Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Violence in Iraq
From today's Wash Post:
"Definitely, violence is getting worse," said a U.S. official in Baghdad, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "My strong sense is that a lot of the political momentum that was generated out of the successful election, which was sort of like a punch in the gut to the insurgents, has worn off." The political stalemate "has given the insurgents new hope," the official added, repeating a message Americans say they are increasingly giving Iraqi leaders.
Whole thing here.
|4.24.05 @ 9:28PM|#
"the successful election, which was sort of like a punch in the
gut to the insurgents, has worn off."
The "punch in the gut" was like the punch in the gut to the condom
biz by the election of the new Pope, Ratso.
In the immortal woids of Olivia Nude John: Let's get physical and
maybe even, serious.
|4.24.05 @ 9:36PM|#
Um, hmm. Violence is "escalating sharply", but there are no
numbers of consequence anywhere in the article.
"It's my strong intuition..." isn't news - it's opinion. This is
not a new article - it's basically propaganda.
I know the folks who were absolutely positive that nothing good
could come out of a pre-emptive attack on Iraq are resisting the
deluge of indications that they were wrong. But these are the same
folks who shouted "quagmire!" over both Afghanistan and Iraq, who
decried the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that would be killed in
the invasion, who claimed that Iraq was not secure enough to hold
an election...
So, in the face of all kinds of positive news in Iraq, plus Syrian
withdrawal from Lebanon, Libya giving up its nuclear program, Egypt
taking baby steps towards liberalizing elections, and much more,
the best the WaPost can do is claim some anonymous bureaucrat in
Iraq has an "intuition". All in an article written by a bunch of
guys no one knows who all just happen to have Islamic surnames. Is
this what the once-great Washington Post has sunk to?
|4.24.05 @ 10:12PM|#
Hey, Bizarro joe,
"I know the folks who were absolutely positive that nothing good
could come out of a pre-emptive attack on Iraq are resisting the
deluge of indications that they were wrong."
Have you done a little cost-benefit analysis?
I've commented before how the hawks have hawk eyes on the goofy
doings here.
They may swoop, but what is the "reality on the ground?"
|4.24.05 @ 10:17PM|#
Joe Bonforte,
The news is covering Iraq again this week, so things must be
getting worse.
That being said, it's unclear whether this past week's coordinated
insurgent offensive will be sustained, or whether things will
quickly drop back down to the level of violence seen for most of
this year after all the bombs in the current salvo have been
unleashed. They definitely seem to be testing the new government
out a bit, and taking advantage of the pre-constitution power
vacuum to try to spark a wider sectarian divide.
|4.24.05 @ 10:19PM|#
"Um, hmm. Violence is "escalating sharply", but there are no
numbers of consequence anywhere in the article."
"The U.S. official said this week that overall attacks had
increased since the end of March. Roadside bombings and attacks on
military targets are up by as much as 40 percent in parts of the
country over the same period, according to estimates from private
security outfits."
----From the Washington Post article linked above
"It's my strong intuition..." isn't news - it's opinion. This
is not a new article - it's basically propaganda."
By your own definition, your own comment is basically propaganda.
Link to some statistic or move out of that glass house of
yours.
"I know the folks who were absolutely positive that nothing
good could come out of a pre-emptive attack on Iraq are resisting
the deluge of indications that they were wrong. But these are the
same folks who shouted "quagmire!" over both Afghanistan and Iraq,
who decried the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that would be
killed in the invasion, who claimed that Iraq was not secure enough
to hold an election...
Who shouted quagmire about Afghanistan? I'm not saying that no one
did, I'm just not aware of anyone who shouted quagmire about
Afghanistan. Do you have a link?
...If you're talkin' about someone you know personally, well, I
know of a guy who lives under a pier and shouts to everyone that
the world is about to end. ...So what?
"So, in the face of all kinds of positive news in Iraq, plus
Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, Libya giving up its nuclear
program, Egypt taking baby steps towards liberalizing elections,
and much more, the best the WaPost can do is claim some anonymous
bureaucrat in Iraq has an "intuition". All in an article written by
a bunch of guys no one knows who all just happen to have Islamic
surnames. Is this what the once-great Washington Post has sunk
to?"
