Friday Fun Link II

Julian Sanchez | November 18, 2005

ThinkProgress has video of the fracas on the floor of the House that ensued tonight after Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) decided to "send a message" to Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn.), a retired Marine colonel who picked up two purple hearts in Vietnam, that "cowards cut and run; Marines never do." Cue pandemonium.

Comments

|11.18.05 @ 8:18PM|#

woah, it was rowdy like parliament. for a minute.

|11.18.05 @ 8:21PM|#

Thanks for cueing moi. I just sent this to my old friend who puts out the WhistleBlower from right here in Sinincincinnati:

"We just got rid of one SMLP. Now we have another... this time representing us in the Congress. How many days does she have now? Could her impeachment reduce the number of days?

My jaw dropped as I was watching NBC news.

Schmidt--Smitherman: Separated at birth. Who knew? (Actually their names should have been a tip-off.)

In my sign-off, below, pay particular attention to the "Marine" part.
(Some jarheads are crazy like yours truly and Barry McCaffrey, but Murtha of Pennsylvania is not in that number.)"

|11.18.05 @ 8:29PM|#

SMLP means Smart Mouth Little Punk

|11.18.05 @ 8:30PM|#

If I hear another goddamned fucking shitass Republican with no military experience call another war veteran a coward, a traitor, or any other similar epithet, I swear to dog I'm going to start browsing the "For Hire" ads in SOF.

|11.18.05 @ 8:30PM|#

Great speech, not because of content, but because of its existence. Politics is too tame and already unconstructive. If Rome is gonna go we might as well do it with some flair and adrenaline.

|11.18.05 @ 8:38PM|#

Awesome. I didn't know the Crypt Keeper was elected to Congress.

|11.18.05 @ 8:42PM|#

Seriously though, I'm just up the road from her district. You went home with that when you could have had Paul Hackett?

Dudes.

|11.18.05 @ 8:42PM|#

I actually caught this one live: what a bitch. And I hate not having something more eloquent to say, but damn, what a bitch. And to think that Hackett almost took her seat.

|11.18.05 @ 8:44PM|#

Brian,
I am old. Bear with me.
Are you referring to the Homer and Jethro ditty, "I Crept into the Crypt and Cried"?

|11.18.05 @ 8:45PM|#

next thing you know a congresscritter will be beaten with a cane...

|11.18.05 @ 8:50PM|#

Phil,
I'm with you.
Could you shame Jane Fonda into putting in an appearance in ye olde Fartmobile?
The rime is tipe.

Jason Sonenshein|11.18.05 @ 9:08PM|#

I grew up in Jean Schmidt's district. She was a township trustee when I lived there. She reminded me of Tracy Flick from Election.

|11.18.05 @ 9:18PM|#

Am I the only one who has their computer crash each time they try to view that video? I've tried in both Firefox and IE, and it kills both. Maybe it's the poker game I'm playing that's the culprit.

Whatever, from what I can tell she's scary and a bitch.

|11.18.05 @ 9:18PM|#

Wow, I had no idea that Rep. Schmidt was such a fucking whore.

If I hear one more piece of Republican shit lecture former Marines on courage, someone's going to pay. Dearly. I can't tell you how enraged it makes me to hear some cunt know-nothing jizz bag like Schmidt have the audacity to even open her mouth for anything other than pleasuring other members of Congress. When this whole mess is over, they should try this bitch crimes against humanity.

Keep watching the news. The next time a Republican who's never worn the uniform lectures me or any other member of the military on courage or honor, I am going to unleash brutality on them that will make Pat Robertson think the end of the world is indeed upon us.

|11.18.05 @ 9:21PM|#

jf - it took me maybe 10 tries playing it over and over in firefox. seems like their server's on overload, but it worked best when I shut everything on my computer (..correlation / causation?!.. can't hurt, right?)

|11.18.05 @ 9:28PM|#

Kinda like "B-1" Bob Dornan (who spent the Viet Nam conflict stateside) questioning the courage and patriotism of Ron Kovic...

|11.18.05 @ 9:32PM|#

Note the conspicuous absence of GOP bills stating an intent to stay until 2015 or victory is won, whichever comes first.

They want it both ways. They won't commit to a long stay; they won't even budget for the war - they just do supplementals and try to hide the cost.

They want to preserve the illusion that the boys might be home for Christmas.

So why don't they show us how serious they are by passing a bill saying "Damn right we're there for the long haul, 2015 or bust baby, and gimme $1 trillion to pay for it."

|11.18.05 @ 9:34PM|#

BTW: Can't wait to hear the goddamned fucking shitass Republican talk show hosts try to spin this one.

|11.18.05 @ 9:39PM|#

Jeannie's husband and moi are reasonably tight, so I shall recuse my mangy self from further comment.

|11.18.05 @ 9:45PM|#

Everybody has one thing that pisses them off - for me it's those god-damned supplemental appropriations. Pay for your stupid-fucking-war in the main budget, you sons of whores! [steam coming from ears]

Sorry - what were we talking about again?

|11.18.05 @ 10:05PM|#

Yes, what Congresswoman Schmidt said was kind of nasty. But on the other hand, those Democrats were booing. So it all sort of evens out; both sides are clearly bad. I can't decide.

|11.18.05 @ 10:45PM|#

The absolute contempt in which these scumbags hold the people who fight and die for this country...

The moment soldiers and veterans cease to be effective props, Republicans piss on them.

This garbage is why we have a paranoid idiot child serving a second term as president.

|11.18.05 @ 11:02PM|#

My Congressman, Mary Meehan (D-Massachusetts), yelling during the melee: "You guys are pathetic! Pathetic!"

God bless him.

|11.18.05 @ 11:03PM|#

er, Marty.

|11.18.05 @ 11:03PM|#

This garbage is why we have a paranoid idiot child serving a second term as president.

Hey...I resemble that remark...

|11.18.05 @ 11:49PM|#

The moment soldiers and veterans cease to be effective props, Republicans piss on them.

Whereas Democrats piss on them until they become effective props? Spare me, joe.

It's amazing that anyone at all is willing to serve, considering how they are used and tossed aside by political animals.

|11.18.05 @ 11:52PM|#

"Whereas Democrats piss on them until they become effective props? Spare me, joe."

It's not the Dems cutting Vets and soldiers' funding to the bone in order to keep Paris Hilton in a constant supply of cocaine and Kinkajous.

|11.18.05 @ 11:55PM|#

It's not the Dems cutting Vets and soldiers' funding to the bone in order to keep Paris Hilton in a constant supply of cocaine and Kinkajous.

True enough, but let's not pretend it would be somehow different with a Democratic Congress.

|11.18.05 @ 11:57PM|#

Jon H wrote: "It's not the Dems cutting Vets and soldiers' funding to the bone in order to keep Paris Hilton in a constant supply of cocaine and Kinkajous."

Paris Hilton is *my* President.

|11.19.05 @ 12:10AM|#

This is such a good sign. For so long, the loyal opposition was afraid to do anything in opposition for fear of being called disloyal. That milk's been spilt.

|11.19.05 @ 12:16AM|#

Baiting Rhetoric...

|11.19.05 @ 1:24AM|#

I like how it is bad to call them cowards but to call them war criminals is alright.

Tim Cavanaugh|11.19.05 @ 1:28AM|#

Please can the over-the-top ad feminam attacks, no matter how loathsome you think Schmidt is.

|11.19.05 @ 1:44AM|#

Large-Print Analysis for joshua corning -

1. Soldiers who fight on your behalf (while the C-Hawks cower beind 16 deferments) are mostly not cowards.
2. Did anyone accuse Congressman Murtha of war-crimes on the floor ?

|11.19.05 @ 1:51AM|#

"Please can the over-the-top ad feminam attacks, no matter how loathsome you think Schmidt is."

Garbage is gender-neutral, isn't it ?

|11.19.05 @ 2:14AM|#

"He believed in what we are doing is the right thing."

Nice!

Anyway, she was out of line repeating a personal attack there. She was trying to make a valid point, that the troops don't mind being there, but that was incredibly unnecessary. She got what she deserved.

|11.19.05 @ 2:46AM|#

Yes, what Congresswoman Schmidt said was kind of nasty. But on the other hand, those Democrats were booing. So it all sort of evens out; both sides are clearly bad. I can't decide.

No, no, no, you have it all wrong. Only a couple of people were booing here, and then all the other Republicans there starting booing the people that were booing her!

|11.19.05 @ 2:48AM|#

"Only a couple of people were booing here, and then all the other Republicans there starting booing the people that were booing her!"

No, that was just the Republicans talking out their asses as usual.

|11.19.05 @ 2:56AM|#

Oh, Please writes: "True enough, but let's not pretend it would be somehow different with a Democratic Congress."

What? Are you saying a Democratic Congress would be thrifty?

They certainly wouldn't be bending over backwards to maintain the President's tax cuts.

Hakluyt|11.19.05 @ 3:25AM|#

Jon H,

Because that would be unconstitutional. Congress can't make an appopriation of funds to "raise and support armies" for a period over two years. See Art. I, cl. 8, sec. 12 of the Constitution.

It's not the Dems cutting Vets and soldiers' funding to the bone in order to keep Paris Hilton in a constant supply of cocaine and Kinkajous.

Heh. Whether it be under Democrats or Republicans, the Department of Veterans Affairs (and its precursors) have always been notoriously underfunded.

|11.19.05 @ 3:28AM|#

"They certainly wouldn't be bending over backwards to maintain the President's tax cuts."

