While Hillary Clinton continues to take some flak for playing politics with terrorism, will there be a sound about the obvious playing of politics concerning war, given these quotes below from a WaPo article on the leaking of a draft GAO report designed to undermine support for the war in Iraq? And isn't leaking potentially classifiable material before it has an opportunity to be classified basically as criminal as leaking it after the fact?
... The 69-page draft, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post, is still undergoing review at the Defense Department, which may ask that parts of it be classified or request changes in its conclusions. The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, normally submits its draft reports to relevant agencies for comment but makes its own final judgments. The office has published more than 100 assessments of various aspects of the U.S. effort in Iraq since May 2003.
The person who provided the draft report to The Post said it was being conveyed from a government official who feared that its pessimistic conclusions would be watered down in the final version -- as some officials have said happened with security judgments in this month's National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.
More likely said government official feared recent polling and reporting suggesting a general increase in support for our efforts in Iraq.
But, please, you tell me, why is it a hate crime for me to dispose of my property(a Koran) in any way I see fit? It's my property. And if it's a crime to destroy a Koran, why isn't it a crime to destroy a Bible?
It wasn't his property!!!
THE KORANS WERE STOLEN!!! THE KORANS WERE STOLEN!!!
THE KORANS WERE STOLEN!!! THE KORANS WERE STOLEN!!!
THE KORANS WERE STOLEN!!! THE KORANS WERE STOLEN!!!
THE KORANS WERE STOLEN!!! THE KORANS WERE STOLEN!!!
Understand?
If a Muslim or Atheist STOLE a bunch of Bibles from a Christian Campus Group and burned/flushed them you can bet your sweet ass that plenty of Christians would call it a "Hate Crime"!!!
Posted by: r4d20 | Friday, August 31, 2007 at 01:50 PM
We can oppose Hate Crime laws without lying about the details of the cases behind them.
Posted by: r4d20 | Friday, August 31, 2007 at 01:53 PM
"--- THE KORANS WERE STOLEN!!! THE KORANS WERE STOLEN!!! ---"
YES! We have a winner, folks!
(and btw... check the Caps Lock key, dude).
Anyway, the case we are talking about in particular, involves one certain Stanislav Shmulevich.
He removed a number of Korans from a meditation/reading room and attempted to flush them down the toilets. Whether or not this was in the same building or not probably doesn't matter -- although no articles I've came across yet have indicated that there was a statement either in the reading room or stamped inside the Korans directing students not to remove the books from the reading room.
So let's just say he stole the books, and then committed criminal mischief (or vandalism) in his attempt to flush them.
Performance art? No, as it wasn't photographed and marketed with an NEA grant. Also, poor choice of subject matter (as discussed above).
Stupid move? Debatable. He faces some serious jail time if convicted of the (spurious) hate crime charges.
Hate Crime? No, because no individuals were harmed or beaten up or even verbally abused in the course if his activity.
Verdict? Shmulevich is likely guilty of theft and petty vandalism.
BUT...
When the offended party are Muslims... then it automatically gets hate crime status.
I'm sure that if the roles were reversed, a Muslim student trashing copies of the Torah or defacing some yarmulkes might get about 5min. worth of notice from the ADL.
And if it had been a bunch of bibles, he probably would not only have been not arrested, but the school would have given him a full ride art scholarship.
Posted by: seekeronos | Friday, August 31, 2007 at 03:10 PM
seekeronos.
What makes you think we can stay into infinity with the Shiite in power?
There is a real disconect in your ideas my friend. On one hand you want America to "win". On the other hand you admit that we will not win any time soon.... You know like in the next 50 years or so, and in your next breath you say that's a good thing because "we will have a foothold in the Middle East".
You have a very funny idea of a "foothold" . Your scenario sounds like a nighmere in the making if you ask me.
We would have a "foothold" in a country we can't live, and we stay to give the Shiite the power they will hand over to Iran!!!!
And we do all these things at a cost of 10 Billion per month give or take into infinity!!!! And with our Army commited in the Middle East for 50 years!!!!
Wow!!!! You need to send your "plan" to the Pentagon my friend. You just solved our problems in Iraq.
Congratulations.
Posted by: gil | Friday, August 31, 2007 at 05:41 PM
Is there any way on hearth that you guys on the Right can level with reality?
A) Do you actually believe that all it takes is a surge to win in Iraq?
B) If not, then what's next? Another surge?