Attacking the messenger, nice move.
|4.24.05 @ 10:24PM|#
It is kinda funny that their stats on the increased violence are balanced with an overabundance of weasel words though. I mean c'mon, they say "as much as 40 percent", "in parts of the country", and "according to estimates" to describe the increase. I don't really doubt that violence has increased, but the facts at hand sound rather precarious to rest an article on.
|4.24.05 @ 10:30PM|#
The possibility that the US government is behind the Sunni attacks on Shia mosques should be explored.
|4.24.05 @ 10:38PM|#
Maybe violence is getting worse, but it does not follow that
this is a bad thing. US casualties in April are gonna be slightly
higher than March, but way lower than in most of 2004, as shown in
lunaville blog:
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/
Maybe violence is getting worse because the Baathist / Jihadi
alliance is testing how well the new Iraqi government will fight
them. Maybe violence is getting worse because the inflow of
intelligence tips from an Iraqi populace tired of the Baathist /
Jihadi terrorism is allowing the coalition and Iraqi forces to
assume the offensive.
It is a little hard to know the truth in an environment where US
military and Iraqi army / police /civilian casualties are
publicized to max and (I am guessing) most of the Baathist / Jihadi
deaths are counted as "civilians." Violence �escalating sharply"
may just mean 100 more dead jihadis. To which I say "Party on,
Iyad"
|4.24.05 @ 10:56PM|#
I don't see how an increase in insurgent attacks could possibly
be a good thing.
Even if the increase in insurgent activity isn't a function of the
stalemate in negotiations; even so, the stalemate's an issue. I
hope they come to terms soon. But...
...What do the Sistani and al Sadr contingents have to gain by
giving up anything? ...and when I'm talkin' about giving
up something, I'm talkin' about givin' up something to the
Kurds.
...What do the Kurds have to gain by giving up anything?
They've ruled themselves without having to concede anything to
anyone...why would they want to make concessions now?
I'm still not convinced that there won't end up being a two and a
half state solution.
|4.24.05 @ 10:57PM|#
I should a little hard to know the truth in an environment where US military and Iraqi army / police /civilian casualties are publicized to max by the MSM. BUT, if one takes the trouble to look for information from the many blogs by US military personnel involved directly in the war, one can see we are winning this thing and that is a good thing.
|4.24.05 @ 11:03PM|#
The attacks give the US government an excuse to stay in Iraq indefinitely, which is part of the design.
|4.24.05 @ 11:27PM|#
Buck:
most of the Baathist / Jihadi deaths are counted as
"civilians."
counted by whom? or we honoring the neocons tradition of making
shit up. Since the US military doesn't "do body counts," if you are
really interested in iraqi civilian deaths, something I highly
doubt, you might want to check the Iraq body count list here.
|4.24.05 @ 11:29PM|#
Ken,
An increase in violence is not necessarily the same thing as an
increase in insurgent attacks. Look at the Lunaville graph
here:
http://icasualties.org/oif_a/Lunaville.htm
You can see a rise in casualties in April of 04 - that is the
insurgent attacking. There is also a rise in December of 04 - that
is the Marines settling the score and them some. Most of the MSM
reporting from Iraq blur the distinction between the two
events.
Sorry for the typos in my previous post. I shoulda said:
I should add it is a little hard to know the truth in an
environment where US military and Iraqi army / police /civilian
casualties are publicized to max by the MSM. BUT, if one takes the
trouble to look for information from the many blogs by US military
personnel involved directly in the war, one can see we are winning
this thing and that is a good thing.
|4.24.05 @ 11:34PM|#
"I know the folks who were absolutely positive that nothing good
could come out of a pre-emptive attack on Iraq are resisting the
deluge of indications that they were wrong."
You're arguing against a phantom (or is is straw man?). Actually, I
think most anti-war people would have said that *something* good
might come of it, namely that Saddam would be gone. The problem is
that along with the good is too much bad to make it worth all the
cost in lives and dollars, not to mention that in principal we
didn't have a good enough basis for invading another country.
