that terrorism "IS JUST" (meaning ONLY or EXCLUSIVELY)a strategy is utterly false. Addabox maintained that if it were not a state or religion, it had to be just one thing - strategy.

Got it ?

Perhaps your head would be clearer if you were a little less viscerally fevered.

[giant]

Originally posted by MaxParrish
Perhaps your head would be clearer if you were a little less viscerally fevered.
:lol:

[giant]

So, The TPM results are in. Here are the good parts:

Perle:

And the only point I want to make is that as long as Saddam is there, with everything we know about Saddam, as long as he possesses the weapons that we know he possesses, there is a threat, and I believe it's imminent because he could choose at any time to take an action we all very much hope he won't take.

And Bush in the speech I linked to twice in this thread:

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Ari:

Question: Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?

Fleischer: Absolutely. One of the reasons that we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction. And nothing has changed on that front at all.

Bush:

We are united in our determination to confront this urgent threat to America.

Rummy:

But no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Check it all out here: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_11_02.html#002175

As for Bush's much contended paragraph in the State of the Union, Josh points this out:

But what the president is saying here is that in the context of rogue states in alliance with terrorists we’ll never have the sort of advance warning which used to count as the evidence of an imminent threat. And thus what we had in Iraq actually amounted to an imminent threat. In fact, the administration anticipated this line of reasoning in its National Security Strategy document when it said “We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries.”

[MaxParrish]

Originally posted by giant
Hey, look. MaxParrish lied, got called on it and he just went on ignoring it. How cute.

These people that base their world views on a series of falsehoods are funny.

My..My. I understand your limitations on time, but for someone that claims he's too busy to fully participate, it certainly annoys you when you’re not promptly answered – with a little imagination, I’m sure you can appreciate different time zones and bedtimes.

Like you, I also have time limitations on critiquing the extensive the misinformation contained in your link to defense minutia and Saddam apologisms. So before you give me another link attesting to the innocence of the Rosenburgs or the benevolence of Uncle Joe, I’ll address the single quote of mine you selected – using your “source” of research.

I stated the links between Al Qaeda and Saddam were murky, but not absent. Among them I said “Iraq’s ambassador to Turkey met with Bin Laden in 1998 (in Afghanistan), reputedly to offer him Iraqi refuge.”

Your sources says “USA Today reported on September 26, “Vince Cannistraro, former CIA counterterrorism chief, said the only known discussion” of Iraq offering to harbor al Qaeda “occurred in 1998 when Farouk Hijazi, Iraq's ambassador to Turkey and reputedly a top Iraqi intelligence official, went to Afghanistan after al-Qaeda bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa. Hijazi offered al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq, but terrorist leader Osama bin Laden turned it down, Cannistraro says, because he did not want to become a tool of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.”

It supports my contention, so I’m not sure what you point is. Interesting though, if correct, Saddam thought it was in his interest to protect Bin Laden and his organization. Given that Osama did not accept the offer (a point never disputed), the incident showed Saddam’s interest in controlling terrorist operations – not exactly an endorsement of his innocence is it?

In your reading, I think you missed the essential point of my post: that the American public does not make a granular distinction (nor should they) between different terrorists from the Muslim world. Trying to whitewash these groups (oh they weren’t really THAT close, or they didn’t REALLY like one another, or actually it was a different alphabet terrorist group, or he left that organization before joining another terrorist group, or that fellow in Iraq was Al Qaeda but he was’nt that important, or its been many years since the U.S. was threatened by XYZ group) fails to appreciate the relevant truths; i.e., that Saddam Hussain protected a wide swath of terrorist organizations, he recruited from their ranks, and conducted his own terror operations - just as it fails to acknowledge that almost all Islamic terrorists share a powerful and mutual animosity towards the United States regardless of their specific tactics or ends.

As to Salmon Pak and Hersch? I won’t close on most of Hersch at this point (you can imagine what I think of some of his crackpot investigations - his history kind of reminds me of my exposure to kook rightists of the CFR, Tri-lateral commission, and the Order of the Illuminati.)

