Who cares what's really going on in Iraq? - Jay Maynard

> Recent entries
> Calendar view
> Friends page
> User info
> Jay's web page

Tuesday, 11 October 2005


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
0819 - Who cares what's really going on in Iraq?

Not the Democrat leaders, at least in Northern California, according to this article on Power Line. A Major is back in the US from Baghdad for the birth of his first child, and has offered to share a slideshow and narrative of his experiences in Iraq - but while Republican, nonpartisan, and church groups are quite eager to hear what's really going on over there, the Democrats have given him the cold shoulder.

Why bother them with inconvenient facts? Their minds are made up.

current mood: [mood icon] cynical
current music: Lynyrd Skynyrd - Don't Ask Me No Questions

(22 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:unspeakablevorn
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Why would a group sponsor a talk that's possibly in support something it feels the nation should be deeply ashamed of? It doesn't matter how it's going, or what the soldier's view is - we shouldn't have gone in the first place.

Vorn
[User Picture]
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Of course, if the facts don't support that view, the facts should be ignored...
[User Picture]
From:unspeakablevorn
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Would you honestly expect, say, the Project for the New American Family to sponsor a talk by a man who married his gay lover? Or the EFF to sponsor a talk by the chairman of the MPAA?

I wouldn't. Why would I expect a group that has been dead-set against the war since before the beginning to do the equivalent?

Vorn
[User Picture]
From:phanatic
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Dead-set against the war?

Many of them voted for it. How dead-set could they have been?
[User Picture]
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
The first one: Good question. I would hope they would. The second one I most certainly would, especially since I think they sponsored a talk by Hilary Rosen while she still was head of the RIAA.

I guess I'm not surprised by the Democrats' reaction to all of this; it's just that their continued refusal to look at facts is of a piece with their usual way of operating.
[User Picture]
From:wakkowarner
Date: - 0000
(Link)
I guess I'm not surprised by the Democrats' reaction to all of this; it's just that their continued refusal to look at facts is of a piece with their usual way of operating.

The President ignored plenty of facts, too, from UN weapons inspectors who told him over and over again that Iraq had no WMDs, to the Pentagon who agreed with them (at first, until they were told to come up with something), to commanders who told him we didn't have enough troops to secure the country after an invasion.

And, when he couldn't convince the UN or the public that war was the only recourse, he outright lied about Iraq's WMD capacity and desire to obtain them to scare Congress into action.

So, please don't bring facts to the table in a discussion about Iraq now; after so many years of our own President ignoring them and lying to the public, it's really just quaint.
[User Picture]
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
The war was never just about WMDs. It was about a lot of things. The resolution authorizing it cited 7 reasons, of which WMDs were only one.

The best intelligence we had at the time was that WMDs were there. This has been confirmed repeatedly, and the mainstream media just covers it up. The mainstream media also covers up that both Clinton and Kerry are on record as saying that Iraq had WMDs.

No, Bush didn't lie. It's just being spun that way.
[User Picture]
From:wakkowarner
Date: - 0000
(Link)
The facts about WMDs were out there in abundance. Bush chose to ignore them. Whether or not you are willing to admit he lied about them to the American public is another matter.

Even if he didn't know the information he was telling us was wrong during his January 2003 speech, there's no excuse for invading a country without incontrovertible proof they intended to do us harm, and there's no excuse for ignoring the advice of his military commanders who insisted (and keep insisting) that we are critically understaffed there.
[User Picture]
From:shelbystripes
Date: - 0000
(Link)
President Bush, and only President Bush, made the argument that 1) Iraq had WMDs, 2) Iraq would be willing to sell those WMDs to terrorists, and 3) we had to invade Iraq for our own national security. To quote:

"We knew the dictator had a history of using weapons of mass destruction, a long record of aggression and hatred for America," President Bush said in a speech Wednesday in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. "There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks. In the world after Sept. 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take."


You can say what you want about the motivations, but most reality-grounded people are willing to admit that the public support for invading Iraq came from those claims and the national security issue. Hell, in that same FOX News article, even FOX News, the right wing of the MSM, admits that "The Bush administration invaded Iraq in March 2003 on the grounds that its WMD programs posed a threat to American national security."

Even in the cases where there are quotes from Clinton, Kerry, Gore, etc. talking about Iraq possibly having WMDs, if you read the full quote they're usually also talking about how containment is thus far working. And containment was working, and was an option for keeping Iraq contained that involved far fewer American lives.