Contrary to what the hawks want everyone to believe, most
reasonable anti-war people would like to see a peaceful and speedy
recovery for Iraq. A good outcome doesn't change the fact that
something as serious as invading another country should not be
taken so lightly that its causes don't matter.
|4.24.05 @ 11:38PM|#
a,
Who do you think has killed more Iraqi civilians?
1. Us military and Coalition forces
2. Michael Moore's minutemen i.e. the baathist insurgents and the
jihadis
Als, which side has intentionally targeted Iraqi civilians? The
iraqis know the answer to this question and if you are following
their blogs and reporting you would know it too.
|4.24.05 @ 11:41PM|#
"The attacks give the US government an excuse to stay in
Iraq indefinitely, which is part of the design."
We're gonna have to agree to disagree on that Rick. I think that
the longer the insurgent attacks go, the sooner we're pulling out.
Think the American Revolution, Vietnam, etc. In a battle of wills,
the invadees--not the invaders--have the most to lose.
...I think there's a limit to the amount of casualties the American
people are willing to suffer, and I think there's a limit to the
price the American people are willing to pay in taxes too. An
insurgent loss, on the other hand, means utter annihilation for
them.
P.S. Can anyone think of a good reason why Sunni insurgents would
want to lay down their arms?
P.P.S. It will be interesting to see what effect the trial and
possible execution of Saddam Hussein will have on the insurgency
and its support.
|4.24.05 @ 11:58PM|#
"An increase in violence is not necessarily the same thing
as an increase in insurgent attacks. Look at the Lunaville graph
here."
That very well may be true; regardless, in spite of the insurgency,
we need to get a government in place.
"...if one takes the trouble to look for information from the
many blogs by US military personnel involved directly in the war,
one can see we are winning this thing and that is a good
thing."
I'm not sure that the blogs of US military personnel is the best
place to look see if we're winning. In my opinion, winning means
that we did something worth the sacrifice of American troops, and
my opposition to the war is based on the fear that what we've won
isn't worth the sacrifice. It's a marginal analysis, mind
you.
...There's an argument to be made from the right that says that the
lives of American troops are too precious to sacrifice soley for
pipedreams like bringing democracy to where it isn't. I don't know
of anyone on the right making that argument, but then I don't know
of many on the right who are willing to listen to that argument
either.
...Maybe that's because of the Vietnam era culture war? I know lots
of liberals who are pefectly willing to use government force for
the pipedream of improving the standard of living within our
borders--these same people are against doing this with the military
beyond our borders. Why? ...I think they're culturally attached to
opposition to Vietnam, and they just can't conceive of themselves
supporting a foreign war.
...Work the same equation from the right, and you have people who
are culturally wedded to supporting any war beyond our
borders because not to do so would make them seem (in their heads)
like a bunch of spitting hippies.
By the way, I don't think anyone here is going to argue that
America winning the War in Iraq isn't a good thing.
|4.25.05 @ 12:01AM|#
Buck,Your pathetic attempt of avoiding my question, I'm afraid,
won't fly. Do you have any evidence for the claim you made earlier
or are you making it up?
Buck:
Who do you think has killed more Iraqi civilians?
1. Us military and Coalition forces
I don't know. The US military, according to T. Franks, doesn't do
body counts.
In any case, civilian deaths are the ultimate responsibility of the
occupying force.
|4.25.05 @ 12:07AM|#
"In any case, civilian deaths are the ultimate
responsibility of the occupying force.
By the way, that's the rest of my opposition to the war. Yes, if
the price in American lives wasn't worth what we got, then it was a
bad war; add to that the cost in civilian casualties and the
cost/benefit analysis just gets worse.
|4.25.05 @ 12:12AM|#
an argument to be made ... that says that the lives of
American troops are too precious to sacrifice soley for pipedreams
like bringing democracy to where it isn't. I don't know of anyone
on the right making that argument, but then I don't know of many on
the right who are willing to listen to that argument
either
That is exactly the argument that Pat Buchanan is making. I don't
know why you are bring right and left into this. The question
before us is the level of violence in Iraq, who is instigating it,
who it is directed against, and whether that is good or bad. If you
think America winning the War in Iraq is a good thing, then you
must understand that it is going to require our military increasing
the level of violence in Iraq until we kill enough Baathist
insurgents and jihadis to achieve victory.
|4.25.05 @ 12:13AM|#
Buck,Your pathetic attempt of avoiding my question, I'm
afraid, won't fly. Do you have any evidence for the claim you made
earlier or are you making it up?
deja vu.
don't know. The US military, according to T. Franks, doesn't do
body counts.