C) Who holds the terrain, and gains by our Army, once the inevitable pull back by our Army in the Spring of 2008?.... And plese don't say the Iraqi Army OK. LEVEL WITH REALITY.
D) If the surge is not going to give us victory, and Bush will finish his term after almost (by then) 7 years of war, and simply pass the buck.... Who do you think will continue Bush's policies into it's 8th, 9th, 10, 11 th and 12th year????You see any takers out there????
E)And while on the subject of victory, why do you keep on insisting that a Shiite Iraq would be considered a "victory" if Iran is Shiite, and they have the biggest influence in politics in Iraq today trough Al Malaki, Al SIstani, and Al Sadr????
I do have many more questions I would like you Right Wingers to explain to me. You see I am very ignorant and can't understand your wide ranginig ideas of "we will win", and "we will stay in Iraq until victory" ,etc, etc.
So if you don't mind I would like some of you brave warriors to answer some of my questions with SPECIFICS for a change.
Posted by: gil | Friday, August 31, 2007 at 06:00 PM
gillian
Read the article by Colonel Kilcullen in yesterday's Protein Wisdom. Your panicky "what if" ignorance is appalling.
http://www.proteinwisdom.com/
You should also read these sites on a daily basis.
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=1&id=4&Itemid=21
http://www.billroggio.com/
Posted by: Terry Gain | Friday, August 31, 2007 at 06:17 PM
I find it odd that Riehl's original comment had more to do with the fact that the report was leaked than its contents. I'm quite certain that if the GAO report had said that all the benchmarks were being met, you would have been trumpeting it from the rooftops, not complaining about leaks.
Hypocrisy anyone?
Can anyone explain how Bush's minions get away with claiming the surge is working when American deaths are up by at least 25% EVERY MONTH compared to last year? Doesn't sound like they're pacifying much of anything - just providing more targets.
More Americans dead, more Americans wounded, more $Billions of our tax dollars wasted every month. For what? Bush's ego?
I'd like every one of you gung-ho warmongers to think about what your position would be if it had been a Democrat in charge of this debacle?
My position would be the same - Iraq is a disaster.
Posted by: liberalpercy | Friday, August 31, 2007 at 06:19 PM
"In short, why does the liberal establishment demand special privileges and such for Islam, and howl like wolves when other religions (especially Christians) seek equivalent protection?"
They don't. Do you have any other stupid strawman arguments to offer? I have one. Why do people who oppose gay marriage ALWAYS engage in sex with small furry animals? Damn hypocrites!
Posted by: ec1009 | Friday, August 31, 2007 at 06:21 PM
"You are a master at circular reasoning and all of your reasoning starts with the false premise that Saddam Hussein was a threat and was 'sponsoring terrorism' aimed at the US and/or the idea that your belief of what he "would have done" is absolutely correct and written in stone, all of this has been debunked and proven false time and again in many government reports."
By your standards nowingker, all the Taliban would have had to have done to render their overthrow unjustifiable, was to disavow Al Quada, and cover up the traces of their involvement.
Just like Saddam covered up his WMD programs ... which was documented in the Duelfer Report.
He had everything but the stockpiles.
He also had an example to follow regarding how to come clean with the world regarding WMD ... South Africa's open and comprehensive disarmament program.
He instead continued to talk out of both sides of his mouth ... and play games with the weapons inspectors; as if they had a snowball's chance in Baghdad of implementing the national proctoscopy it would take to find out what really was going on.
Let us also not forget his ties to the 1993 WTC bombing, and the attempted assassination of Bush 41.
But the thing you need to get through your thick conventional wisdom ... is that HE DID NOT NEED TO THREATEN AMERICA DIRECTLY, TO DO DAMAGE TO HER!
He invaded and shot missiles at our allies in the past ... and he was continually acting in support of Palestinian and other MidEastern terrorism. Is it reasonable to think that he would have played nice once the international community compelled our forces to leave the Gulf in the name of "peace", especially if he did squeak by one non-comprehensive weapons inspection and the diplomats declared "victory"?
He still had enough conventional, ground forces to give the Saudis a run for their money -- and then run over the smaller Gulf states -- if we had left the area. Imagine a world where the Persian Gulf was controlled by two entities -- Saddam & Sons, and Iran. Think of how much leverage these totalitarian thugs would have.
"Therefore there isn't any debating you because your belief rests on a series of either false asssertions about what Saddam did do, or unprovable assertions about what his future actionsd would have been."
My assertions are true ... see above.