Yeah, because we all know that a measely $300 tax cut results in little old ladies, babies, and disabled war vets being tossed out into the streets.

Whatever you're smoking must be really good.

|11.19.05 @ 6:16AM|#

. . . a measely $300 tax cut . . .

Hahahahaha.

Hakluyt|11.19.05 @ 7:49AM|#

mediageek,

See, the Congress would rather build bridges to nowhere.

Ron Hardin|11.19.05 @ 7:50AM|#

``Cut and run'' comes from cutting the anchor cable and fleeing, something you'd think Kerry would be more sensitive to.

|11.19.05 @ 9:23AM|#

Hey is it me?
On the BBC here they are talking about congress talking about withdrawing from Iraq now. Is that what this thread is about?

Are they really thinking of fucking doing that? Do you know what a huge mess that is going to leave? I mean, granted it is possible that the mess that it leaves will not affect our shores, and that of the hundreds of thousands dead, another two thousand won't be our people who volunteered. It is in a small way possible.

Or I guess that the the Kurds and the Shia could clean house and their atrocities would be in the "well the Sunni's brought it on themselves" category. I guess Turkey might not dare to mess with the Kurds. Maybe Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait will be content to let Sunni Arabs be stomped on, and they wont retaliate, causing the Iranians to retaliat against the retaliation.

And maybe our withdrawal will not be a clear sign that we are defeatable because we cannot sustain 2000 casualties. And maybe the redouble focus won't center on getting us out of Afghanistan, and then getting us out of their next target.

Maybe all that stuff wont happen. But to me cutting and running from Iraq would be the stupidist thing we have ever done in our history.

I hope Hillary is in charge when the end comes

|11.19.05 @ 9:34AM|#

kwais-

In the past you've painted a much more positive picture of Iraq than the media generally gives us. Now you're painting a rather negative picture of what will happen if we leave. Those two pictures are consistent if the good things are only possible as long as we stay. The question is, what will it take so that the Iraqis can eventually do it themselves? Personally, I'd only characterize a situation as "good" if it's also sustainable. Otherwise it's just a house of cards.

The bad things that we're seeing in the news might not be representative of what's happening now, but if they're representative of what will happen in our absence then they are very, very relevant.

|11.19.05 @ 9:54AM|#

Garbage is gender-neutral, isn't it ?

Sure. But "fucking whore" isn't.

Yes, despite Heidi Fleiss' plans for a new brothel.

|11.19.05 @ 10:26AM|#

Sure. But "fucking whore" isn't.

In politics it should be considered a neutral term.

This is such a good sign. For so long, the loyal opposition was afraid to do anything in opposition for fear of being called disloyal. That milk's been spilt.

I think you're correct in this. There's a lot of conversations starting to happen that are long overdue.

I like how it is bad to call them cowards but to call them war criminals is alright.

Has someone stood on the floor and called them war criminals?

|11.19.05 @ 10:52AM|#

Hey Dr T,
I don't know if the Iraqi government would hold up without us. It could, but I don't think that it is ready. I think it will be ready if we don't cut and run.

I couldn't tell you how long it is gonna take. My guess is less than 5 years.

|11.19.05 @ 10:55AM|#

"If I hear another goddamned fucking shitass Republican with no military experience call another war veteran a coward, a traitor, or any other similar epithet, I swear to dog I'm going to start browsing the "For Hire" ads in SOF"

In case you didn't notice, Schmidt was "relaying a message" from a marine colonel serving in Iraq. So is it ok for him to have an opinion?

Incidentally, it is actually possible for war veterans to be cowards, traitors, or any other similiar epithet. War veterans are not above criticism, and prior service is not a requirement for expressing one's views on military matters or anything else.

So basically you can take your idiotic version of the illogical chickenhawk argument -- which doesn't even apply in the case in question -- and shove it.

|11.19.05 @ 11:06AM|#

We had no damned business ever going into Iraq in the first place. Afghanistan, yes--but not Iraq. What we did was like the guy who has a bad day at work because his boss keeps yelling at him. And he's furious, and he wants to lash out at someone, but he can't lash out at his boss--so instead, he goes to a bar and picks a fight with some little shrimpy dude. Or goes home and beats his wife. This way, he gets to lash out at something and tell himself "I'm a big strong guy, and I'm in control, and don't nobody fuck with me!"

But it doesn't change the fact that he has no control over the situation that is REALLY bothering him.

|11.19.05 @ 11:38AM|#

Yeah, they weren't her words, she was "relaying a message" from a colonel. Having served as an enlisted member of the US army Infantry I would like to relay the message that most officers are complete morons. God, I've waited years to say that, and it feels good.

Also, as someone previously mentioned, the BBC is reporting that the Brits are definitely talking about pulling out of Iraq next year. Why aren't we hearing this from our news twinkies? Is it not news?

|11.19.05 @ 11:48AM|#

Jen,
Invading Iraq is nothing like the situations that you mention. And it is a silly comparison.

I and others believe that invading Iraq was a strategic necessity, and you disagree. If we are wrong, it is not because the Iraq war is the equivalent to beating your wife because you don't like your boss.

|11.19.05 @ 12:00PM|#

Also,
I would like to second Johnny Clarks message that most officers are complete morons.

|11.19.05 @ 12:03PM|#

Kwais--

You may remember that when the results of various what-caused-9-11 studies were released, the name of a certain country was repeatedly blacked out, at the insistence of the State Department. And I'm willing to bet that country wasn't Iraq.

Yes, I understand the arguments why we couldn't have invaded Saudi Arabia instead: if we hurt Mecca every Muslim in the universe would want to kill us, et cetera. And I understand why the guy can't beat up his boss instead of some little geek he sees in a bar.

Because, you know, we apparently can't take down the ones who really have the potential to hurt us, not without causing serious damage to ourselves in the process. So let's instead beat up somebody who isn't really the CAUSE of our problems, but we don't like him anyway and besides if we decide to beat him there's not a hell of a lot he can do about it.

|11.19.05 @ 12:04PM|#

However, Kwais, I agree with you that Johnny Clarke is right about officers, and I'd like to add the corollary that they're especially bad for dating purposes. Particularly the pilots.

|11.19.05 @ 12:21PM|#

David C. wrote: "In case you didn't notice, Schmidt was 'relaying a message' from a marine colonel serving in Iraq."

Yeah, a colonel who just happens to be a political office-holder:

"A few minutes ago I received a call from ***Colonel Danny Bubp, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives.*** He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

Given that Bubp is not only a Republican, but campaigns for other Ohio Republicans **while wearing his friggin' dress uniform**, I'm going to say that he's a grandstanding political prick, not a dispassionate observer: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/11/paul_hackett.html (go down just over halfway to the paragraph featuring Bubp)

|11.19.05 @ 12:30PM|#

OK, less than 5 years. So, let's set a date for withdrawal.

I know that some people think that setting a date sends the wrong message, since it just means that our enemies need to wait until that day. That's only true if we don't leave behind a strong Iraqi government to handle the situation in our absence.

And if the Iraqis get the message that the American taxpayers will handle their security indefinitely, what incentive do they have to step up and develop a capable security apparatus?

So let's set a reasonable date. 2010 sounds good to me.

|11.19.05 @ 12:36PM|#

Bubp may be a "grandstanding political prick", but he does currently wear the uniform and is "over there" now.

From what I have seen, Murtha is grandstanding, is certainly political, though I reserve judgment on whether or not he is a prick. Murtha's analysis and recommendations of on the current Iraq situtation seem flawed. But the Dem's appear to think his service in Vietnam innoculates him from any criticism.

|11.19.05 @ 12:45PM|#

Dr T
If a date is set for five years it should be a secret. And it maybe 5 years and a day. A plan should be emplaced no doubt.

I also am pretty sure that the Iraqis don't need too much incentive to want to run things themselves.

Jen,
Saudi Arabia may have been the country blacked out. I think we are fighting the bad guys in Saudi Arabia better the way we are doing it now than we would be doing if we invaded.

I still don't buy your comparison. Iraq was justifieable on its own grounds. If we needed a name to invade, Iran would have sufficed. But I think Iraq was more prescient.

|11.19.05 @ 12:50PM|#

Hey maybe a little off topic here. But here's a question:

Given that Veterans are like 80 to 90% non liberals, why is there such a high amount of veterans Democrat. Is politics the only job left leaning veterans go into? I have never met a veteran in my walks who was left leaning, yet it seems there are scores of them in politics.

|11.19.05 @ 1:08PM|#

Jack:

Are you saying that Bubp is in Iraq and saying the things he does becaues he's a Republican, or would you entertain the notion that he's a Republican because he believes the things he says, and is willing to fight for his beliefs?

Note: this is not a judgement on the content of those beliefs, just a question.

|11.19.05 @ 1:51PM|#

kwais,

Sincere question here: if we're building a democracy in Iraq, why shouldn't the Iraqis vote on whether or not they want the U.S. to stay or go? Why not have a period of debate and let their representatives or the voters themselves decide?

M1EK|11.19.05 @ 1:55PM|#

"Saudi Arabia may have been the country blacked out. I think we are fighting the bad guys in Saudi Arabia better the way we are doing it now than we would be doing if we invaded."

Don't take this the wrong way, but this is now the stupidest thing I've EVER READ on reason.com.

The guys who pay the Wahabbis to go out and spread hatred of the US and turn disaffected youth into terrorists - those guys, remember? STILL RICH. STILL UNTOUCHED.