However, I will leave you with this, from the War Over Iraq by Kaplan and Kristol: “That camp is a school for terrorists, offering classes in assassination, hijacking, kidnapping and sabotage. ‘We were training these people to attack installations important to the United States' a senior Iraqi defector told the New York Times…A parade of defectors have described how the plane is used to school terrorists – including Islamic extremists from across the Arab world – in the art of seizing commercial aircraft. 'They are even trained on how to use utensils for food, like forks, and knives provided on the plane' another defector told Aviation Week and Space Technology. 'They are trained to plant horror in the passengers by doing such actions.' The stories about the camp and the 707 have been corroborated in recent years by, among others, Charles Duelfer…” and “Hamas too has benefited from Saddam’s generosity, apparently receiving training in weapons, even suicide bombing, at Iraq’s Salman Pak terrorist camp”.

Of course even Hersch carefully worded his brief on behalf of Saddam, noting that “the camp…(has not) yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war” which is different than saying it was used for there is no proof or that it yielded evidence for counter-terrorism.

[Harald]

Originally posted by MaxParrish
However, I will leave you with this, from the War Over Iraq by Kaplan and Kristol: “That camp is a school for terrorists, offering classes in assassination, hijacking, kidnapping and sabotage. ‘We were training these people to attack installations important to the United States' a senior Iraqi defector told the New York Times…A parade of defectors have described how the plane is used to school terrorists – including Islamic extremists from across the Arab world – in the art of seizing commercial aircraft. '

Max, are these the same defectors who said that Saddam was drowning in a sea of WMD? Could deploy WMD within 45 minutes? That there were WMD factories like Starbucks in Seattle?

Just asking.

[Chinney]

MaxParrish loses. Obviously the Bush Administration did suggest that the threat was imminent. This is fact is not erased by the additional fact that, at different times, the Bush Administration also suggested that the threat was not imminent, but the U.S. had the right to attack anyway. Clearly the Administration and its allies made both claims - gladly playing both ends – entirely unconcerned by the contradictions. And, as I have posted previously, either way they were wrong.

[giant]

Bin Laden rejected the offer. Case closed and all evidence supports this.

Originally posted by MaxParrish

However, I will leave you with this, from the War Over Iraq by Kaplan and Kristol: “That camp is a school for terrorists, offering classes in assassination, hijacking, kidnapping and sabotage. ‘We were training these people to attack installations important to the United States' a senior Iraqi defector told the New York Times…A parade of defectors have described how the plane is used to school terrorists – including Islamic extremists from across the Arab world – in the art of seizing commercial aircraft. 'They are even trained on how to use utensils for food, like forks, and knives provided on the plane' another defector told Aviation Week and Space Technology. 'They are trained to plant horror in the passengers by doing such actions.' The stories about the camp and the 707 have been corroborated in recent years by, among others, Charles Duelfer…” and “Hamas too has benefited from Saddam’s generosity, apparently receiving training in weapons, even suicide bombing, at Iraq’s Salman Pak terrorist camp”.

Of course even Hersch carefully worded his brief on behalf of Saddam, noting that “the camp…(has not) yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war” which is different than saying it was used for there is no proof or that it yielded evidence for counter-terrorism.

You do realize that the Irai defectors have been thoroughly and completely discredited, don't you? And you do realize that there was ZERO evidence that Salman Pak was used to train terrorist, hence the disappearance of it from public dialogue, don't you?

Oh, and maybe you should research the lineage of theory that leads straight to Kristol to understand why he does what he does and what his role is. Someone who hasn't done their research and still believes in the tooth fairy might try to say it's a case of he said she said, but one side has a few thousand academics and students backing up the utility of deception for an theoretically practical purpose, while Hersh has thus far been unassailable. You might also have noticed how this spring the usual pattern was the printing of a Hersh article followed by the shake up of the admin. You can go ahead and bullshit about it all you want, but that's all you are doing.

But really, all it comes down to is that there is zero evidence that Salman Pak was used for 'training terrorists' and abundant evidence that it was not.

Tell me, was this iraqi defector the same one that claimed there was a hidden city under baghdad, or was it the one that claimed there were basses in the dunes that could travel underground by remote control?* :lol:

*These were actual claims by Iraqi defectors. Amazing, isn't it?