His future actions were predictable, at least in a general sense ... if for no other reason, there has never been a totalitarian ruler in history who, once they aspired to expand their rule, turned from doing so ON THEIR OWN, in the absence of a CREDIBLE threat of destructive force being placed against them.
"I urge you never to try "I had to kill him in self defense because I knew he was a bad man, and had killed others before me, and anyway, if I hadn't killed him he would have eventually tried to kill me, so its self defense even though he didn't actually ever attack me or try to kill me" in an American court. It doesn't fly."
You just illustrated one of the most fundamental errors of the anti-war crowd -- treating international conflict as a criminal matter.
The presumption of innocence and rules of evidence that underlie your assertion, are meant to PROTECT A CITIZEN FROM THE GOVENRMENT.
Not one government from another.
And Saddam Huessein, with his sons, WAS the government of Iraq.
What he perpetrated, and continued to perpetrate, and threatened to perpetrate, were more than mere crimes ... they were acts of war.
Wars in the past, have been started for less.
I again ask:
If a few dozen guys with $1M and a safe haven in a primitive nation could perpetrate the events of 11 September 2001 ... how does it make ANY SENSE to continue to allow someone who has proven they share their abject disdain for life and liberty, to have absolute control of a resource-rich, technically-modern nation?
Answer that, nowingker ... elevate the level of our discussion.
If you are capable of doing so.
Posted by: Rich Casebolt | Friday, August 31, 2007 at 06:50 PM
You ask the same question over and over, it has been answered many times by myself and others on this blog.
Your previous post is exactly the same circular reasoning you always used. Saddam is a threat because he threatens our allies? WHAT allies was he a threat to? Your scenario of Saddam Hussein taking over all of the ME except Iran and presumable Israel is LAUGHABLE.
The only countries he invaded were our enemy, Iran, and our friend, Kuwait. He got is ass kicked in Kuwait and in the years after his invasion his country was reduced to poverty and the infrastructure to rubble. He was no threat. You can't keep going back to this idea of we have to remove all bad guys in charge of modern countries. It doesn't work that way.
Countries that invade other countries who are not a threat to them are generally regarded as rogue states, which if you want to be truthful is the way much of the world regards the United States at present. It is the reason why Russia is ramping up her defense again and why the Japanese are just about to jetison their pacifist stance of the last 50 years. If Russia or China had invaded Iraq on such worthless trumped up pretenses we would have been screaming from the rafters that it violated all international codes of conduct and treaties and conventions.
What's the dummy in the White House's idea? Arm the rest of the ME to the teeth, that's his idea of a good contain Iran strategy! The entire ME policy executed and conceived by the Bush administration is a study in stupidity, it will be studied for decades if not centuries as what not to do, how not to squander your power.
To my mind, the Bush Administration has shown abject disdain for life and liberty, so I guess if the Canadians want to invade us, they're justified, according to your worldview. WMD, check. Willingness to use them, check. History of foreign invasions. check. By your own criteria, Rich, we are ripe for invasion and pacification, no?
Posted by: nowingker | Friday, August 31, 2007 at 07:12 PM
In hindsight Rich, do you think that the mess you and your President created in Iraq was a good idea? Would you do it again? If so, why?
Posted by: ec1009 | Friday, August 31, 2007 at 07:13 PM
Terry Gain.
Read the blog, and web sites. But did not get the answers to my posted questions. Can you please quote the blog, or the web sites for the answers to my questions?
Or can YOU answer them since you seem to "know" so much after reading a Right Wing blog, and Right WIng web sites?
I trust you can answer at least one, and hey in return to be fair I promise to answer any question you pose to me.
Is called debating your ideas. You Right Wingers should try it.
Posted by: gil | Friday, August 31, 2007 at 07:36 PM
Liberalpercy.
I hear you.
Just don't ask any questions to this crowd (or any other one) of Right WIngers because they will not answer you.
Posted by: gil | Friday, August 31, 2007 at 07:38 PM
Dear Right Wingers.
Let's be honest about something here. Busj's term will end in 2008, and you will not have any victory at all, or even in the horizon.
The present surge, will follow past surges in the fact that when American troops live the field of battle, all hell brakes loose again.
So what is your real game here Right Wingers?
Here's what I know is your end game:
The Bush Administration will continue this war until the last second of his term, and live the mess to the next poor SOB at the White House. The Right hopes that some one will be a Democrat so that they can finally complain openly about the mess THE DEMOCRATS made of the war.
The Right hopes the Democrats are trough to form and bring the troops back so that they can tagg them as "loosers" ... Kind of the Democrats will loose the war the Republicans could never win.