In any case, civilian deaths are the ultimate responsibility of the
occupying force.
Double deja vu.
I don't have anything to say about Iraq that I haven't said many
times before, so I'll just watch the fur fly. But something about
the post I cited sounds familiar to me...
Apologies if I'm wrong.
|4.25.05 @ 12:26AM|#
civilian deaths are the ultimate responsibility of the
occupying force.
That is a ridiculous statement. Is every murder the responsibility
of the police? No, the police cannot stop murder. They can only
attempt to arrest and prosecute the perpetrators
The insurgents pay to have the execution of an Iraqi election
worker filmed on Haifa street.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/12/22/executions/index_np.html
Look at that picture. On the left is one of Michael Moore's
minuteman. The gun is pointed and about to fire at (and murder) an
Iraqi election worker. Who is the bad guy? Is it the fault of Tommy
Franks and John Abizaid?
|4.25.05 @ 12:29AM|#
"If you think America winning the War in Iraq is a good
thing, then you must understand that it is going to require our
military increasing the level of violence in Iraq until we kill
enough Baathist insurgents and jihadis to achieve
victory."
No blank checks. Self defense is priceless, everything else can
cost more than it's worth.
If the Administration is afraid that, should it leave it now, it
would leave a terrorist Sunni mini-state behind, then it should
'fess up. If the Administration is afraid that, should it leave
now, the Shiites might be just as inclined to invite the Iranians
in to put down the insurgency, then it should 'fess up about that
too.
If the Administration is afraid that we're gonna have to keep
troops over there 'til kingdom come or the cows come home or the
insurgents decide that they're better off as a minority in a state
dominated by their enemies, then it should 'fess up about that
too.
...Surely, if the American people decided they'd had enough, you
wouldn't advocate keeping troops over there without popular
support?
P.S. Thoreau, just because you've said it before doesn't mean
everyone else has heard it.
|4.25.05 @ 12:35AM|#
Who shouted quagmire about Afghanistan? I'm not saying that
no one did, I'm just not aware of anyone who shouted quagmire about
Afghanistan. Do you have a link?
NY Times columnist R. W. Apple was sure we had a quagmire in
October 2001, days before 10 or so US special operations soldiers
toppled the most oppressive regime in the world:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60C17FE39540C728FDDA90994D9404482
|4.25.05 @ 12:41AM|#
we're gonna have to keep troops over there 'til kingdom come
or the cows come home or the insurgents decide that they're better
off as a minority in a state dominated by their enemies
Substitute Nazis for insurgents and that is what happened in
Germany.
|4.25.05 @ 12:49AM|#
"That is a ridiculous statement. Is every murder the
responsibility of the police? No, the police cannot stop murder.
They can only attempt to arrest and prosecute the
perpetrators."
When we decided to bomb, invade and occupy Iraq, we knew that there
would be a certain amount of civilian casualties. We tried to
minimize those casualties, and we didn't target civilians on
purpose. ...But that doesn't mean that those people's lives weren't
a cost of the war. They were, and our leaders decided that those
civilian lives, and the lives of our troops, were worth whatever it
was that they thought we would gain.
...I don't have a problem with that argument per se--I mean, I
don't have a problem with the suggestion that it's possible that
the freedom and security of American citizens could be worth more
than a certain level of foreign, civilian casualties. However, I
have a big problem with the suggestion that those civilian
casualties aren't a cost or shouldn't be a consideration or weren't
worth anything.