But no, we can't actually FIGHT them, because then Patio Man might have to pay $5/gallon to drive his Suburban.

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

|11.19.05 @ 2:06PM|#

If only more people realized the true communicative power of uppercase letters.

|11.19.05 @ 2:07PM|#

M1EK,

One war at a time. Saudia Arabia pretends to be our friend and sometimes actually cooperates with us. If many people can't see the justification for invading Saddam's Iraq, an open enemy of the U.S., good luck getting them to support attacking a psuedo ally.

M1EK|11.19.05 @ 2:27PM|#

David C,

The difference is that with Saudi Arabia, certain of their citizens, fueled by actions and financial support from many highly-placed Saudis and arguably as a side-effect of policy of their government itself, attacked the United States on our own soil.

Something that Iraq never did. Never ever ever.

International support would not be necessary in this event to make me happy, nor should it be. Self-defense trumps that. But I'll bet you that if we made sure to go slow, show the evidence, give the Saudis a chance or two to make some major changes with the threat of that military force, and then ask our allies nicely, that a bunch of them would back us, too. Like France did in Afghanistan, where our moral case was quite clear.

But again, GAS WOULD GET EXPENSIVE! Oh noes! We've never been able to fight a war when gas got expensive or was rationed, in all of history, I'll bet. Anybody who says otherwise is probably rewriting history. If you carpool, you're sharing a car with Hitler, and he smokes with the windows up, I think it went.

|11.19.05 @ 2:30PM|#

Schmidt's name calling was a bit inappropriate for congressional debate, but she is hardly the first one to call names during a debate. Just a few weeks ago Ted Kennedy called Bush a liar during senate debate.

We couldn't invade Saudi Arabia, because we didn't have grounds to invade Saudi Arabia. Saddam Hussein violated the Gulf War I cease fire when he kicked out the UN inspectors and refused to let them back in. We didn't find chemical and biological weapons, but we did find conventional rockets that went beyond the range he was permitted under that same peace agreement. Intelligence is never perfect, but given the information we had a few years ago, we had grounds to invade.

I like the idea of letting the Iraqis decide when we should leave. We still have bases protecting Germany and Japan. Lets pull out of there before abandoning a country that actually needs our help. Letting the Iraqis vote on the pull out will take us out of the role of invader. Their parliamentary election is this December; how about we ask their parliament to vote on it in January.

M1EK|11.19.05 @ 2:32PM|#

" We couldn't invade Saudi Arabia, because we didn't have grounds to invade Saudi Arabia."

Their citizens attacked the United States on our own soil, arguably abetted by their government. We have not had more justification for military action since Japan in WWII. At a bare minimum, we easily had the moral case for demanding changes by the Saudis backed up by the threat of military action if they did not comply.

|11.19.05 @ 2:36PM|#

Maybe all that stuff wont happen. But to me cutting and running from Iraq would be the stupidist thing we have ever done in our history.

If all that stuff was likely to happen when we left, it sounds like a good reason not to go there in the first place. ...or, at least, it sounds like a good reason not to go without the full support of our traditional allies. Wouldn't it be nice if we could hand this off to the...

I hope Hillary is in charge when the end comes.

I tend to talk about how we shouldn't have gone in the first place, not because I'm a backward lookin', spilt milk kinda guy, but because I really don't know whether we should stay or we should go now. ...but I know this. Regardless, the Bush Administration is incompetent, and their plan, regardless of whether it's stay or go, should not be trusted. ...and they shouldn't be trusted to capably implement any plan either.

As I've belabored before, I prefer a competent withdrawal to an incompetent occupation and a competent occupation to an incompetent withdrawal. The problem is that our leadership is incompetent. If Iraq was one of my projects and I had to take it over, the first thing I'd do is fire whoever's running things. This President doesn't learn from his mistakes--has anyone else noticed that the Administration's central argument is that this was the plan all along and things are going according to plan?

...If the President won't recognize his mistakes, much less learn from them, our only hope is that his approval rating will become so low and criticizm from Congress will become so bad that he'll shake up his leadership team. ...or wait for the next election.

God save us from Hillary Clinton.

|11.19.05 @ 2:52PM|#

Saddam Hussein violated the Gulf War I cease fire when he kicked out the UN inspectors and refused to let them back in.

Actually, Hussein didn't kick out the inspectors, they were pulled out by the U.S., prior to strikes.

We didn't find chemical and biological weapons, but we did find conventional rockets that went beyond the range he was permitted under that same peace agreement.

Two weeks before we invaded, Iraq started to destroy the missiles as per Blix's orders.

Intelligence is never perfect, but given the information we had a few years ago, we had grounds to invade.

The information we had consisted, basically, of "some of us in the intelligence community think he has WMD's and some of us don't." The administration focused on and publicized the former while ignoring/denying/burying the latter.

I think folks like you and me could argue about that stuff until the cows come home (or last call, whichever comes first), but I think we agree that the Iraqi people, having been freed of Hussein's tyranny, should decide whether or not they want our help.

|11.19.05 @ 2:54PM|#

God save us from Hillary Clinton.

If He couldn't protect us from Bush, I feel there's little hope. ;)

|11.19.05 @ 3:08PM|#

kwais-

You probably hear so much about elected Democrats who served in the military for the same reason that the Onion ran the article "Black Executive Prominently Displayed."

And what's wrong with announcing the withdrawal date if we're confident that the Iraqis will be able to take care of things. Or at least announce a plan that will get us out by a certain date if the Iraqis are able to get things together by that date. I'd certainly like some sort of realistic time table for when the Iraqis can manage things.


M1EK-

The economic consequences of invading Saudi Arabia might go well beyond expensive gasoline. Expensive home heating, expensive manufacturing, expensive shipping, etc., all in a chain reaction.

Even if you aren't swayed by that, stop and think for a moment about how a large chunk of the world might react to invading the birthplace of Islam.

And even if you aren't swayed by that, I assume that the billionaires who fund terrorism would quietly slip away during the chaos, and use their fortunes to fund their revenge.

I'm not hear to defend the invasion of Iraq, but invading Saudi Arabia is just crazy talk, pure and simple.

|11.19.05 @ 3:15PM|#

But the Dem's appear to think his service in Vietnam innoculates him from any criticism.

I don't think they're arguing that he should be innoculated from all criticism, just that the fact that he willingly reinlisted into the Vietnam war and earned two Purple Hearts while serving there ought to innoculate him from the charges of cowardice that are invariably leveled at anyone who disagrees with this Iraqi Adventure.

Do you disagree?

I have never met a veteran in my walks who was left leaning, yet it seems there are scores of them in politics.

Not all Demcrats are left-leaning. Not does one's stance on the Iraq War determine whether one is on the left or the right. George W Bush is not the ultimate arbiter of political beliefs, despite the fact that most people these days seem to think otherwise.

Hakluyt|11.19.05 @ 3:51PM|#

thoreau,

...stop and think for a moment about how a large chunk of the world might react to invading the birthplace of Islam.

Well, there are Mecca and Medina to consider, places that no non-Muslim are allowed to go to. Barring the odd FFL and FM.

|11.19.05 @ 3:51PM|#

Shem-

Yes I do disagree, however, my original post was badly worded. I meant tgo write that Murtha's service inoculates his policy from criticism. Sorry, I've seen Democrats this week react to relatively mild impersonal criticisms of what Murtha said with "how dare you question his patriotism!". Murtha's service has little to do with he is actually correct about the Iraq war.


Apropos of nothing: Auburn scores opening touchdown in Iron Bowl. War Eagle!

|11.19.05 @ 4:28PM|#

"But to me cutting and running from Iraq would be the stupidist thing we have ever done in our history."

How about putting us a position where we might have to cut and run? That was pretty stupid, no?

Like a guy who put his kids' college fund into dot coms in 1999, saying in November 2000 "I can't sell now!"

You know what would happen if we started pulling out of Iraq? The nationalist insurgents shooting at kwais would turn their guns on the international jihadists. Oh, and some Republicans would look like assholes. So for God's sak, lets throw some more cannon fodder on the fire!

|11.19.05 @ 4:32PM|#

I'm not hear to defend the invasion of Iraq, but invading Saudi Arabia is just crazy talk, pure and simple.

Unfortunately, this is true, despite how richly Arabia deserves to get its butt kicked--we simply cannot do it. So if we can't violently strike back at those most responsible for 9-11, do we find non-violent ways to deal with the problem--or do we find some little shrimp in a bar to beat up and make us feel more "manly?" Our administration chose the latter.

Oh, well, I'm sure wife-beaters at least feel better for a little while.

|11.19.05 @ 4:41PM|#

M1EK,

Al Qaeda doesn't seem to agree with your assertion that the Saudi government is their best buddy. They keep trying to overthrow them, you see. Doing so was one of their founding missions, in fact.

|11.19.05 @ 4:42PM|#

Unfortunately, this is true, despite how richly Arabia deserves to get its butt kicked

How about we just stop propping up the kleptocracy that's running the joint? Why do we always have to *do* something, especially when it was our lust to get involved that caused many of our current problems in the first place? Just let the House of Saud fall.

|11.19.05 @ 4:44PM|#

Shem--

The main argument I've heard for why we don't simply let the House of Saud go down is that whoever would step into the power vacuum would likely be far, far worse from our perspective. And I think that assessment is correct.

|11.19.05 @ 5:20PM|#

I always hear that, but I don't see all that much evidence to suggest anything of the sort. Whoever takes over Saudi Arabia is going to have to continue the Saud welfare state, which means that they'll have to continue to sell oil on the open market or risk another revolt. What will happen that will be so bad for us, the citizens of the United States of America?

|11.19.05 @ 6:55PM|#

In case you didn't notice, Schmidt was "relaying a message" from a marine colonel serving in Iraq. So is it ok for him to have an opinion?