Just like in Viet Nam after 10 years, hundreds of billions of Dollars, more than 50,00 dead.... They still did not get it. If we only would have gone a few more years.... Same old song of people that will not be held accountable.
Dear Republicans, your escape for accountability for your mistakes has become "time" .... And time's up in 2008. After that you can blame the Democrats, or their mother foe all I care. In the end Republicans when you trow lives and money to a problem and you don't resolve it.... You loose credibility. In the end Republicans you don't show the world how tough you are by staying and fighting, but how dumb you are by not recognizing when to quit when you are holding the loosing hand.
Sorry guys but every one in this world of ours(except you) can tell CLEARLY what kind of cards you have at play..... And you are not scaring no one with your hand. So please fold, before you are left in your underpants... We would not want to scare the Ladies.
Posted by: gil | Friday, August 31, 2007 at 07:55 PM
must be a slow day in moonbat land. many many screeds blaming bush for everything - same as always - and then defending themselves as rational, logical thinkers.
a salient feature of the statist/fascist liberal personality is the ability to utter the most outrageous lies with a straight face. yeah, liberals are good thinkers, all right. i propose to end liberal discussion on this issue with a mere 2 questions. questions it is guaranteed they will not/cannot answer; will indeed run away from like little bitches. i know this because they do it all the time.
yo! liberal idiots!!
1) your idea of a response to 9-11 from the most powerful nation on earth? bearing in mind the response must be tailored to barbaric savages unable to govern themselves; dedicated to eternal "extermination of the enemy"; and with a 6000 year history of eternal warfare amongst themselves, whoever they decide is this century's most hated infidel enemy, and everyone unfortunate enough to have to have any contact with them? a response vigorous enough to dissuade other barbarians of the same bloodthirsty pseudoreligion from trying another one?
2) now that we're in iraq, your idea of a solution that doesn't duplicate the genocides that occurred when we - under democrat "leadership" - ran away from southeast asia? the moonbat fringe squeals daily for a complete & total evacuation of all US forces from the ME. why doesn't the national dem party call for this? hmmm?
Posted by: bloodrage bob | Friday, August 31, 2007 at 08:12 PM
1) Destroy Al Quaeda.
2) This question is moot since a proper response to #1 doesn't include invading Iraq.
Posted by: nowingker | Friday, August 31, 2007 at 08:26 PM
bloodrage bob.
Another Right WInger full of smoke. Care to answer any of my questions?
NO. Because "I don't answer questions of Liberals", or "I don't waste my time with dumb ideas".
You see pal, I have your kind memorized. You all sound the same, talk the same, and smell the same. At the end of the day you WILL NOT CONFRON ANY ONE ON A SERIOUS DEBATE.
Questions and answers. Facts. Debate rules.
Debate with rules is not for you Republicans because it exposes you.
So here we are with the "moonbat" tired old NOTHING, you guys continue to spill.
Sorry pal, but if all you got is your "moonbat", "liberal idiots", liberal liars" etc, etc, then stop wasting this blog's time and mine, because YOU GOT NOTHING.
Posted by: gil | Friday, August 31, 2007 at 08:30 PM
horseshit and more horseshit from the liberals. let's take them 1 at a time, shall we?
so! nowinkie, the famous defender of all arabs ever accused of anything ever - you must be pretty upset at those 2 nitwits in SC getting indicted, huh? the ones you assured us were mere harmless schoolboys out for a prank - thinks that a proper and proportionate response to 9-11 is "destroy al-qaeda". a response to the first attack on american soil in 60 years; an attack that killed 3000 american *civilians*, TRIPLE the number killed in the pearl harbor attack is to ... "destroy al-qaeda". are you more NAIVE, nowinkie, or STUPID? destroying the mere *gang* that claims rsponsibility, while allowing their state-sponsored asswipe bosses to retain their countries is a recipe for disaster. here in the real world, use of wmd's calls for a far more ferocious response. do only what you say, and soon you'll have every 2-bit ISLAMIC country (yes,"islamic". those barbarians are the people who specialize in attacking unarmed civilians. being islamic, they're not so good at actual combat. it's why a mere 6 million jews are 4-and-0 in wars against them) every islamic country will create more gangs they can hide behind to kill americans. the concept is called "cutout".
good to know you care so much about your murdered countrymen, BTW. "well, they killed 3000 of our people, so we should prosecute them! and maybe fine them too!"
as for gil, well ..... i've seen this jive before. hide behind sockpuppet "identities", dash in throwing bombs - just like your islamic suicide bomber buddies, BTW -, make pretty speeches, accuse others of your own failings ("you will not engage in serious debate!"), and then run away like a little bitch. that "YOU GOT NOTHING" line was cute, though. *very* clint eastwood. did you practice clenching your jaw in the mirror before you typed it? did you squint your eyes chillingly? compress your lips?
girls, girls, GIRLS. **this** is the best you can do?? mommy and daddy sent you away to school for THIS?