[chu_bakka]

Let's boil it down.

Bush and the Neoconservatives made many arguments for pre-emptive war.

Iraq was a threat because of its vast array of WMD.
Iraq has LINKS to Al-Qaeda and Ansar al Islam.
Iraq is attempting to procure yellow-cake.
Iraqi's want us to come and free them... we'll greeted with roses. Iraq we'll be easy to rebuild... they have all that oil to pay for it.

Have any of these been proven to be TRUE?

It doesn't matter if they said the threat was imminent... it's obvious now that Iraq was never a threat that warranted a pre-emptive war.

They gambled. And lost their shirt. Even if their intentions were noble... which I doubt... it was the wrong thing to do.

Next time when we go to war to fight terrorism... maybe we should fight terrorists. Our war with Iraq has done more harm than good in the effort to fight terrorism.

What's frustrating is that some good could still come out of Iraq... but the way the Bush administration went about it has made it several times harder than it should of been. And many more lives will be lost because of it.

[giant]

Originally posted by chu_bakka
It doesn't matter if they said the threat was imminent... it's obvious now that Iraq was never a threat that warranted a pre-emptive war.

Exactly. It doesn't matter if it was said.

But, just for the record, it was.:p

[jimmac]

Originally posted by MaxParrish
The majority of electorate may not be as conversant in the details of a major issue as you are, but they seem more perceptive to the underlying truth. While the links between Al Queda and Iraq have been murky, it is untrue and misleading that there was a lack of evidence of such links. Iraq was strongly involved in the 1993 WTC bombing and subsequently protected several of the principals involved - at least one of which has close relatives in Al Queda leadership. Iraq’s ambassador to Turkey met with Bin Laden in 1998 (in Afghanistan), reputedly to offer him Iraqi refuge. Before that, when Osama lived in Sudan, Iraq funneled funds to the radical Islamic regime in the Sudan and to their supporter Osama Bin Laden. It is believed that, in 1994, Iraq directly supplied Osama with funds to support the Islamic radicals in Algeria that were seeking to overthrow the government. More recently, after the World Trade Center destruction, an Al Queda senior terrorist, was hospitalized in Baghdad and treated for his wounds (and released)and then resided in Iraq. It is known that Al Queda and Iraq have participated in conference(s) of terror groups in Lebanon.

In seeing the connection, the public perceives the larger, essential truth, i.e.; Saddam Hussein was a terrorist and a supporter of terrorism. Iraq was one of the principals of the 93 WTC bombing. Iraq dispatched two agents to kill President Bush in Kuwait in the early 90s. Iraq has provided haven and home for five or six other terrorist groups including: the Abu Nidal organization, the MEK (Muslim), PFLP, (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) and the PKK (Kurdish). At least two terrorist training camps (one at Salmon Pak) were established in Iraq. In other words, the electorate understands, that the essential truth is that in this war against the U.S. and its allies, one does not need to make such granular distinctions between two declared enemies and mutual supporters of terrorism – anymore that one would have to make such distinctions regarding Japan and Germany.


Yes the Bush administration encouraged these beliefs so the public would think 911 = Iraq. None of these were talked about in support of going to war with Iraq for the simple reason it wouldn't have been enough to sway public opinion. The last sentence is just stupid and really has no relevence to the subject matter at hand as the elements of WWII were compleatly different.

[addabox]

Max:

Maybe the american public doesn't make "granular" distinctions between terrorists, but they should, and as a matter of policy the United States must.

The precise reason for many American's growing resistance to the Iraqi occupation is the (better late than never) realization that, in a campaign to improve the security of the United States against terrorists attack, Iraq is the wrong target.

Your arguments seem to consist of citing the odd bit of inconclusive data to butress the idea that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, but failing that, you fall back on the notion that it doesn't really matter, an evil Muslim is an evil Muslim. After all, if we are engaged in a global war of cultures, why get hung up on a little thing like culpability?