Right. Rep. Schmidt, in a politically-vulnerable seat, was just "relaying a message" from an active Republican campaigner, the kind of message that plays right to the red-meat base. Sure.

Incidentally, it is actually possible for war veterans to be cowards, traitors, or any other similiar epithet.

Is John Murtha a coward or a traitor?

So basically you can take your idiotic version of the illogical chickenhawk argument -- which doesn't even apply in the case in question -- and shove it.

Fuck you, wingnut.


Given that Veterans are like 80 to 90% non liberals, why is there such a high amount of veterans Democrat. Is

Gee, that's a very good goddamned question, isn't it?


We still have bases protecting Germany and Japan.

From what?

You probably hear so much about elected Democrats who served in the military for the same reason that the Onion ran the article "Black Executive Prominently Displayed."

No, you probably hear about it because so few elected Republicans ever served.

I have never met a veteran in my walks who was left leaning, yet it seems there are scores of them in politics.

Meet my father. 28 years of service, a Democrat for all but the first two. And not a conservative Democrat.

|11.19.05 @ 7:17PM|#

No, you probably hear about it because so few elected Republicans ever served.

OK, that's a good point.

|11.19.05 @ 7:18PM|#

Oops, forgot to change the handle.

|11.19.05 @ 7:40PM|#

Has anyone ever actually been bored enough to go through The Almanac of American Politics or a similar publication and see whether there are more Republican or Democratic veterans in Congress? I don't know the answer, but I think it would be a close thing.
Democrats are constantly insinuating that Kerry, Cleland, Murtha, etc. should have a Veterans' Exemption from criticism, and when it suits their purposes they'll extend that to Powell, McCain, Hagel, and maybe even Lindsey Graham, but of course there are plenty of unambiguously pro-war and pro-Bush veterans in Congress (e.g., Dick Lugar, John Warner, Ted Stevens, Pat Roberts, Sam Johnson, Henry Hyde, Duncan Hunter, Steve Buyer, Gresham Barrett, Rob Simmons, Heather Wilson, Geoff Davis, and Duke Cunningham). The last of these, Cunningham, has recently been exposed as a slimy crook and has rightfully been raked across the coals by Josh Marshall and other liberal bloggers, and no one ever claimed that his service record should exempt him from criticism. I personally am against the war, but it drives me nuts to see all Republican members of Congress called "chickenhwaks" when many demonstrably are not, while any Democratic veteran is invested with an aura of holiness.

|11.19.05 @ 7:41PM|#

How about we just stop propping up the kleptocracy that's running the joint?

I'm not sure I understand what people are referring to, specifically, when they say we're propping up the government of Saudi Arabia.

|11.19.05 @ 8:44PM|#

I may not be paying good enough attention, but for all of the allegations of Saudi/Al Qaeda cooperation I've yet to see any specific charges against specific people in the Saudi government. There are roundabout assertions that the Saudis fund ideology associated with it, but this hardly seems cause to invade a country, especially if you think the case for war with Iraq was flimsy.

However, if anyone can cite concrete things that the Saudi government has done to aid terrorism against the United States, I would like to hear it.

|11.19.05 @ 8:58PM|#

However, if anyone can cite concrete things that the Saudi government has done to aid terrorism against the United States, I would like to hear it.

Um...for an ally, I allege numerous sins of omission. Our enemies operate all but openly within their midst, and they seem to cast a blind eye.

...and my understanding is that the Saudi royal family supports some really nasty madrasas like it's nobody's business.

P.S. I'm still unclear what people mean when they say we're propping up the government of Saudi Arabia.

M1EK|11.19.05 @ 8:58PM|#

"I'm not hear to defend the invasion of Iraq, but invading Saudi Arabia is just crazy talk, pure and simple."

I view that as simply astounding. We endured an attack on our own soil which was worse than Pearl Harbor, and you'd just let the perpetrators and their enablers get off because it would hurt our ECONOMY to go after them?

That makes me sick.

And I'd be just fine with reducing Saudi Arabia to rubble, if they didn't respond adequately to our demands. No need to invade.

M1EK|11.19.05 @ 9:01PM|#

"Al Qaeda doesn't seem to agree with your assertion that the Saudi government is their best buddy."

They don't, now. The Saudis plan to buy them off obviously only worked for a while -- but it was clearly the plan.

If I pay a bunch of guys in my neighborhood who are causing trouble to go burn down your house; they do it; and then they come back and burn down my house; does it mean that I am now blameless for your house having burned down?

|11.19.05 @ 9:04PM|#

M1EK-

I didn't just list economic consequences. Read my 3:08 pm post again.

Besides, although we have enemies in SA, we also have allies. Invasion may be too blunt of an instrument, whereby the guys who pay for terrorism would slip away while we're bogged down fighting insurgents, and without the help of our allies (who would no doubt be rather perturbed by an invasion).

Since we have allies there alongside enemies, maybe a strategy of keeping friends close and enemies closer makes more sense.

And to get back to the economic consequences: Airplanes, aircraft carriers, tanks, jeeps, etc. all need fuel. Armies march on their stomachs but they drive with petroleum products (for now, anyway). So maybe blunt instruments aren't the best way to proceed.

|11.19.05 @ 9:11PM|#

And I'd be just fine with reducing Saudi Arabia to rubble, if they didn't respond adequately to our demands. No need to invade.

Any concerns about innocent civilians?

|11.19.05 @ 9:18PM|#

BTW, I'm not convinced that the "friends close, enemies closer" strategy is being pursued intelligently, but neither am I convinced that invading SA is the right way to handle the problem. Basically, there's no guarantee that an invasion would get the people who need to be gotten, or prevent them from giving their money to the wrong people before capture. Meanwhile, it would cost us most (all?) of our allies in SA, bog us down in a messy occupation, make enemies of many, many Muslims around the world, and probably send the world into a deep economic depression.

So, if there's another way to handle the problem, let's try that.

|11.19.05 @ 9:23PM|#

M1EK,
Are you saying that you would anihiliate every man woman and child in Saudi Arabia, and destroy any oil drilling capacity?

Because it seems to me that to do military action less than that without occupying it would be to do so.

Saudi Arabia is not one entity. And it seems to me that the CIA is heavy in that county trying to make the ones that we like in power and not the ones we don't like. Now exactly how good a job they are doing I couldn't tell you.

M1EK|11.19.05 @ 9:42PM|#

To all three of you:

What part of "they started a war against us" are you not understanding?

Japan had plenty of civilians who didn't deserve to get killed. So did Germany. War sucks. But y'all, based on what I'm hearing now, would have had us not attack Japan or Germany because of what it would have done to the world's economy. Fuck that.

Now I've made it clear that I wouldn't go in and just bomb the crap out of SA - they'd get one (and only one) chance to do a bunch of stuff at gunpoint. But if they chose not to, we'd have plenty of moral justification for declaring war against their nation (as much or more than we did against Afghanistan, a war I fully supported).

"Since we have allies there alongside enemies," really shows you don't get it. The Saudis have been playing us for fools for decades - the ones you think are our "friends" are paying off the Wahabbis to preach against us and the Israelis so the young men are diverted from attacking the royal family themselves. THEY ARE NOT OUR FRIENDS.

M1EK|11.19.05 @ 9:43PM|#

"And to get back to the economic consequences: Airplanes, aircraft carriers, tanks, jeeps, etc. all need fuel. Armies march on their stomachs but they drive with petroleum products (for now, anyway). So maybe blunt instruments aren't the best way to proceed."

Yeah, it was hard to get enough petroleum to fight WWII too. I suppose that was a mistake. We should have not bothered to fight the Japanese or Germans, since we all had to carpool and ration stuff for a few years. That clearly wasn't worth it.

|11.19.05 @ 9:44PM|#

M1EK, you make some good points.

FWIW, I think you make a better case against SA than anybody has made against Iraq.

|11.19.05 @ 9:53PM|#

But if they chose not to, we'd have plenty of moral justification for declaring war against their nation (as much or more than we did against Afghanistan, a war I fully supported).

We had clear moral justification to do any number of foolish things. The question wasn't moral justification, the question was whether invading Saudi Arabia was a good strategy for eliminating the terrorist threat to the American people. By that standard, I suspect invading Saudi Arabia would have created more problems than it would have solved.

|11.19.05 @ 9:54PM|#

...moral justification's a red herring here.

|11.19.05 @ 10:30PM|#

Ken-First, there's the fact that in the past the US government provided direct training to mercenaries directly responsible to the House of Saud, and when that proved too politically unstable, US corporations stepped in to take over the job. Failed American politicians and bureaucrats are always welcome in Riyadh, where they're rewarded handsomely for their presence. The US also provided nearly three billion dollars worth of military hardware to the Saudi government in 2001-2002. There's also the widespread sense among factions all around the middle east that an attempt on the Saud wouldn't be successful because the American government wouldn't allow it to be so. The not-quite tacit stance of the US government since the Reagan years has been that Saudi Arabia "would not be allowed to become another Iran," (Reagan's exact words) Would you be eager to declare all-out war on a government with no respect for human rights and the backing of the most powerful military machine in human history?

|11.19.05 @ 10:32PM|#

However, if anyone can cite concrete things that the Saudi government has done to aid terrorism against the United States, I would like to hear it.