...I lack whatever gene it takes to think of civilian casualties as
worthless. We decided to pay the price in civilian
casualties when we went to war. Those casualties are our
responsibility.
|4.25.05 @ 12:52AM|#
I have no interest in debating the whole "Should we have gone
there?" issue again, at least not today.
But on the narrow issue of whether some of the opponents of the
Iraq war cried "quagmire" before Afghanistan: Undoubtedly some did.
Others didn't. Those who cried quagmire have certainly suffered a
loss of credibility. But a lot of opponents of the Iraq war did
not cry quagmire before Afghanistan, and there's no reason to
tar them with guilt by association. Refute their arguments about
Iraq by debating the merits of Iraq. Don't go after them for
statements that many of them never made.
|4.25.05 @ 12:56AM|#
lack whatever gene it takes to think of civilian casualties
as worthless
So do I. The people that think civilian casualties as worthless are
the ones our military are fighting, bravely and brilliantly, in
Iraq.
|4.25.05 @ 1:02AM|#
"Substitute Nazis for insurgents and that is what happened
in Germany."
I did this argument in another thread, so I'll give you the
abreviated response and the link.
An alliance is among the most effective means of self-defense.
There are things that are okay in self-defense that wouldn't be
okay otherwise.
We wouldn't have won the Cold War as we did without our allies, and
our allies probably wouldn't have behaved as they did--think
Reagan's Pershing program--without our contribution to the alliance
in World War II.
That is, Germany was a war of self-defense. Japan was a war of
self-defense. Afghanistan was a war of self defense. Wars of
self-defense are priceless.
...Iraq, on the other hand, was not a war of self-defense, so it
isn't comparable to a self-defense war like Germany in World War
II.
http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/04/beyond_minimali.shtml
|4.25.05 @ 1:48AM|#
The people that think civilian casualties as worthless are
the ones our military are fighting, bravely and brilliantly, in
Iraq.
Buck, I think what confuses me most is that while the military
inarguably takes precautions to prevent civilian casualties, at the
same time, the same military refuses to even try to count
the civilian casualties. How to describe something you don't even
bother to count, besides "worthless?"
I'm not concluding that military folks look at Iraqi civilians as
worthless, but military policies sure seem to.
|4.25.05 @ 4:56AM|#
To those of you who say that all of the people killed by the "insurgents" are the responsibility of the USA because that wouldn't have happened had we not invaded: I will concede this point if you admit that everyone killed under Saddam are the responsibility of all those who opposed the war.
|4.25.05 @ 9:19AM|#
Buck:
That is a ridiculous statement.
Well, it is not for you or me to decide, it is the law. I have
highlighted the relevant segment:
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/ihlfaqoccupation.htm
An occupying power has a duty to ensure public order and safety in
the territory under its authority. Under customary international
law, this duty begins once a stable regime of occupation has been
established. But under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the duty
attaches as soon as the occupying force exercises control or
authority over civilians of that territory -- that is, at the
soonest possible moment (a principle reflected in U.S. Army Field
Manual 27-10).
Military commanders on the spot must prevent and where
necessary suppress serious violations involving the local
population under their control or subject to their authority.
The occupying force is responsible for protecting the
population from violence by third parties, such as newly formed
armed groups or forces of the former regime. Ensuring
local security includes protecting persons, including minority
groups and former government officials, from reprisals and revenge
attacks.
BTW, I see that you didn't provide any support for yuor earlier
statemnet, so I guess you made it up.
|4.25.05 @ 9:49AM|#
When the number and severity of attacks decreases, the hawks
trumpet the news as proof that we're winning. Then they increase,
they come out with excuses why that, too, shows we're
winning.