And this is why: America's response to the threat of terrorism must reamain proportionate, targeted, and just, or we will become the global equivalant (if we haven't already) of the frightened National Guardsman in Tikrit, spraying automatic weapon fire in a 360 degree circle because he thought he heard a shot.

The result? Dead civilians, another family filled with rage and hatred for the United States and all it stands for. Not "freedom". Not "democracy". The wanton exercise of disproportionate power.

Would you really have us turn the whole world into our West Bank, an endless and unwinnable cycle of opportunistic attack followed by massive retaliation that kills the guilty and innocent alike?

I made the point that terrorism is a strategy not because I don't think it dangerous, but because declaring "war" on it is absurd on the face of it.
We can no more win a "war" on terrorism than we could win a war on hatred.

You would solve this problem by ascribing terror to transnational coalition of Islamic jihadists to which you attribute the capacities and motives of a more convential enemy, such as the Soviet Union or facist Germany. This is convenient for your argument, since it allows you to coopt the rhetoric of those struggles (appeasement is a proven failure, the dsitinction between Iraq and, well, some other terrorist outfit is of no more importance than the difference between Japan and Germany).

This is the same self serving lie that made the cold war such a disaster for the "domino" states unlucky enough to serve as a battleground, overt or clandestine, for "freedom" vs. "tyrany". More importantly, it is a lie that can only lead to repeated "preemptive" attacks on countries within which the difference between military and civilian targets are impossible establish, since the "enemy" is any person or child who is willing to do violence to the US or her interests.

In other words, your world view requires the US to become a terrorist state in order to combat terrorism. Since the enemy is somehow simultaneously mighty, organized, diffuse and fluid, we have no choice but to set aside all standards of international relations and rules of engagement and wallop the bejezus out of anything tthat moves. After all, our very existence is threatened, so who could bame us?


And the answer to that question is: the next generation of terrorists.

[aapl]

Originally posted by addabox

And the answer to that question is: the next generation of terrorists.

hmm,..
You seem to imply that Arabs are incapable of introspection.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by MaxParrish
The majority of electorate may not be as conversant in the details of a major issue as you are, but they seem more perceptive to the underlying truth. . . . In seeing the connection, the public perceives the larger, essential truth, i.e.; Saddam Hussein was a terrorist and a supporter of terrorism.

And therefore Iraq = terrorism = Imminent Threat.

Sorry I can't be more in depth. On dialup across the country and taking a break from sitting in the hospital with a dying friend. God, hospitals always have the worst cable....

Cheers
Scott

[chu_bakka]

Introspection with a gun to your head?

[aapl]

Originally posted by chu_bakka
Introspection with a gun to your head?

C'mon!

The US dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan killing 100's of thousands of civilians, and at a time when the Japanese leader was considered a living god. I'm sure Saddam is not held nearly to the same esteem by the Iraqi people. The same can be said regards Germany and Hilter.

The US made it clear what the goal in Iraq is. And so far there's nothing to suggest otherwise. And given the US's past history in such matters, I don't see how your statement above has any validity.

[chu_bakka]

Once again your comparisons to germany and japan bear no resmblence to the realities of Iraq.

Japan attacked America and the whole pacific rim.

Germany... western and eastern europe and north africa.

Iraq? Kuwait in 1990.

Hey... I don't disagree with the idea that deposing Saddam was a good idea. But so would deposing the leaders of libya, cuba, various south american countries, north korea... france(hehe)... the sudan

It's a nice idea. Create democracy everywhere!

But pre-emptive war isn't the answer. Despite this justification.

Creating democracy is a long; culturally specific and economically driven endeavour. War is the weakest tool for its success.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by chu_bakka

1. Iraq was a threat because of its vast array of WMD.
2. Iraq has LINKS to Al-Qaeda and Ansar al Islam.
3. Iraq is attempting to procure yellow-cake.
4. Iraqi's want us to come and free them... we'll greeted with roses. Iraq 5. we'll be easy to rebuild... they have all that oil to pay for it.