And I'd like to cite it, but the State Department blacked it out before releasing it to the public.

|11.19.05 @ 10:48PM|#

The not-quite tacit stance of the US government since the Reagan years has been that Saudi Arabia "would not be allowed to become another Iran," (Reagan's exact words)

Indeed, it was my understanding that the Saudis were quite concerned about the Iranians and we were too. That's why we supported Saddam Hussein way back when too. That sort of thing made more sense during the Cold War.

...and that was bin Laden's goal, wasn't it? To install a fundamentalist state in Saudi Arabia like the one in Iran. If this sort of American support helped thwart bin Laden's dream, then I don't think I'm against it.

|11.19.05 @ 10:56PM|#

...and that was bin Laden's goal, wasn't it? To install a fundamentalist state in Saudi Arabia like the one in Iran. If this sort of American support helped thwart bin Laden's dream, then I don't think I'm against it.

What? Arabia is far worse than Iran, at least for the female half of the population. At least Iranian women are not under permanent house arrest--they can leave their homes without a male relative, or drive a car or other things.

Not a paradise for women by any means--just better than Arabia.

|11.19.05 @ 11:00PM|#

What part of "they started a war against us" are you not understanding?

Who is "they?" The government of SA? "Starting a war" is different than not acting against the government officials who personally gave money to the terrorists who attacked us.

Japan had plenty of civilians who didn't deserve to get killed. So did Germany. War sucks.

That's pretty hawkish. Usually it's something you hear from people who've never had relatives killed in a war.

But y'all, based on what I'm hearing now, would have had us not attack Japan or Germany because of what it would have done to the world's economy. Fuck that.

Hey, you said you'd turn SA into rubble and I just asked about civilians. You responded with a "sucks to be them" attitude one finds in most fraternities.

I don't think we should have friendly relations with Saudi Arabia, but it was the policy of the governments of Japan and Germany to attack the U.S.. It's rather silly to compare what's happening now with our middle east foreign policy to WW2. I mean, you know, it's what G.W. does pretty consistently.

|11.19.05 @ 11:18PM|#

Ken, what is it that gives us the right to dictate the way in which a foreign government is run? The Arabians deserve a representative government. Even if they use it to institute a theocracy then at least they still have the recourse. Thwarting another person's freedom because he'll probably do something stupid with it is no way to act.

|11.19.05 @ 11:22PM|#

Arabia is far worse than Iran, at least for the female half of the population.

I see good foreign policy as a function of what's best for the security of the American people rather than, in this case, what's best for the women of Saudi Arabia.

...I care about and want what's best for the women of Saudi Arabia, but I don't think that should drive foreign policy. For what it's worth, I'm more interested in security for the American people than I am with the freedom of the men of Saudi Arabia too. That makes me sound callous, I know.

But if the form of support Shem described kept bin Laden, or someone he approved of, off a huge chunk of the world's oil reserves and prevented him from using Saudi Arabia's resources against us the way bin Laden and the Taliban used Afghanistan's, then I have to say--quite reluctantly--that it looks like good policy to me.

|11.19.05 @ 11:25PM|#

...Now if we could just get 'em to stop exporting jihad like the Japanese export cars.

|11.19.05 @ 11:35PM|#

what is it that gives us the right to dictate the way in which a foreign government is run?

It wouldn't be the first time an enemy of the United States rode a wave of popularity to power. If we can prevent our enemies from coming to power and using the resources of a nation against us, then our foreign policy should work for that.

How much worse would 9/11 have been with the resources of Saudi Arabia in the hands of Al Qaeda? ...How much more difficult would it be to fight the War on Terror?

The first duty of American policy makers should be to protect the life, liberty and property of the American people.

|11.19.05 @ 11:52PM|#

How much worse would 9/11 have been with the resources of Saudi Arabia in the hands of Al Qaeda?

Would 9/11 have happened if, having carried out his revolution, Bin Laden had been busy trying to hold his country under control? The Ayatollah hated us just as much as Bin Laden does, why didn't he order his country to attack us? Could it be that, having been brought marginally into the world stage, he was reluctant to do something that would justify massive American action? What evidence is there to suggest that Bin Laden would be any different?

But, to answer your question, I don't know. And you don't either. To know requires knowledge of events that nobody, anywhere, has. This is why I'm talking about right now, this minute, and what ought to be done. What I do know, however, is that there's little justification for assisting the House of Saud here in AD 2005, given the fact that they require draconian measures to stay in power and can't even control their population enough to justify their check by protecting our interests.

|11.20.05 @ 12:10AM|#

Wow, reading this thread has left me aghast.

I am amazed at the machine-gunning from the hip that I am reading. Not only should we be withdrawing from Iraq ASAP, but we do not, repeat not need to do anything in regards to Saudi Arabia but stand back and let the monarchy fall.

From a moral and ethical standpoint, the whole notion of military action (wehter invasion/or punitive bombardment) is a non-starter. In both cases we would be killing innocent people in an attempt to kill/intimidate our enemies, which is absurd. Would you fire a machine gun at a purse-snatcher on a crowded street? Ethically the two actions are identical.

Now let us turn to the practical effects.

first, what are people trying to accomplish?

1) Most people want whomever controls the oil in Saudi Arabia to make it available for us at some affordable price.

2) A majority of people want the Wahabi clerics to stop preaching violent war against non-believers.

OK, so here is the simple solution. We stop meddling and keep our mitts to ourselves!

First, the only source of wealth for Saudi Arabia is the sale of oil. Thus, if they want money and cool cars and Swedish mistresses and massive welfare programs, they have to sell oil. Thus, whomever controls that oil will either sell it to us, or hoard it and leave themselves too poor to bankroll any sort of religious war.

However, we are going to have the stop caring about affordability. In essence, the U.S. government has been subsidizing middle-eastern oil by proviting miltary support to the Saudi monarchy. In fact this, and only this is the reason that Al-Queda attacked the U.S. The other stuff is just noise. If we stop supporting the monarchy, then the Saudi monarch would have to bankroll his own military forces to safeguard his oil-fields and regime. The price he would demand per barrel would go up, but I think that would probably be more than offsett by the savings in not maintaining armies, aircraft and naval battlegroups in the region. In addition, the rebels plotting to overthrow the monarchy would probably not waste their precious organizational assets on attacking an uninvolved party directly when they could use them productively agaisnt the monarch.

Let us turn to the manner of the Wahabi sect. Now the sect is a very violent one, which seems to glory in violence against evildoers, wether they be immodestly dressed girls fleeing a burning dormitory, alcohol drinkers or unbelievers. The clerics of the sect are bankrolled by the Saudi Monarch, and they have a love/hate relationship with the royal family. On the one hand they want the money, so they are servile and try to prop up the monarch. On the other hand they resent the royal family's indolent and luxurious lifestyle. With very few exceptions, the clerics have chosen to cringe and submit to the monarch's commands.

Fortunately, the monarch is running out of money to pay them. The Saudi welfare state is crumbling. The economic stagnation, lack of prospects and violent religious instruction is what is prompting young men in the poorer provinces to take up "martyrdom operations". I am pretty certain that if we aren't seen as propping up the regime they will focus their energies on those whom they see are propping up the regime. notice, Japan and China which I believe (but was unable to prove using google) buy more Saudi Oil than the U.S. does have not been the recipients of significant attacks.

Thus, if we stop providing military assitance to the Saudi monarch, he will wbe weakened, and will have to divert more money to pay for security, leading to a reduction in funding for the clerics, who will now have a huge incentive to stop preaching violent jihad against heretics and unbelievers.

Of course, we still need to address the vulerability of the U.S. to terrorist attack. This has a very simple solution, we should repeal the alws and regulations that make such attacks as 9/11 possible. Namely, we should reduce the governmental security apparatus, and repeal laws that constrain and limit private security.

For example, anyone notice that on 9/11, the one aircraft where the passengers refused to cooperate with the hijackers never reached its target? That they were able to mount a partially effective defense without any weapons other than what they could improvise from materials scrounged from the cabin? essentially, in a bid to prevent hijacking, and I think out of a mindset that abhors an uncontrolled citizenry, government officials forbade the carrying of weapons by people who were not govt. officials on aircraft. This of course made resistance against evildoers who did manage to smuggle weapons into the aircraft impossible, which meant that the policy of cooperation was put in place to limit casualties amongst the victims.

Simply lifting bans and hurdles on private ownership of firearms would go a long way to hindering/eliminating most potential terrorist attacks. Permitting airlines to manage their own security would be a great first step. (My airline would distribute handguns with frangible bullets to any passenger who requested it :) )

Then, we need to end the taxpayer funded liability protection against damages due to terrorist attacks. For example, the high liability of storing thousands of gallons of ammonia should be borne by the person storing the ammonia, so that they have an incentive to reduce insurance premiums or the possibility of being wiped out by attempting to minimize their vulnerability to attack. Our current policy of having the govt. bail out industries that screw up, and provide liability protection has the perverse effect of reducing or safety, in my opinion.

This is a sensible low-cost approach because, we don't aggress against anyone let alone injure them, the rebels fighting the Saudi and Egyptian government lose any incentive to attack us, they will have access to less support to carry out such attacks, and it will cost us much less in the long run in American property consumed/destroyed and lives wasted.