If four guys in ski masks shot Allawyi in his office and declared
themselves on the television to the be the new chief executive, Joe
Bonforte would explain that it just shows that they're getting
desperate.
|4.25.05 @ 10:14AM|#
I suspect insurgent attacks are up due to nothing else being in the news today. (kind of like how one case of suspected mad cow disease ended the purported flu epidemic last year)
|4.25.05 @ 11:53AM|#
I will concede this point if you admit that everyone killed
under Saddam are the responsibility of all those who opposed the
war.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
|4.25.05 @ 12:24PM|#
Fuzzy-
Ok, so Donald Rumsfeld is responsible for those deaths because he
met with Saddam in the 80's and supported him (as a lesser evil
compared to the Ayatollah), and he's responsible for any deaths due
to deposing Saddam? So you are officially arguing that you should
be damned if you do and damned if you don't. Ok, you win. Now what
do you think should be done? This is one of those questions where
you can't invoke having a time machine and doing something
different in 1979. What would you do NOW?
|4.25.05 @ 12:50PM|#
It's always fun to rehash the war, but there is little new in the recent news. Insurgents are not going away soon, if ever. But that doesn't mean Iraq cannot become stable. Is Northern Ireland stable? or the UK in general? What convinces me Bush was right is the fact that we still haven't had the devastating attack here that could wreak the economy and bring us to our knees. If you don't think al Quida has been diverted from planning American attacks you must have blinders on.
|4.25.05 @ 12:51PM|#
Well, it is not for you or me to decide, it is the law. I
have highlighted the relevant segment:
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/ihlfaqoccupation.htm
Deja vu.
BTW, I see that you didn't provide any support for yuor earlier
statemnet, so I guess you made it up.
Man, what a flashback!
Quick, somebody blame the French for something and see if we get a
reflexive response. Or just mention Little Round Top and the 20th
Maine.
I apologize to a if I'm wrong.
|4.25.05 @ 1:01PM|#
James,
If the Bush administration had invaded Iraq with the stated
intention of distracting Al Quaeda from attacking the U.S.
mainland, then he might have been right. But he invaded
Iraq with the stated intention of destroying WMD's that didn't
exist and a working relationship with Al Quaeda that didn't
exist.
The fact is that we have no idea what Al Quaeda is planning or how
many members it has or where its leaders are. Bush himself said he
didn't care where Bin Laden is (after, of course, it turned out
that he'd slipped through our fingers).
Arguing for the necessity of the war isn't unreasonable to me.
Arguing that Bush et al executed the war with honesty and
competency is unsupported by the facts.
|4.25.05 @ 1:01PM|#
What would you do NOW?
Dave, for starters, I would remove those that propped up the
dictator in the first half of their career and now removed him by
force in the second half of their career. Its been pretty well
established on these boards that career beaurorats are purely self
serving. Why should foreign policy be any different than market
regulation? When you do too much for too long, everything gets
fucked up via unintended consequences, mostly because you will
never admit to doing anything wrong in the first place. Hopefully
my answer wasn't too anticlimatic since I don't have the answer for
getting out of a quagmire.
|4.25.05 @ 1:03PM|#
When the number and severity of attacks decreases, the hawks
trumpet the news as proof that we're winning. Then they increase,
they come out with excuses why that, too, shows we're
winning.
I agree with joe here. FWIW, I think there are good arguments to be
made in favor of what we're doing, and good arguments for why an
increase in violence is just a storm that we can weather.
But when people try to explain that an increase in violence has a
silver lining, or even that it is all part of the Master Plan,
well, that's just crazy talk. Do the more eloquent hawks a favor
and shut up.
|4.25.05 @ 1:35PM|#
Sorry, a. I guess I'm just missing Gary, so any time I read something that bears even a small resemblance I think it might be him.
|4.25.05 @ 1:56PM|#
Les, When you have to reach for terms like "working relationship" we know you're splitting hairs to avoid being called a liar. The jury is still out on Iraq/al Quaeda connections. I'm still wondering why Terry Nichols was bunking up with Iriqi agents in the Phillipines. And ask the Checks about their Atta intelligence. There were plenty of non-al Quaeda terrorists living in Baghdad. The next attack here may not come from bin Laden anyway. But claiming Saddam had no working Relationship with al-Quaeda is only admitting there may have been some sort of relationship.
|4.25.05 @ 1:59PM|#
"I will concede this point if you admit that everyone killed
under Saddam are the responsibility of all those who opposed the
war."