1. Read the preliminary Kay report?

2. The al-queda link is there. Unclassified intel is the only thing you see. None of us do.

3. England stands behind the Intel on the yellowcake.

4. There are countless reports on how the Iraqis are welcoming all the help. Get real.

5. They do and overtime that will pay off, but the bush adminb does not want to destablise a budding democracy by burdening it with huge debt. They don't really even have any kind of economy there. You can thank Saddam for that. A bank loans you money based on your ability to repay. That country is in shambles and most of it has nothing to do with this current war. So many things need to be rebuilt. There is no real ability for them to pay it back now.

You are so full of it. Let me see any of those points backed by quotes from anyone important. That seems like a bunch of extremist talking points.

My experience has been that anyone that starts their argument with the word "Neoconservative" or "ulta left wing" is usually just a brainless partisan anyway. You have set yourself up as Uber Lefty.

See, I find that if you take the far left out of it and the far right out of it you get closer to the truth.

By the way, since there is formal definition of 'Neoconservative' explain in what your definition of the word is.

[aapl]

Originally posted by chu_bakka
Once again your comparisons to germany and japan bear no resmblence to the realities of Iraq.

Japan attacked America and the whole pacific rim.

Germany... western and eastern europe and north africa.

Iraq? Kuwait in 1990.

Hey... I don't disagree with the idea that deposing Saddam was a good idea. But so would deposing the leaders of libya, cuba, various south american countries, north korea... france(hehe)... the sudan

It's a nice idea. Create democracy everywhere!

But pre-emptive war isn't the answer. Despite this justification.

Creating democracy is a long; culturally specific and economically driven endeavour. War is the weakest tool for its success.


Iraq attacked the US as well, although more indirectly. It also seems to me you want to play this both ways. On the one hand, you seem to imply the Muslim culture is incapable of democracy, yet on the other you would call me a bigot when I raise the kind of argument.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by chu_bakka
Hey... I don't disagree with the idea that deposing Saddam was a good idea. But so would deposing the leaders of libya, cuba, various south american countries, north korea... france(hehe)... the sudan

It's a nice idea. Create democracy everywhere!

But pre-emptive war isn't the answer. Despite this justification.

Creating democracy is a long; culturally specific and economically driven endeavour. War is the weakest tool for its success.

Bingo!

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
1. Read the preliminary Kay report?

Yes, just like I've read every report put out by all of the inspection teams. It is an embarrassment for the administration.

2. The al-queda link is there. Unclassified intel is the only thing you see. None of us do.

No it isn't. All of the Iraq info is public thanks in large part to the work of the UN. The pentagon set up the Office of Special Plans to take this open source infromation, primarily from the UN, and make a case. 99.999% of the intel was open source. The intelligence on Iraq is the greatest example of Open Source Intel, or OSINT. Even in normal operation 95% of intelligence sources used by the CIA are Open Source. As I said, I can provide a huge reading list for you on contemporary Intelligence operations, methods and agencies if you would like, but please don't come on here pretending you know something you so clearly have never studied.

3. England stands behind the Intel on the yellowcake.

England does not. Only certain individuals in the British government claimed that they had other intelligence, which they clearly did not, as pointed out by everyone from the IAEA to US intel analysts. Furthermore, with regard to Niger, every individual step each scrap of intel took has been traced, and it is now well known that it is completely and totally physically impossible for Iraq to have obtained uranium in the way British accusation claimed.

4. There are countless reports on how the Iraqis are welcoming all the help. Get real.

:rolleyes:

5. They do and overtime that will pay off, but the bush adminb does not want to destablise a budding democracy by burdening it with huge debt. They don't really even have any kind of economy there. You can thank Saddam for that. A bank loans you money based on your ability to repay. That country is in shambles and most of it has nothing to do with this current war. So many things need to be rebuilt. There is no real ability for them to pay it back now.

I looked at your web page, and it's clear you have not studied any of these subjects. You are simply making inferences based on your limited and uninformed beliefs about scraps of info that periodically hit your eyes and ears.

My experience has been that anyone that starts their argument with the word "Neoconservative" or "ulta left wing" is usually just a brainless partisan anyway. You have set yourself up as Uber Lefty.

Really? Have you read The City and Man? Have you read any of Irving Kristol? Do you know anything about Wohlstetter? Do you know who Thrasymacus was and why it's so revolutionary to say he was the real voice of the author?