Posted by: bloodrage bob | Friday, August 31, 2007 at 08:51 PM
The two college kids from SC are getting railroaded and overcharged to cover up for the massively ridiculous overreaction. Carrying explosive 'material' across state lines without a permit. GMAB.
As far as the 'state' sponors of Al Quaeda, which states would that be other than Afganistan? Maybe you better call Dick Cheney and tell him whatever you know, because it looks like he didn't get the memo on who which states were funding Al Quaeda, cause it sure as hell wasn't IRAQ as has been told to you a hundred times.
Posted by: nowingker | Friday, August 31, 2007 at 08:54 PM
afghanistan was n AQ sponsor. i was all for knocking them off. same for pakistan, saudi arabia, syria, and **any** other country even *remotely*, *possibly* involved.
don't go thinking i'm a bush fan - his 9/11 response was nowhere NEAR ferocious enough for my taste. iraq was a valid enough second-tier target, though: sadddam had fired upon our planes post-gulf war. those are acts of war; therefore iraq was a legit target. of course, bush being bush, he couldn't muster up the balls to say THAT.
still, his rersponse showed more steel and real-world awareness than YOUR proposed infantile "let's smash AQ" solution, nowinkie. so i really don't see where you have room to throw stones.
Posted by: bloodrage bob | Friday, August 31, 2007 at 09:15 PM
I got news for you Bob, our moronic invasion of Iraq is breaking the bank and the back of the military, yet you want to add another half dozen countries to your list? How was that going to work? Were we going to nuke the whole ME? "Bomb them back to the stoneage" as you guys are so fond of saying? How do you know you are killing the terrorists instead of the little girls? Oh yeah, you don't care, cause they're all barbarians.
If you paid attention, Bob boy, you would know that most Arab countries don't like Al Quaeda and they never did, even IRAN OFFERED TO HELP US OUT WITH AL QUAEDA after 9/11, but of course, we threw that offer back in their face.
The "acts of war" argument is pure hogwash, how many 'acts of war' have we committed against Iran? against the USSR? North Korea? China? Countries run by non crazy people don't go to war because their airplanes get buzzed.
But, back to the SC guys, I'm wondering where are the charges of bomb making? where are the charges of their terrorist plot? where are the charges they even HAD A BOMB? What happened to pipe bomb? How did it mysterously turn into 'explosive material'?
We know the Feds know how to write up a nice indictment, this had nothing, why? Because its nothing but a technical violation of the law, I'm sure if I bought a giant fireworker and drove it across the country I too would be guilty of transporting explosive material without a permit, but somehow I doubt I'd get thrown in jail or indicted looking at a possible 10 years in prison.
I'm sure that once the two boys get out of this jam, by pleading down to a misdemeanor that they won't be inclined to turn jihadist on us, after seeing how well and fairly they have been treated by the American system. I"m sure they won't be apt recruits for real terrorists and examples to the terrorists of exactly how America treats Arabs. HELL, if you're getting thrown in jail for transporting fireeworks w/out a permit, you might as well make a bomb.
Posted by: nowingker | Friday, August 31, 2007 at 09:26 PM
bloodrage.
Ease off the drugs pal.
Posted by: gil | Friday, August 31, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Rhiel.
My God man, it is said that you are the company you keep. I sincerely hope you don't keep the company of "man" like Bloodrage, because if you do ..... Then my friend, I am sorry to say you would be a very sick Puppy.
So much for civil debate.
The nuts are out in force, better live before my IQ is irreversibly damaged.
Nice visiting your Blog Rhiel. At least you don't block us out. One of the few on the Right. Good for you, there still some hope for your side.
Posted by: gil | Friday, August 31, 2007 at 11:03 PM
Why do people keep lying and saying such and such was leaked by a government official? It was, as was all of the top secret national security information. leaked by an anti-american lose the war at all cost democrat. I keep waiting for the treason indictments for 50% + of the democrats in congress to come down. I guess Gonzales was too busy slipping more criminal Mexicans (to murder Americans) into the country to get right on it.