Is the United States resposnible for everyone who dies anywhere in
the world under an authoritative regime or is there something
special about Iraq?
|4.25.05 @ 2:10PM|#
And who's to say that Sandy Berger's document didn't show a connection? The fact that the 911 commission based its report partly on testimony from Clinton cronies tells me it is partly bogus.
|4.25.05 @ 2:14PM|#
Is the United States resposnible for everyone who dies
anywhere in the world under an authoritative regime or is there
something special about Iraq?
Mugabe is all your fault Ken!
|4.25.05 @ 2:17PM|#
"But claiming Saddam had no working Relationship with
al-Quaeda is only admitting there may have been some sort of
relationship.
That's part of my preliminary criticism of the war, by the way.
Some people, in spite of the evidence to the contrary, believe that
Iraq was collaborating with al Qaeda; surely anyone who heard Colin
Powell's testimony before the U.N. thought we went into Iraq to
disrupt al Qaeda operations. We now know that Iraq/al Qaeda ties
were way overblown before the war.
...But what's perfectly clear is this. Before the war, if al Qaeda
was operating in Iraq, it wasn't operating to the extent that is
now. That is, we went there to disrupt al Qaeda operations; but,
now that we've invaded, al Qaeda seems to be operating with
impunity.
When our leadership leads us into an action to protect us from
danger but their action only exacerbates the problem, isn't that
what we're talking about when we talk about incompetence?
...Of course the dust hasn't settled yet. Iraq may yet bloom into a
terrorist free paradise under the leadership of the al Sadr and al
Sistani factions--I sure hope that's what happens.
|4.25.05 @ 2:29PM|#
"Mugabe is all your fault Ken!"
I knew it!
...and I'd like to take this opportunity to personally apologize to
all the good people of Zimbabwe and a bunch of other African
nations, Myanmyar, Cuba, North Korea, the Sudan, China, Vietnam,
Nepal, the Ivory Coast, myraid former Soviet Republics, a number of
nations in Central and South America too as well as anyone I didn't
mention.
It's all my fault. I'm against bombing, invading and occupying your
country unless it's done is self-defense. But don't worry--there's
a new breed on the rise, and they won't let a little thing like
self-defense get in their way. They'll bomb the daylights out of
your country--they think it's worth the sacrifice in civilian
casualties.
I apologize.
|4.25.05 @ 2:33PM|#
Ken, I don't give a shit about al-Quaeda operations in Iraq, except to the extent they hurt our troops over there. And our soldiers know what they got into when they signed up, as do the contractors. I just don't see how we've exacerbated the problem. The problem being the risk of an attack on our shores that disrupts or destroys our economic system. Are al-Quaeda operations in Iraq making such an attack more likely? I doubt it.
|4.25.05 @ 2:34PM|#
James, the reason I used the word "working" relationship is
because we would have needed a defense against that. Again, while
the need to bring down Hussein is arguable, the reasons stated by
the Bush administration at the onset of the war have been
thoroughly debunked.
The fact that the 911 commission based its report partly on
testimony from Clinton cronies tells me it is partly
bogus.
Why do you think Clinton cronies are less honest than Bush cronies?
I mean, cronies are cronies, are they not? Do you actually think
that the Republicans are more honest than the Democrats? (I ask the
opposite question of my liberal friends.)
|4.25.05 @ 2:42PM|#
I haven't noticed any Bush cronies getting busted stealing and destroying secret documents.
|4.25.05 @ 2:47PM|#
" All in an article written by a bunch of guys no one knows
who all just happen to have Islamic surnames. Is this what the
once-great Washington Post has sunk to?"
"The fact that the 911 commission based its report partly on
testimony from Clinton cronies tells me it is partly
bogus."
Utter and complete, ad hominem at its finest!
...Tell me, did you and Joe Bonforte go to the same school?
|4.25.05 @ 3:07PM|#
James, are you suggesting that one incident (and I'm glad he got busted, too, btw) demonstrates that the Bush administration is more honest than the Clinton administration or that Republicans are more honest than Democrats?
|4.25.05 @ 3:10PM|#
Les-
Democrats only have to steal documents to cover their crimes when
there's no Democratic President to cover for them. Some day, former
Bush administration officials will have to steal classified
documents. And the usual suspects will explain to us that it's
somehow different this time around.
|4.25.05 @ 3:26PM|#
"Democrats only have to steal documents to cover their
crimes when there's no Democratic President to cover for them. Some
day, former Bush administration officials will have to steal
classified documents. And the usual suspects will explain to us
that it's somehow different this time around."