NO. You don't! So you are wholly and totally unqualified to talk about anything regarding the neoconservative movement in american politics. I bet you haven't even read one paper put out by PNAC, while I, for one, have read every one I've been able to track down and have the entire site saved on a drive! Get a clue!

By the way, since there is formal definition of 'Neoconservative' explain in what your definition of the word is.
You have a lot to learn.

[NaplesX]

Well, now I see that you are scholarly and I am so inadequate. Who was I to think that I could ever match minds with you. You have read so many books and you are so smart. I do not understand why you don't work for the UN or something the world would be such a better place with such a smart person to help.

RIGHT

I really could care less about any neo-conservitive or neo-(insert title here) movement. So, don't bother quoting any thing to enlighten me.

You are pretty full of yourself, I can see that anyway. Can I call officially call you "Mr. Fancy Philosopher Pants"?

So what you are saying is that the more books you read the smarter and more correct your thinking is. (by the way, you say you read my website and from that you get what books I have read? I am not sure how you assume anything from my website other than that I am qualified to work on your computer. You truly are talented...) Do you think that throwing around book titles and quotes makes you more intelligent? There are so many books and so many authors, one could easily find a book to back up just about any viewpoint, crazy or not. Titles and quotes only impress people who think titles and quotes are impressive.

So, you need books to tell you right from wrong and truth from lies. I think most of us pretty much knew all that from at least 6 or so.

You seem to imply that this president and all involved, including the UN and the rest of the world thought Iraq was seeking WMD for many years and now all that is suddenly made up information. Your line of thinking is flawed. I don't need to read "The City and Man" to see that. Did Irving Kristol help plan this big lie, maybe he conspired with George G.W. Bush to take over Iraq and steal it's riches. Oh, wait that's right. Saddam already did that. Last I heard we were trying and succeeding in rebuilding that country.

Wasn't it Aristotle that said, "We make war that we may live in peace." ? That is the premise that this war was based on, that's pretty much what Mr. Bush said.

You see, if you and your ilk had real leadership and vision, you would do something about what you think is wrong instead of attempting to impute the motives of those who have tried to take the bull by the horns. It seems you have no plan of action other than to attack this president. Go back to France or Germany and read some more philosophy books for quotes to impress your socialite lefty friends.

My two cents...

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Blah, blah, blah
Oh. Poor you. You made claims about things you don't know anything about and someone called you out on it. Poor you...


You seem to imply that this president and all involved, including the UN and the rest of the world thought Iraq was seeking WMD for many years and now all that is suddenly made up information. Your line of thinking is flawed.

WTF are you even talking about? Are you just hitting random keys or are you actually going to discuss what I've actually said, as opposed to what you imagine I've said.

I don't need to read "The City and Man" to see that. Did Irving Kristol help plan this big lie, maybe he conspired with George G.W. Bush to take over Iraq and steal it's riches. Oh, wait that's right. Saddam already did that. Last I heard we were trying and succeeding in rebuilding that country.

What is this? A mental vomit? Coherence much?

Wasn't it Aristotle that said, "We make war that we may live in peace." ? That is the premise that this war was based on, that's pretty much what Mr. Bush said.

And this has to do with neoconservativism how? You are aware that I was dealing with the direct and most important elements in neoconservative theory, aren't you. Oh yeah, you aren't. Because you don't know anything about it.

Oh, and nice job coming up with a quote that doesn't have anything to do with anything.


You see, if you and your ilk had real leadership and vision, you would do something about what you think is wrong instead of attempting to impute the motives of those who have tried to take the bull by the horns. It seems you have no plan of action other than to attack this president. Go back to France or Germany and read some more philosophy books for quotes to impress your socialite lefty friends.

Actually, it's the neoconservatives that are philosophy junkies. Not me. I know a whole lot about it and have studied it for a long time, but find it boring. Me, I'm interested in computers, art, music, information gathering and dissemination, foreign policy, biking, good food, travelling...

My two cents...

I'd say it's worth less than that.