Posted by: Scrapiron | Saturday, September 01, 2007 at 12:02 AM
it's always a joyous, life-embracing experience reading the verbal droolings of the halfwit moonbat left. i see where nowinkie thinks us - the richest and most powerful nation in the history of the planet; due no doubt to racism and being mean and stuff - thinks "iraq is breaking our backs". *helluvva* firm grasp on reality and history there, nowinkie. being inconvenienced by rationing, are you? or the draconian wartime travel restrictions? can't get a date since every 3rd man is in uniform under arms like back in ww2? have you been pushed to the brink by the wartime tax increases, or the incessant war bond drives? gonna lose the family farm since pa & all your brothers done got kilt in devastating frontal assaults resulting in *hundreds of thousands* of US casualties, like back in ww2?
no? you mean you were just trotting out the typical 'breathless liberal trying to tell a scary story' routine you clowns have been doing for generations? go figure. can we therefore safely assume your slobbering kneejerk defenses of *every* arab ever accused of doing *anything* wrong *ever* to be equally lacking of a basis in reality? thought so.
i also can't help but note an unusual duality present only in liberals rearing its twisted head in you, nowinkie. like another liberal i recently eviscerated here a few days back, you - a tough, street-smart, badass, hardbitten cynical liberal who KNOWS that anything bush or the gop says is just a grotesque lie - you say you actually *believe it* when "iran said they'd help us after 9-11!" (heck, you even capitalized that ridiculous lie, as if to emphasize your laughable gullibility!) at the risk of being rude, i find it necessary to repeat a question for you, nowinkie: are you more *stupid*, or *naive*? (ask any iranian about how trustworthy ANY statement from the mullahs can be.) iranian credibility is right up there with north korea & zimbabwe. (2 more good representations of the logical conclusion of leftist thought allowed to grow unchecked.) naturally, you cheerfully swallow their obvious lies unquestioningly, since to do otherwise would be racist & imperialist & teacher said it was *wrong* to make value judgements on backward barbaric cultures like iran & every other arab/islamic nation.
as for gil? adios, loser. good riddance. (although it WAS funny when you moaned "i better live before my IQ gets damaged." you made a joke! with irony!) (no time to explain "irony". ask your therapist, ok?) say hi to markos! i'd do it myself, but i'm banned over there, you see. it seems you liberals SAY you want open honest debate, but you're lying about it. (go figure). perhaps it would "damage your IQ". lurning will do that ....
Posted by: bloodrage bob | Saturday, September 01, 2007 at 01:47 AM
probably you got banned for saying something like "Nuke all the muslims"
But you don't construe that as hateful speech, because to you, muslims aren't actually people
Posted by: LOL | Saturday, September 01, 2007 at 04:50 AM
"To my mind, the Bush Administration has shown abject disdain for life and liberty, so I guess if the Canadians want to invade us, they're justified, according to your worldview. WMD, check. Willingness to use them, check. History of foreign invasions. check. By your own criteria, Rich, we are ripe for invasion and pacification, no?"
No.
Once again, you show lack of thought ... for, just like so many others of my generation, all you look at is the actions.
Not the WHY behind the actions ... which makes all the difference in the world:
USA:
WMD -- check (and hasn't used any since 1945, to end a war where the alternative was an invasion that would kill millions).
Willingness to use them -- check (again, not since 1945 -- I'd say we have been pretty restrained).
History of foreign invasions -- check (to thwart threats to life and liberty).
The Iraq of Saddam & Sons:
WMD -- check (used, not only against the human waves of Iran, but to kill thousands of his own people who would not submit to totalitarian rule).
Willingness to use them -- check (see above).
History of foreign invasions -- check (to expand his totalitarian rule, into areas where he can grab the world by the short-and-curlies).
And no ... you have not answered The Question.
You and those like you have simply parotted your conventional wisdom.
In the hands of am absolute, capricious, totalitarian despot who had no qualms supporting terrorism with the resources and infrastructure of his nation, Iraq was a far greater threat to world peace than Afghanistan ever was ... and 911 illustrated the threat lil' ol' backwards Afghanistan posed.
Like I said above, your need for "proof" in the form of dead Americans on American soil before you are willing to take action blinds you to this.
Your "don't hit first" attitude is OBSOLETE, in a day when tens of thousands can be killed in an instant, without even the thirty minutes' warning of the Cold War days ... by nations who in times past would be considered insignificant in terms of force projection.