Hakluyt|11.20.05 @ 2:33AM|#

M1EK,

No, the government of Saudi Arabia did not start a war with us.

Let us note that AQ specifically picked a largely Saudi crew to be involved in 9/11 so as to divide the U.S. from Saudi Arabia. Its not that most of AQ comes from Saudi Arabia (note that many members come from Egypt, include AQ's co-leader), its that they wanted to create some tension between the two countries.

|11.20.05 @ 6:40AM|#

Let us note that AQ specifically picked a largely Saudi crew to be involved in 9/11 so as to divide the U.S. from Saudi Arabia.

You don't know that. Unless you're on some Al Qaida planning commission, you don't know why those 20 people were chosen, what skills the had or who the other alternatives were. Using reason to extrapolate cause and effect is one thing, but pontificating on the reasons why an action was taken when you weren't privy to that action's leadup is pretty arrogant, even for you.

Wait, let me guess, your committee met at Little Round Top, where you spoke to each other in French, right?

Hakluyt|11.20.05 @ 7:35AM|#

Shem,

You don't know that.

Khallad Sheikh Muhammad gave three reasons for picking Saudis: (1) to drive a wedge, (2) because Saudis made up ~60% of those in the terrorist training camps at the time, and (3) because Saudis were the easiest group of middle eastern types that they could get into the country. Khallad Sheikh Muhammad might be a liar of course.

That they would want to create such a wedge isn't surprising; driving the near and far enemies apart (and destroying both) has been one of their stated goals since AQ was formed.

Hakluyt|11.20.05 @ 8:02AM|#

As to these statements about patriotism, etc. its rather empty political theatre.

|11.20.05 @ 9:27AM|#

To cut off the already-smoking strawman at its knees, nobody -- at least nobody on this thread -- has argued that veterans of either party should be "exempted from criticism." I, and others, have argued that they should not have charges of cowardice or treason leveled at them every time they deign to disagree with the war policies of the gang that couldn't shoot straight, particularly without a very good gorram reason, particularly by someone who never quite found the time to serve him- or herself.

|11.20.05 @ 10:14AM|#

"Democrats are constantly insinuating that Kerry, Cleland, Murtha, etc. should have a Veterans' Exemption from criticism"

No, we aren't. We're constantly claiming that they should have an exemption from charges of cowardice, treason, and anti-Americanism. Pity you can't tell the difference.

M1EK,

You are always (rightly) plinking hawks for claiming connections existed between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and using them an an excuse to Get Their War On. But then you turn around and make the same argument about the Saudis. Funding mosques that preach a hateful religious message is no more "sponsoring terrorism against Americans" than sending checks to Palestinian suicide bombers. I don't like the Saudis either, but come on!

|11.20.05 @ 10:19AM|#

Shem,

"Would 9/11 have happened if, having carried out his revolution, Bin Laden had been busy trying to hold his country under control? The Ayatollah hated us just as much as Bin Laden does, why didn't he order his country to attack us?"

Let's look at two similar examples: Iran under the mullahs, and Afghanistan under the Taliban.

The former funds terrorist attacks against Israel and Lebanon via proxies. And you know about the latter.

|11.20.05 @ 10:23AM|#

Seriously, M1EK, you're making the same mistake Bush made in invading Iraq - forgetting that our real enemies are stateless terrorists, and going after states, governments, and standing armies, just because, in Rummy's words, there are good targets there. You're just doing it 1000 miles to the south.

|11.20.05 @ 10:36AM|#

Joe,

You realize that the taliban were bankrolled by Osama bin Laden, Pakistan and the Saudi govt?

Without outside funding these guys are dead in the water.

If al Queda really tried to set up an Islamic Caliphate on the borders they claim, they'd need all the money they had just in holding on to the territory they had conquered.

Make attacking the U.S. a pointless luxury, rather than a necessity for realizing their immediate plans, and I think we would face as much risk of Islamic terrorism as does Japan.

|11.20.05 @ 11:00AM|#

I'm suspicious of any plan that involves letting terrorists control oil-rich territory. Something just doesn't seem quite right.

Then again, some people say that Jihadists flooding into Iraq aren't a bug, but rather a feature.

If the terrorists find that controlling Saudi Arabia is easier than we thought, maybe we could give them more territory to control as well. Eventually it will prove to be too difficult for them to go any further. Right?

Um, right?

|11.20.05 @ 11:08AM|#

Thoreau,

We already allow terrorists to control an oil rich country. I don't know if you are familiar with the Saudi religious police; they have a pretty horrific track record of terrorizing the Saudi populace.

Yet somehow, the monarch doesn't waste his time fighting us. Odd that...

M1EK|11.20.05 @ 2:42PM|#

"Seriously, M1EK, you're making the same mistake Bush made in invading Iraq - forgetting that our real enemies are stateless terrorists, and going after states, governments, and standing armies, just because, in Rummy's words, there are good targets there. You're just doing it 1000 miles to the south."

No, Joe, I'm putting the pressure on the governments which supported the terrorists who attacked us. First Afghanistan, then Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Iraq appears nowhere in my list.

M1EK|11.20.05 @ 2:44PM|#

"You are always (rightly) plinking hawks for claiming connections existed between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and using them an an excuse to Get Their War On. But then you turn around and make the same argument about the Saudis. Funding mosques that preach a hateful religious message is no more "sponsoring terrorism against Americans" than sending checks to Palestinian suicide bombers. I don't like the Saudis either, but come on!"

Joe, the support for "Saudis funding and supporting alQaeda" is iron-clad. The support for "Iraqis funding and supporting alQaeda" is nonexistent.

M1EK|11.20.05 @ 2:48PM|#

"I don't think we should have friendly relations with Saudi Arabia, but it was the policy of the governments of Japan and Germany to attack the U.S.."

That's true, and that's why each time I've stated what I would have done had I been in charge, attacking Saudia Arabia was the "then" after an "if", as in "if they didn't satsify our demands for X, Y, and Z".

If their government had directly attacked us, rather than just being responsible for the attacks through their funding of Wahabbism and associated actions, there would be no "if"; skip directly to "then".

|11.20.05 @ 3:07PM|#

attacking Saudia Arabia was the "then" after an "if", as in "if they didn't satsify our demands for X, Y, and Z".

So, what are x, y, and z? And if they didn't satisfy your demands, what then? You bomb the country and overthrow the government?

If their government had directly attacked us, rather than just being responsible for the attacks through their funding of Wahabbism and associated actions, there would be no "if"; skip directly to "then".

So you would demand that a foreign government stop funding a particular religion? Or just that the members of that government stop personally funding the terrorists?

|11.20.05 @ 3:33PM|#

Mr. Murtha (not the most articuale fellow) was given the chance to respond to the criticism this morning. He basically blew it off as a distraction. He did get one barb in though, by suggesting that she's just inexperienced...

|11.20.05 @ 4:45PM|#

You realize that the taliban were bankrolled by Osama bin Laden, Pakistan and the Saudi govt?

I did not realize the taliban was bankrolled by the Saudi government. Can you provide a link showing this to be the case?

Joe, the support for "Saudis funding and supporting alQaeda" is iron-clad.

Are you referring to the funding of madrasas here? Do you recognize any distinction between Wahabi Islam and Al Qaeda?

|11.20.05 @ 4:53PM|#

...I did find this bit over at Wikipedia:

"The Taliban received logistical and humanitarian support from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). An estimated $2 million came each year from Saudi Arabia's major charity, funding two universities and six health clinics and supporting 4,000 orphans. The Saudi King Fahd sent an annual shipment of dates as a gift."

Is this what you're referring to?

|11.20.05 @ 4:58PM|#

tarran-

So, you're saying that the problem in Afghanistan is that the Islamists didn't have to devote any of their resources to squashing their opponents, and hence they had the time and energy and resources to make 9/11 happen?

|11.20.05 @ 5:08PM|#

M1EK,

You're missing a couple of distinctions. First, between "putting pressure on..." and "bombing the hell out of and overthrowing." I'm all for "putting pressure on" the government of Saudi Arabia. Hell, I was all for "putting pressure on" Iraq. But you're talking about war, conquest, and occupation of yet another nation in the Middle East.

Second, when you say "Joe, the support for "Saudis funding and supporting alQaeda" is iron-clad," you're missing a couple of distinctions, which are blurred under the heading "Saudis." Support from people in Saudi Arabia, and even from some of the thousands of members of the House of Saud, is iron clad. But from the government itself? Toppling that government would do nothing to stop either Saudis, as citizens of that country, or Saudis, meaning members of the royal family, from funding Al Qaeda - any more than the overthrow of Saddam prevented Ansar or Zarqawi from continuing their operations.

|11.20.05 @ 5:14PM|#

To elaborate on joe's post, who's to say that the people we're most interested in wouldn't just slip out before the invasion? Or at least transfer their money to cells that can exact revenge in the US? Crazy billionaires on the verge of capture might decide that it's time to stop making small donations to terrorists and start handing over everything they've got.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't go after those guys, it just means that blunt instruments aren't always the best.

|11.20.05 @ 5:35PM|#

Could it be that, having been brought marginally into the world stage, he was reluctant to do something that would justify massive American action? What evidence is there to suggest that Bin Laden would be any different?

To my ear, this smacks of appeasement.

What evidence is there to suggest that bin Laden would behave differently flush with the resources Saudi Arabia?