[aapl]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Well, now I see that you are scholarly and I am so inadequate. Who was I to think that I could ever match minds with you. You have read so many books and you are so smart. I do not understand why you don't work for the UN or something the world would be such a better place with such a smart person to help.

RIGHT

I really could care less about any neo-conservitive or neo-(insert title here) movement. So, don't bother quoting any thing to enlighten me.

You are pretty full of yourself, I can see that anyway. Can I call officially call you "Mr. Fancy Philosopher Pants"?

So what you are saying is that the more books you read the smarter and more correct your thinking is. (by the way, you say you read my website and from that you get what books I have read? I am not sure how you assume anything from my website other than that I am qualified to work on your computer. You truly are talented...) Do you think that throwing around book titles and quotes makes you more intelligent? There are so many books and so many authors, one could easily find a book to back up just about any viewpoint, crazy or not. Titles and quotes only impress people who think titles and quotes are impressive.

So, you need books to tell you right from wrong and truth from lies. I think most of us pretty much knew all that from at least 6 or so.

You seem to imply that this president and all involved, including the UN and the rest of the world thought Iraq was seeking WMD for many years and now all that is suddenly made up information. Your line of thinking is flawed. I don't need to read "The City and Man" to see that. Did Irving Kristol help plan this big lie, maybe he conspired with George G.W. Bush to take over Iraq and steal it's riches. Oh, wait that's right. Saddam already did that. Last I heard we were trying and succeeding in rebuilding that country.

Wasn't it Aristotle that said, "We make war that we may live in peace." ? That is the premise that this war was based on, that's pretty much what Mr. Bush said.

You see, if you and your ilk had real leadership and vision, you would do something about what you think is wrong instead of attempting to impute the motives of those who have tried to take the bull by the horns. It seems you have no plan of action other than to attack this president. Go back to France or Germany and read some more philosophy books for quotes to impress your socialite lefty friends.

My two cents...


Here, here!

Only, even with all his supposed read'n, he's really no intellectual. Not by a long shot. He's just a sad, angry old man.

[giant]

Originally posted by aapl
Here, here!

Only, even with all his supposed read'n, he's really no intellectual. Not by a long shot. He's just a sad, angry old man.

:lol:

Look. Mika thinks the reason he has no sense is because he's a little kid. How cute.

[giant]

I see you typing away you next rant there nipplesXXX. You think you could hurry it up? I've got places to be.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
I see you typing away you next rant there nipplesXXX. You think you could hurry it up? I've got places to be. Go then, spread the good word.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
I see you typing away you next rant there nipplesXXX. You think you could hurry it up? I've got places to be. You seem to know a lot about fertilization. You should go into mushroom farming. i think that would suit you.

Once again, from my limited experience, those who profess and protest too much are full of something.

You seem to want everyone to know how smart you are. That is what's really important to you, right? That everyone know how book-smart you are? You seem like you are pretty intelligent, misguided, but intelligent.

I have read a lot of books and quite frankly I am ashamed that I wasted so much time when I should have just formed my own thoughts and views based on what I can observe myself.

Research is good, and I'm glad you did some, a lot, or whatever, but assuming that yours is the only viewpoint is just silly. You come across like you have researched all the angles of the geo-political soup that we live in, and yet you are in lock step with the far left movement in this country. You are even citing their flawed talking points.

Maybe I did not follow the 15 second rule, but it seems to me that you are just trying to propagate the far left agenda behind some self-proclaimed knowledge. You come across very pompous and biased, not to mention the whole know it all thing.

Hey wait is this ... Howard Dean? Just joking.

Give us all a break.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX

You seem to want everyone to know how smart you are. That is what's really important to you, right? That everyone know how book-smart you are? You seem like you are pretty intelligent, misguided, but intelligent.



You don't get it, do you? This has nothing to do with me. This has to do with you attacking 'liberals' about neoconservatism when you clearly know nothing about it.

It really is too bad that your attempt to attack chu_bakka backfired on it. You could have been somebody.

It's pretty amusing how people like you try to act all bigshot attacking 'liberals' and as soon as your BS gets exposed you whine and cry about how 'giant must be a pompous jerk! boo hoo!' because I actually bother to learn about things before forming an opinion. Grow up.