Saddam's demonstrated affinity for mass murder, abuse, and imperialism, combined with the wealth, soverignty, and Iraq, is proof enough that he was a serious threat to life, liberty, and world peace.
Saddam didn't just threaten Iraq and Kuwait.
His support -- rhetorical and material -- of Palestinian terrorism threatened Israel on an ongoing basis.
You will probably consider the source biased ... but here is a good a summary of Saddam's activities in this regard. Notice that more than Iran and Kuwait are involved ... and that it is not limited to the time prior to 1991; i.e. it was happening during the time of "containment" that you keep hanging your hat upon for our protection:
http://www.husseinandterror.com
It is quite evident that this man valued no one's life and liberty save his own and his sons (and in the end, he let his sons die while he stayed in hiding).
911 showed us that even small groups from primitive nations can threaten our civilizaztion without warning ... I ask again, why does it make any sense to leave someone like them in charge of any nation ... much less a more-modernized nation?
Stop spewing your conventional wisdom, nowingker ... and THINK!
Posted by: Rich Casebolt | Saturday, September 01, 2007 at 08:21 AM
... that is, "wealth, soverignty, and lack of checks and balances that Iraq provides" ...
Why is Saddam's history proof enough to justify invading Iraq?
Name one totalitarian ruler or regime in history that, once they decided to expand their reach, stopped doing so ON THEIR OWN ... as opposed to being forced to, by means of the CREDIBLE CONFRONTATION of others.
Posted by: Rich Casebolt | Saturday, September 01, 2007 at 11:25 AM
gillian, chris, nowinger etc
Liberal Professor John Wixted offers another opportunity for you to begin to extricate yourselves from that MSM-induced quagmire of ignorance which has enveloped you.
http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Terry Gain | Saturday, September 01, 2007 at 11:42 AM
"In hindsight Rich, do you think that the mess you and your President created in Iraq was a good idea? Would you do it again? If so, why?"
Hindsight?
We saw what happened when we left a few dozen guys alone in a backwards nation ... and they came here and attacked us on 11 September 2001.
We saw what happened when, instead of intervening to set the Shah straight and see that rights-respecting governance was established in Iraq, we let Islamofascism take root ...
We saw what happened over the last 40 years in Vietnam and Cambodia, because we lost our nerve and let them fall to totalitarians ...
We saw what happened in a nation, broken-down by their own previous aggression much like Iraq was, when it was left alone between 1932 and 1939 ...
The costs in blood and treasure when we wait too long to defend life and liberty ... especially in this age ... always seem to exceed the costs of being directly, expeditiously, resolutely, and decisively proactive in these situations.
The INACTION above, was encouraged by people like you, over the years, BTW.
In the light of the above history, let me tell you what is in store for us, if we return to the INACTION of 10 Sept 2001:
http://casebolt.blogspot.com/2005/06/be-careful-what-you-ask-for.html
I'd also recommend reading Kat's comment there ... and see just where we are the most vulnerable, well before any neutrons start flying.
Posted by: Rich Casebolt | Saturday, September 01, 2007 at 01:19 PM
"You should pity me Fred, I am the most maligned and powerless of Americans, someone who rejects the looney fringes on both right and left, someone who is a true centrist..."
Well, nowinker, I would probably pity you if you were not always maligning me and trying to make me even more powerless than I am now.
Say, would you know anything about this creation gil? It writes like some kind of language machine put together from spare parts by a Bell Labs engineer on his lunch break. I don't know but based on his writing style I don't think he grew up in Terre Haute, IN. Actually not even in Terra Nova.
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Saturday, September 01, 2007 at 02:47 PM
For Gil:
I *do* believe that this is a long war, not unlike the Cold War vs. the Soviets (where considerable percentages of our GDP was spent in the research and acquisition of more and better weaponry than the USSR and Red China had pointed at us, not to mention intelligence and counter-intelligence operations.
I do further believe that our presence in Iraq (and the ME in general) is founded upon a blend of issues - to provide a forward operating point, a schwerpunkt, if you will, against Al-Q and *other* radical Islamist groups that Saddam gave moral and material support for, as well as to liberate the Iraqi people from a ruthless dictator, as well as the region from a dictator known to be a tad dangerous to his neighbours. Moreover, and perhaps at th crux of many other things, there was the matter of having access to, and the power to deny access to (potential enemy powers - re: Red China and Russia) Iraq's oil resources.