What I do know, however, is that there's little justification for assisting the House of Saud here in AD 2005, given the fact that they require draconian measures to stay in power and can't even control their population enough to justify their check by protecting our interests.

You wrote of justification; please note, the only "justification" I've claimed regards protecting the rights and liberties of the American people.

As I wrote above, I wish the government of Saudi Arabia would do more in exchange for whatever assurances we've given them. I wish they'd stop exporting Wahabi Islam, and I wish they were even more draconian with Al Qaeda collaborators and active supporters in their midst. ...But even if they refuse, we might lose more than we gained by abandoning them to our enemies.

To cop a phrase, Al Qaeda would be worse!

I don't think a popular, fundamentalist government that overtly supported Al Qaeda and its ilk would have been better for the United States than the current Saudi government.

Perhaps that seems a false dichotomy to you, and, indeed, there are other possibilities. ...but when making policy, in the face of uncertainty, you have to consider probabilities and the worst case scenario. I don't like our chances of getting a government that isn't hostile to the United States and isn't friendly with our enemies, and the worst case scenario, from my perspective, puts Al Qaeda or its allies in charge of Saudi Arabian resources.

...our current implicit policy runs counter to the worst case scenario. So, in spite of my reluctance, I'm not so sure that it isn't a good policy.

|11.20.05 @ 5:49PM|#

How is it that we now find ourselves arguing with, on the one hand, a guy who thinks we should invade SA, and on the other hand a guy who thinks we should hand SA to Bin Laden?

No more of this for me.

|11.20.05 @ 5:51PM|#

To elaborate on joe's post, who's to say that the people we're most interested in wouldn't just slip out before the invasion? Or at least transfer their money to cells that can exact revenge in the US? Crazy billionaires on the verge of capture might decide that it's time to stop making small donations to terrorists and start handing over everything they've got.

To elaborate on thoreau's elaboration, if the Saudi government decided to crackdown on Al Qaeda support and the exportation of Wahabism, that would be great. But if the Saudi government is working to keep Al Qaeda sympathizers from commanding Saudi Arabia's resources, why not support it?

I find myself wondering why we're confining this discussion to Saudi Arabia. Aren't we in a similar quandary with the government of Pakistan? Pakistan has nukes! It is my understanding that there are people within the Pakistani security forces that are downright sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

...it is partially because of this that we support the government of Pakistan, is it not? Why is the situation with the government of Saudi Arabia any different?

|11.20.05 @ 6:00PM|#

How is it that we now find ourselves arguing with, on the one hand, a guy who thinks we should invade SA, and on the other hand a guy who thinks we should hand SA to Bin Laden?

I'm not sure I understand this. If you're suggesting that we're projecting these arguments onto these guys, that's one thing; but if you're suggesting that debating these guys is pointless, I think they're worth it. They both seem intelligent and fairly civil, and I hardly ever learn anything from people that agree with me.

...Oh, and there's always the outside chance I might persuade someone. ; )

Still, I'm goin' to see the new Harry Potter Movie. After reading kwais' post over at grylliade, I've been feelin' really weird doing what I usually do this weekend. For all I know, he's really psyched to be there, but I can't help but feel--I dunno--guilty I guess is the word.

...Catch y'all after the show.

|11.20.05 @ 6:11PM|#

OK, Ken, that's a good point. That was rather childish of me.

Apologies to M1EK and tarran.

M1EK|11.20.05 @ 7:28PM|#

"To elaborate on thoreau's elaboration, if the Saudi government decided to crackdown on Al Qaeda support and the exportation of Wahabism, that would be great. But if the Saudi government is working to keep Al Qaeda sympathizers from commanding Saudi Arabia's resources, why not support it?"

Because the Saudi government is still working to have alQaeda attack targets _outside_ the kingdom, by refusing to reign in the massive financial donations to the Wahabbis, who turn around and manufacture new terrorists by the boatload. Go check out jihadwatch - the theory that the Saudis have changed is a comforting one, but not really true.

M1EK|11.20.05 @ 7:30PM|#

"Are you referring to the funding of madrasas here? Do you recognize any distinction between Wahabi Islam and Al Qaeda?"

Not really. Wahabbi Islam generates the recruits for Al Qaeda; al Qaeda itself still has sympathizers within the kingdom, but most of the money coming DIRECTLY from Saudi Arabia has already escaped their clutches, even if they were interested in stopping it, which they clearly were not.

M1EK|11.20.05 @ 7:33PM|#

"attacking Saudia Arabia was the "then" after an "if", as in "if they didn't satsify our demands for X, Y, and Z".

So, what are x, y, and z? And if they didn't satisfy your demands, what then? You bomb the country and overthrow the government?"

YES.

What about this is so hard to understand? We were attacked on our own soil. You're with us or you're with the terrorists. Etc.

It's hard to find anybody ON THIS ENTIRE PLANET who was more "with" those terrorists than the Saudis.

I find it mindboggling that y'all are so fucked up that you think attacking the country which had the most to do with the guys who attacked us is somehow so much LESS reasonable than attacking Iraq that you keep twittering amongst yourselves at the amazing crackpot hawk. What the hell is wrong with you?

M1EK|11.20.05 @ 7:36PM|#

"You're missing a couple of distinctions. First, between "putting pressure on..." and "bombing the hell out of and overthrowing." I'm all for "putting pressure on" the government of Saudi Arabia. Hell, I was all for "putting pressure on" Iraq. But you're talking about war, conquest, and occupation of yet another nation in the Middle East."

Without the threat of military force, the pressure is useless. And again, yes, I'm talking about war. But, and here's the part where apparently I go off into cuckoo-land,

THEY ATTACKED US.

Going after a country whose citizens provided most of the personnel, most of the money, and most of the other support for alQaeda is somehow unreasonable, if at gunpoint they don't CUT IT THE HELL OUT?

"Toppling that government would do nothing to stop either Saudis, as citizens of that country, or Saudis, meaning members of the royal family, from funding Al Qaeda - any more than the overthrow of Saddam prevented Ansar or Zarqawi from continuing their operation"

Bombing the country to smithereens, assuming their government refused to comply with our demands that they CUT IT THE HELL OUT, would certainly impede the ability of Saudi citizens to join alQaeda, to fund alQaeda, etc.

BUT EVEN IF IT DIDN'T, this is war. Did we care that attacking Japan would turn Japanese citizens against us? Did we care what the German civilians thought of us?

What the hell is wrong with you people?

|11.20.05 @ 7:38PM|#

I find it mindboggling that y'all are so fucked up that you think attacking the country which had the most to do with the guys who attacked us is somehow so much LESS reasonable than attacking Iraq that you keep twittering amongst yourselves at the amazing crackpot hawk

M1EK, many of the people arguing with you in this thread think that invading Iraq was a horrific mistake.

Hell, I said that your case against SA is stronger than the case against Iraq.

|11.20.05 @ 8:00PM|#

M1EK,

You keep bringing up WW2 as if the government of SA attacked us. Again, I don't think this is reasonable.

Why is it that, when your ideas are challenged, you become so condescending? Why are the people who challenge you "fucked up?" How is your attitude ("this is war," "bombing the country to smithereens" "what is wrong with you people?") any different (in essence) than that of Bush and his administration?

Your attitude is particularly interesting because not long ago you were railing against homeschooling because (based on your mysterious expertise on child development and contrary to all the research on the subject), homeschooled kids wouldn't know how to get along with other people in the world. And here you are, unable to disagree with polite, reasonable people without calling them names.

M1EK|11.20.05 @ 8:28PM|#

"You keep bringing up WW2 as if the government of SA attacked us. Again, I don't think this is reasonable."

No, I've very clearly made the distinction between what would happen had the military of SA attacked us (attack them, right away, no negotiations) versus what should have happened when their citizens, with the complicity of their government, funded a terrorist group which attacked us.

And if you think I've lost patience with you, you are correct. I honestly have no respect for those who would have us do nothing to the Saudis, who were responsible for the worst attack on our own soil in our history. (Pearl Harbor, at least, was a military target).

If your answer is "we're not doing nothing", then I'd like to hear you explain how what we've been 'doing' has had any discernible effect compared to 'nothing'.

M1EK|11.20.05 @ 8:31PM|#

"M1EK, many of the people arguing with you in this thread think that invading Iraq was a horrific mistake."

That's true. Because Iraq didn't attack us and was no threat to us.

Saudi Arabian citizens attacked us, and continue to be a threat to us, until they stop funding and supporting groups like alQaeda.

The case for attacking SA is "stronger" than the case for attacking Iraq in the same sense that an elephant "outweighs" than a flea.

|11.20.05 @ 8:34PM|#

thoreau, you misunderstand my point.

I don't want to hand Suadi Arabia to bin ALden anymore than I want to hand Canad to bin Laden.

I honestly don't care who runs Saudi Arabia. Whomever wcontrols the oil fields will either put oil up for sale or not. If it's for ale, and we want it, we buy it. If it's not for sale, then oil prices are higher, thus spurring investment in new oil/fields/replacements for petrolm products, and we move on.

Honestly I don't think Osama bin Laden has a significant chance of toppling the Saudi monarchy: he has Hitler's gift for strategy (in other words he sucks at it). I think if he attacked the monarchy directly, he would last maybe two years before they were lopping his head off in a public square in Riyadh.

Even if he did overthrow the monarchy what's going to happen? his economic ideas are crap. I think within five years he would be so hated in any land that he ran, that he would have all his energies taken up putting down rebellions. He'll be even less of a military threat than the Russians were.