BTW: Frames were never cool.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
You don't get it, do you? This has nothing to do with me. This has to do with you attacking 'liberals' about neoconservatism when you clearly know nothing about it.

It really is too bad that your attempt to attack chu_bakka backfired on it. You could have been somebody.

It's pretty amusing how people like you try to act all bigshot attacking 'liberals' and as soon as your BS gets exposed you whine and cry about how 'giant must be a pompous jerk! boo hoo!' because I actually bother to learn about things before forming an opinion. Grow up.

BTW: Frames were never cool. What's really funny is that I did not attack anyone, I was merely defending the current president from your dishonest accusations and innuendoes . I simply put forth the fact that you come across as far left and I don't think that I mentioned the word liberal. As far as neoconservitism, I did not bring that up, you did, when you stated that POTUS and gang are neoconservitives. I asked you to define what your meaning of the word was. The word itself is widely misunderstood and has been used incorrectly in recent history.

This last post really unmasks your flawed tactics. I am neither defending or promoting one party or the other, for I am not affiliated with any political party. So please do not impute my motives. It will simply show your true colors.

I feel, as in life, there is room for both conservative and liberal viewpoints. One balances the other. I am married and have three children. I can put on a clinic in liberal vs. conservative give and take, as applies to dealing with kids and making a marriage last.

Your obvious bias only hinders your ability to appear reasonable and balanced. You will need that if you wish to win reasonable and balanced people over to your cause.

Oh, and the whole "you don't get it" thing is a result of a weak argument. Give me something reasonable to chew on and I may "get it". And I really like the snide comment about my website.

lefty note to self: "when argument is weak belittle your opponent." And I think frames are moderately neato and needed sometimes.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Go then, spread the good word. The other assumption you make is that I have not learned anything before forming my opinion, just because it differs from yours. You sir, seem to personify the word pompous.

[bunge]

Originally posted by NaplesX
The other assumption you make is that I have not learned anything before forming my opinion, just because it differs from yours. You sir, seem to personify the word pompous.

Actually he's just well read.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You sir, seem to personify the word pompous.

That has nothing to do with whether or not he knows what he's talking about.

Cheers
Scott

[MaxParrish]

Originally posted by addabox
Max:

Maybe the american public doesn't make "granular" distinctions between terrorists, but they should, and as a matter of policy the United States must...

Your arguments seem to consist of citing the odd bit of inconclusive data to butress the idea that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, but failing that, you fall back on the notion that it doesn't really matter, an evil Muslim is an evil Muslim. After all, if we are engaged in a global war of cultures, why get hung up on a little thing like culpability?

And this is why: America's response to the threat of terrorism must reamain proportionate, targeted, and just, or we will become the global equivalant (if we haven't already) of the frightened National Guardsman in Tikrit, spraying automatic weapon fire in a 360 degree circle because he thought he heard a shot...

The result? Dead civilians, another family filled with rage and hatred for the United States and all it stands for. Not "freedom". Not "democracy". The wanton exercise of disproportionate power...

I made the point that terrorism is a strategy not because I don't think it dangerous, but because declaring "war" on it is absurd on the face of it...we can no more win a "war" on terrorism than we could win a war on hatred.

You would solve this problem by ascribing terror to transnational coalition of Islamic jihadists to which you attribute the capacities and motives of a more convential enemy, such as the Soviet Union or facist Germany. This is convenient for your argument, since it allows you to coopt the rhetoric of those struggles (appeasement is a proven failure, the dsitinction between Iraq and, well, some other terrorist outfit is of no more importance than the difference between Japan and Germany)...

This is the same self serving lie that made the cold war such a disaster for the "domino" states unlucky enough to serve as a battleground, overt or clandestine, for "freedom" vs. "tyrany". More importantly, it is a lie that can only lead to repeated "preemptive" attacks on countries within which the difference between military and civilian targets are impossible establish, since the "enemy" is any person or child who is willing to do violence to the US or her interests...

In other words, your world view requires the US to become a terrorist state in order to combat terrorism. Since the enemy