So if I understand this properly, what you're saying is that if
Kerry had been elected, it would have been much worse?
|4.25.05 @ 3:30PM|#
I knew the resident physicist would understand. I wonder if there are undiscovered laws of nature regarding politics and corruption. Perhaps the proximity of citizens (C) to power (P) combines to decrease integrity (I) at a rate relative to the scope of influence (SI). Now, to work on my equations!
|4.25.05 @ 3:40PM|#
Les-
Perhaps the proximity of citizens (C) to power (P) combines to
decrease integrity (I) at a rate relative to the scope of influence
(SI). Now, to work on my equations!
You might want to call this the Self Preservation
Theorem.
|4.25.05 @ 4:00PM|#
Les, All politicians are corrupt, but I believe the Clintons are more corrupt. The number of jailed friends indicates to me the Clintons weren't your run of the mill corrupt politicians. To the wealth of evidence you can add the upcoming Cisneros report, and its implications of IRS manipulation.
|4.25.05 @ 4:10PM|#
James, why are "run of the mill corrupt politicians" more trust worthy than jailed, corrupt politicians? I agree that the Clinton administration was horrible, but since they're no longer in power, it seems reasonable to focus on the dishonesty of the present administration. How many blatent falsehoods have been perpetuated by the Bush administration? How many is too many? Two? Twenty?
|4.25.05 @ 4:41PM|#
The reason I jumped on the Clintons is because their influence on the 911 commission is obvious. And since the attack had been planned way before Bush took office, the idea of focusing on the present administration is idiotic. Now, name some "blatent falshoods", and I'm not talking about repeating intelligence that both administrations believed.
|4.25.05 @ 8:50PM|#
Now, name some "blatent falshoods"
It's blatently false that we have captured or killed 75% of Al
Queda leadership. It's false to say it because we don't know how
many Al Quaeda leaders there are.
It was blatently false that we found the WMD's as Bush announced.
It was blatently false that Hussein never let inspectors in, as
Bush claimed.
It was blatently false that the aluminum tubes could only have been
used for nuclear purposes, as Rice claimed, despite reports she'd
received from the DOE that they weren't right for nuclear
purposes.
It was blatently false that Bush had said he'd only allow a deficit
in times of war, recession or national emergency. Gore said that.
But even after Bush was told that Gore had said it, he repeated the
lie that he had said it.
It was blatently false that "Blue-Chip economists" forecast
substantial economic growth if Congress passed the president's tax
cut, as he claimed.
When Bush claimed that the IAEC had reported that Iraq had a
nuclear weapons program, he omitted the fact that the report was
describing conditions in Iraq in 1990. That's called a lie of
omission, I think.
It is blatently false that the last recession began before Bush
took office as he claimed in 2002.
Bush's description of his relationship with Enron and Ken Lay was
blatently false.
It was blatently false that Bush was never arrested after 1969 as
he told a reporter.
These are just the ones I came up with in the last five minutes. If
you'd like, I could make a short list of Ari Fleischer's lies. But
don't think I'm accusing the Bush administration of being more
dishonest than other administrations (Clinton's would, indeed, be
tough to beat). I'm just accusing the Bush administration of being
blatently dishonest.
|4.26.05 @ 11:57AM|#
Now now, Les, let's not forget that Bush and his administration
have been extremely careful to wrap their statements in careful
weasel wording, rendering most of them to slide in under the wire
as "technically accurate."
Not to mention, the people who pressured the CIA to issue more
hawkish analyses, set up a shadow intelligence agency when they
didn't get what they wanted to hear, and rephrased highly ambiguous
reports as confidence, definitive statements were just the passive
recipients of bad data.
|4.26.05 @ 12:15PM|#
Damn you, Joe! When will you stop defending this administration?! Have you no shame, sir? At long last...?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245