You can't hold Clinton, or Kerry, or Gore accountable for what Bush did, because only Bush did it.
[User Picture]
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
I'm not trying to hold Clinton, Gore, and Kerry accountable for what Bush did...in fact, that they knew there were WMDs and refused to act on them just demonstrates their lack of guts. They thought the WMDs were there and didn't do anything about it. Bush thought they were there - based on the same information Clinton et al had - and did. In the process, the Iraqi people are much better off, and democracy is gaining a foothold in the Middle East.

If you claim Bush lied, you must also claim Clinton and Gore and Kerry lied, too.
[User Picture]
From:wakkowarner
Date: - 0000
(Link)
In the process, the Iraqi people are much better off, and democracy is gaining a foothold in the Middle East.

Is this some sort of joke? I've read nothing indicating this is happening.

If you claim Bush lied, you must also claim Clinton and Gore and Kerry lied, too.

This is just a stupid statement. Even if they had lied, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry didn't lead our troops into a needless morass of an opportunistic war using phony information.

- A.P.
[User Picture]
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Is this some sort of joke? I've read nothing indicating this is happening.
Because the mainstream media isn't telling the story. They're too busy trying to make sure the American people holds the wrong beliefs about what's really happening over there.

Even if they had lied, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry didn't lead our troops into a needless morass of an opportunistic war using phony information.
Tell an Iraqi the war is needless...then duck.

The simple truth of the matter is that Bush took necessary action based on the best information available at the time. To hold that against him is to expect that he have supernatural knowledge that not even Saddam had.
[User Picture]
From:wakkowarner
Date: - 0000
(Link)
the mainstream media isn't telling the story. They're too busy trying to make sure the American people holds the wrong beliefs about what's really happening over there.

You're assuming I get my news through the mainstream media. I don't. I still haven't seen, heard, or read anything that indicates to me that things are going smoothly in Iraq and that everything is going according to plan. A few stories here and there about the military bringing water mains and power grids back online does little to stem the seemingly neverending tide of articles detailing the political and military unrest going on all over the country.


The simple truth of the matter is that Bush took necessary action based on the best information available at the time.


But that's not the truth, and it isn't simple. There was no pressing need to invade Iraq. Saddam did not have his finger on the button. He didn't have WMDs. Everybody knew it then. Everybody knows it now. He posed no threat; we invaded anyway. The best available information, from people who had just been in Iraq for months inspecting for WMDs was ignored, in favor of years-old, obsolete data, in order to sell the war to Congress and the American people.

- A.P.
[User Picture]
From:phanatic
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Everybody knew it then.

Nobody knew it then. Nobody. To say otherwise is a grotesque distortion of history. Show me one single individual who, prior to the war, not only asserted belief that Saddam had no remaining WMD, but who also had justification to believe that. You won't find one.

Kerry didn't know that. Clinton didn't know that. Sandy Berger didn't know that. Madeleine Albright didn't know that. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and Nancy Pelosi didn't know that. Al Gore didn't know that. Ted Kennedy didn't know that. Hillary Clinton and Bob Graham and Lieberman didn't know that. Every single one of these individuals made statements to the effect that they *knew* Saddam still had or was still pursuing development of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.

Were they all lying?


So, even putting aside that WMD were just a good justification, as opposed to the strategic motivation, who knew it? And that's "*knew* it," not just "made a lucky guess for which they had no sufficient justification."

from people who had just been in Iraq for months inspecting for WMDs

Um.

The people who had just been in Iraq for months were saying that their job wasn't finished yet. And as recently as 1998, Scott Ritter was saying

I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program.


and he only changed his story after entering into the direct employ of Iraq.


I really get a kick out of the notion that it would have been in any way, shape, or form possible for weapons inspectors to definitively state one way or the other a final answer after having spent mere months inspecting a region the size of Iraq, an area where, months and months after the war was over, we were *still* finding substantial pieces of military hardware buried in the desert, safekept for future use.

The utmost bottom line on the WMD issue was that Hussein was obligated, under the terms of the ceasefire which allowed him to remain in power after he invaded a neighboring country in a war of conquest, to demonstrate evidence accounting for the destruction of every last ounce of prohibited material. *Not* to jerk inspectors around, *not* to even remain passive while they looked for what they were looking for, but to *actively provide them* with the evidence they required. If he still had them, he was required to destroy them. If he destroyed them, he was required to document that destruction.