I do *not* entirely agree with the timing of the Iraq war; we could have stymied Saddam further with embargoes and restraint of humanitarian aid or other diplomatic actions/remedies then in place antebellum... I think nailing down A'stan and rooting out the remaining Taliban as well as setting up a military government and collaborating with anti-Taliban minded folks to lock the country down as best as possible, and possibly pursuing a salient into P'stan after offering Pervez Musharraf a few goodies.
However, we did choose to go into Iraq (with much of the nation - and most of Congress) endorsing it.
Hence, the only avenue for Congress to effectively end the war (short of the radical Islamists surrendering unconditionally) would be for Congress to defund the war - which of course, would seriously affect the Democratic Party's House majority (and possibly even the Senate) in the following election year.
Withdrawing now would result in a bloodletting that would be at least on the same order of magnitude as either the Darfur conflict or the Rwandan Genocide, if not greater.
The dynamic of the length of our involvement in the region is that yes, it will be long, but not necessarily requiring the same expenditure of blood and treasure during th next 50 or 60 years, as conditions for democracy ripen and the standard of living improves for the average Iraqi - and therefore have less reason to turn to the militant, radical mouth-breathings of power-hungry mullahs.
We'd do even better to encourage the preaching of the gospel in conjunction with the good work of rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, to win as many souls to Christ as will come to Him.
These are the tools to defeat Islamist demagoguery and tyranny; let us as a nation be confident and unafraid to use them for th betterment of our fellow men, and for the glory of God.
Posted by: seekeronos | Sunday, September 02, 2007 at 03:02 AM
re: Playing Politics With Terrorism And War:
"...designed to undermine support for the war in Iraq" -- Er, what support is that, exactly?
CBS News Poll. Aug. 8-12, 2007
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"
Approve 26%
Disapprove 69%
"From what you have seen or heard about the situation in Iraq, what should the United States do now? Should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?"
Increase 13%
Same 17%
Decrease 31%
Remove All 30%
"Right now, is the U.S. involvement in Iraq creating more terrorists who are planning to attack the U.S., eliminating terrorists who were planning to attack the U.S., or is the U.S. involvement in Iraq not affecting the number of terrorists planning to attack the U.S.?"
Creating 46%
Eliminating 18%
Not Affecting 27%
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Posted by: Scorpio69er | Sunday, September 02, 2007 at 03:27 PM
"Er, what support is that, exactly?"
Scorpio ... it is amazing what can happen when Americans see the truth instead of the faulty intel of the MSM.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1352
54% say war is not lost (despite Harry Reid's assertions).
45% say surge is working (despite the lack of complete MSM coverage)
Splits are along PARTY lines.
Or, if you are going to persist in riding the polls to prove your point, I have some advice ...
... buy a G-suit, in good working order.
Posted by: Rich Casebolt | Sunday, September 02, 2007 at 08:25 PM
"Really it's sad what insulated losers the wingers on this blog are.
It's as if you guys hide behind your computers all day only reading wingnut blogs. Has it really become that desperate for you? You must pine for the "Mission Accomplished" glory
days to be reduced to this pathetic paranoid sniping."
This little piece of self parody is brought to us by LOL, someone who hides behind a computer all day reading and commenting on wingnut blogs.
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Monday, September 03, 2007 at 08:32 AM
*** You must pine for the "Mission Accomplished" glory days to be reduced to this pathetic paranoid sniping." ***
Fred, nowhere near as much as they pine for the return of Woodstock Nation, when they could be on top of the world ... and each other in "free love" ... at the same time.
And as for paranoia ... they're the ones who, in large part, shriek about loss of civil liberties ... but, like their fellow-traveler-in-the-right-lane nowingker, their continued presence and public commentary proves that their assertions are baseless.
Posted by: Rich Casebolt | Monday, September 03, 2007 at 09:34 AM
Ah yes, those were the days. Stinky smoke, CCR, and LSD. What more could one ask for? Except, perhaps a Dem political convention to riot about.
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Monday, September 03, 2007 at 04:24 PM
I pine for Reagan's good old days (the 50s), when corporations payed > 40% of the tax base in this country.
Anyone else here a Reagnite?
As for your SDS (Saddam Derangement Syndrome), Hussein was fighting an existential war against islamofacists in the 90s. Don't you think the leader of a nation fighting an existential war against islamofacists should be given some leeway?
(I love asking that question to Bush/ War supporters).
Kucinich for Pesident!!
Posted by: Robert | Tuesday, September 04, 2007 at 08:31 PM