He did not do so.
[User Picture]
From:angelwind
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Here's some other facts:

Osama, the actual person behind 9/11, was in Afghanistan. So of course we should go to Iraq.

Bush Sr. must also be a pussy because he didn't get rid of Saddam when he had the chance and didn't push into Iraq like his son did.

People in the current administration shook hands and had dinner with Saddam, so I guess we were OK with his killing people back then. Heck, we even gave him weapons to do more of it. So it was OK for him to kill people as long as it was with the permission of the US.

People in the red states must think that terrorists care about their small little towns of nowhere and will be given The Gay if they let a democrat into the White House. On the other hand, the place that was the start of the war on terra, New York, voted Democrat. I guess they just didn't trust Bush. Those blue state terrorists.

And a few other facts:
64% don't like Bush's handling of the war.
Bush's approval ratings are only at 39%. So he then goes out and reminds the people about the war on terror. You know, the one that the mainstream media tells us that nothing is changing out there. After all, it's hard to report the good things going on in Iraq when yet another car bomb takes out more Iraqis and American troops. Speaking of the troops, we're only a scant 40 more away from breaking 2000 deaths since the war "ended."

I guess you want another 1000 to die so that we can match the death toll of 9/11. If anything, Bush and Haliburton should be wearing the "I plane NY" shirts. They certainly love what this war is doing for their bank accounts.
[User Picture]
From:shelbystripes
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Clinton, Gore, and Kerry argued that, WMD programs or no, containment was working well. So while they may have been either misinformed or otherwise wrong about how much we knew, their position was not based on or dependent on that information alone, so it's not a harmful mistake, like the one Bush made is.
[User Picture]
From:phanatic
Date: - 0000

Clinton, Gore, and Kerry?

(Link)

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction. That is our bottom line." - Bill Clinton, February, 1998


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, September 23, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."John Kerry, Jan 23 2003


Doesn't sound like any of them were arguing that containment was working well.

Containment is an absurd strategy. Attempt to maintain a status quo while leaving your enemy free to act with impunity? Like, seriously, has that *ever* worked? Ever? Pay special attention to Versailles.

so it's not a harmful mistake, like the one Bush made is.

Buh? You can't point to someone's passivity, rendered obsolete by someone else's later action, and say that the passivity was not a harmful mistake, because you have no idea what would have happened had their decision to remain passive stayed in effect.

[User Picture]
From:wakkowarner
Date: - 0000

Re: Clinton, Gore, and Kerry?

(Link)
Wow! A bunch of out of context quotes! That certainly convinces me!
[User Picture]
From:phanatic
Date: - 0000

Re: Clinton, Gore, and Kerry?

(Link)
All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction.


That is to say, providing them in isolation has not changed their substance.

Sure, Kerry said his in the midst of attacking Bush's handling of Iraq. That doesn't change the substance of his quote.

I mean, take a look at Gore's:

Moreover, if we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth rate military of Iraq and then quickly abandon that nation as President Bush has abandoned Afghanistan after quickly defeating a fifth rate military there, the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.


Sure, Gore's warning us not to go in, and then bail just because we've deposed Hussein (something that wasn't part of anyone's plan, anyway). But the operative bit here is "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Which, regardless of the context you put it in, completely disproves your mendacious assertion that "everyone" knew Saddam had no WMD.
[User Picture]
From:unspeakablevorn
Date: - 0000
(Link)
(as an aside, I can't seem to find the Project for the New American Family on the internet. Do you know where it is?)
[User Picture]
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
I was assuming that it would be another organization like the American Family Association from the name, but I'd never heard of it until your comment. I can't find anything about it either. Sure you have the right organization?
[User Picture]
From:unspeakablevorn
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Hrm. I appear to have gotten it confused with the Project for the New American Century, which I believe most people here have heard of. Been a while since I did any actual policital stuff, can you tell? But yeah, <http://www.afa.net>American Family Association</a> would be the kind of thing I'm thinking of. Their Google blurb says it all: "The American Family Association exists to motivate and equip citizens to change the culture to reflect Biblical truth and traditional family values."

Vorn

> go to top
LiveJournal.com