In the end though, my position is the doctrinaire libertarian one; we keep our mitts to ourselves and trade with those who are willing to trade with un on beneficial terms. We have no business propping up any government. Nor do we have any business destroying the property and lives of those who are not harming us, even if we manage to get a few bad guys in the process.

Now to M1EK :)

Speaking for myself, I think the thing that you find wrong with me is that I don't want to support acts of murder, and I lack your pathological hatred for petroleum products.

You cite Germany and Japan as examples of a good war. Do you know why those two countries declared war on us?

In the case of Japan it was fear. You see, Japan was isolationist until the late 19th century until the U.S. Navy opened up her ports to foreign trade by bombarding one of their cities. "Buy our stuff and nobody gets hurt", we told them.

The Japanese looked around and realized that they were in bad straits. They could see the once great China partitioned and looted by the various European empires, including the U.S.

There was a debate in the ruling classes as to what to do, and they decided that the choice was simpe, be an imperial power or an exploited colony. So they decided to become an imperial power. They started to play the game of empires, brutally carving out their own chunk of asia, and the European powers, who certainly weren't going to allow yellow people to compete on equal terms banded together with embargos and blockades to cripple the Japanese empire. Of course, the Europeans were officially outraged by the horrific atrocities comitted by Japan, yet they certainly were willing to turn a blind eye on atrocities comitted by Germany and Belgium in their colonies. Guess who headed the embargo? Our good friend FDR, yes america's fascist president, the kind of guy who thought destroying food while people were starving was just peachy keeen. He organized the embargo on oil sales to Japan. Tried to even set up a gulf of Tonkin incident by sending a spy ship to patrol ostentatiously and without protection off the coast of Manchuria. Well, FDR finally got the war he dreamed aout, and boy the Japanese did him a favor by blowing up a whole bunch of ships and pissing off Americans who then didn't think to ask, why are these guys attackign us when even they know they'll probably lose?

Do you know why the Japanese kept fighting after all hope was gone in WW II? They saw how savagely we Americans treated the Philipinos after they foolishly asked for the independence we promised them when we siezed that colony from Spain. Japan attacked us because we practiced gunboat diplomacy on their asses.

Now let us turn to Germany. Why did Hitler declare war on us? It might have been the support we gave to the English in WW II while we were officially neutral. Why did Hitler come to power? Because the Germans hated the allies pathoilogically. Why did they hate us pathologically? After World War I ended, England and th eU.S. continued their blockade of Germany leading to widespread hunger. We looted their economy for reparations. We ground them into the dust. Why? Because the allies had the arsenal of democracy, the U.S. government intervening on their side. But wait, we were officially neutral! Months before the war Wilson had won on a platform of "Too proud to fight," and "He kept us out of the war." What happenned? It seems that JP Morgan had lent alot of money to the British Crown. The Brits realized that both sides were on the ropes and would soon have to sue for peace, and without total victory, the English government would be in very deep financial doo doo. So they contacted theri financiers and said, "Unless the U.S. intervenes, you can kiss the money we owe you goodbye!" So the head of the Morgan bank calls up Col House (the Karl Rove of the Wilson administration), who just happened to have also worked for the Morgan family for many years, and asked him to get the U.S. into the war on England's side. And suddenly, before you could say "flip-flop," we went from being too proud to fight to "fighting to make the world safe for democracy" although if you look at the results of our intervention in that little dustup, the slogan should have been "Fighting to make the world safe for totalitarian dictatorships."

Do you notice the trend? How when we don't keep our mitts to our selves, but choose instead to meddle and threaten people and strong-arm them it seems to blow up in our faces a few decades later?

You realize that you are calling for us to threaten a monarch to do something emasculating, which he is guaranteed to refuse to do, and then to murder his subjects and destroy their property until he gives in and stops bankrolling those denouncing us? Wow, if we point guns at them an humiliate them, I'm sure they'll start being nice to us. It worked so well with Japan.

Have you considered applying political appointment to the defense Dept within the Bush administration position in the Pentagon? I think you'd fit right in.

|11.20.05 @ 8:36PM|#

Dammit! Hit post instead of preview. I apologize for the bad grammer and spelling mistakes.

Last pare should read, "Have you considered applying for a political appointment to the defense Dept within the Bush administration in the Pentagon? I think you'd fit right in."

M1EK|11.20.05 @ 9:36PM|#

tarran, you live in a very sad, dark, world if the only reason you can find for us fighting in WWII is because we're evil. That really brings me down.

|11.20.05 @ 10:20PM|#

Joe says-Funding mosques that preach a hateful religious message is no more "sponsoring terrorism against Americans" than sending checks to Palestinian suicide bombers.

And then, next post...

Let's look at two similar examples: Iran under the mullahs...[Iran] funds terrorist attacks against Israel and Lebanon via proxies

Because these statements are certainly consistent with each other. You can't state that sending checks to suicide bombers isn't supporting terrorism in one breath and then decry Iran as a terrorist state in the next because they do just that.

As distasteful as allowing hard-line clerics to take over Arabia would be, I would rather have them pent up in one country with all the demands of keeping the worlds largest welfare state running than have them out free to do whatever they want without any sort of control whatsoever. And then, if they do decide to screw it up, everything is right there in one country, just like it was in Afghanistan before we decided to do a half-assed job of it so we could move onto Iraq

|11.20.05 @ 10:45PM|#

I honestly have no respect for those who would have us do nothing to the Saudis, who were responsible for the worst attack on our own soil in our history. (Pearl Harbor, at least, was a military target).

Nobody here has advocated doing nothing. I, for one, don't think we should have friendly relations with totalitarian regimes. I'd prefer much higher gas prices to friendly relations with SA. But that doesn't mean I think we should turn SA into rubble. Mostly because "war sucks" is a rotten response to the idea of innocent men, women, and children being blown to pieces and burned alive.

During WW2 we firebombed civilian populations, killing hundreds of thousands of non-combatants. Do you think that was okay? You know, since it was WW2?

|11.20.05 @ 10:59PM|#

And if you think I've lost patience with you, you are correct.

So, is that your justification for calling polite, reasonable people "fucked up?" I hope you have a very, very low stress job.

|11.21.05 @ 12:21AM|#

Because the Saudi government is still working to have alQaeda attack targets _outside_ the kingdom, by refusing to reign in the massive financial donations to the Wahabbis, who turn around and manufacture new terrorists by the boatload.

My understanding is that the Saudi/Wahhabi alliance goes all the way back to the foundation of the First Saudi State.

"The First Saudi State was established in the year 1744 (1157 H.) when the Wahhabi leader Sheikh Mohammed ibn Abd al Wahhab settled in Diriyah and Prince Mohammed Ibn Saud agreed to support and espouse his cause, with a view to cleansing the Islamic faith from distortions."

----From Wikipedia

Even if we only trace that bargain back to the foundation of the Second Saudi State, the bargain between Wahhabists and the Saudi State goes back way before Al Qaeda ever existed. ...I think you're downplaying the historic role Wahhabists have had in legitimizing the Saudi government.

That is to say, it's unclear to me that the relationship between Saudi support for Wahhabi proselytizing and Al Qaeda is as clear and direct as you suggest. It also remains unclear to me that the benefits of disrupting Wahhabi proselytizing outweigh the risks of invading Saudi Arabia.

|11.21.05 @ 12:43AM|#

I, for one, don't think we should have friendly relations with totalitarian regimes.

Just to clarify my position...

Leaving our worst enemies with the implicit suggestion that we wouldn't tolerate a coup isn't the same as friendly relations in my book.

I found the image of Prince Abdullah holding Bush's hand like the President was his prom date entirely distasteful. As far as I'm concerned, Saudi Arabia is a vicious dictatorship that casts a blind eye on some of our worst enemies.

Hakluyt|11.21.05 @ 1:58AM|#

Ken Shultz,

You are basically right. The situation is far less clear cut than M1EK is willing to admit. Of course, now that M1EK has taken a stance and has backed himself into a corner I wouldn't much other than slobbering at the mouth from him.

Bombing the country to smithereens, assuming their government refused to comply with our demands that they CUT IT THE HELL OUT, would certainly impede the ability of Saudi citizens to join alQaeda, to fund alQaeda, etc.

If you are suggesting that bombing Saudi Arabia by itself will stop terror-funding, then you are wrong. The theory that bombing alone can be a weapon of strategic engagement has long been discredited. You need boots on the ground as well, and the absolute clusterfuck that would be is well known to anyone with eyes. Do us a favor, leave the military talk to those of us who have actually studied the subject. You can prattle on about planning and HOV lanes.

Hakluyt|11.21.05 @ 4:08AM|#

Les,

And here you are, unable to disagree with polite, reasonable people without calling them names.

M1EK, joe, thoreau, Jennifer, etc. are all hypocrites on that particular issue.

|11.21.05 @ 1:48PM|#

M1EK,

"THEY ATTACKED US."

Saudi Arabia did not attack us. Al Qaeda attacked us. Should England have bombed Ireland (and Boston and Chicago, by your reasoning)?

"What the hell is wrong with you people?" Well, I want to actually defeat and punish the people who were responsible, rather than settling for those with similar national backgrounds. What the hell is wrong with you?

|11.21.05 @ 1:53PM|#

"Joe says-Funding mosques that preach a hateful religious message is no more "sponsoring terrorism against Americans" than sending checks to Palestinian suicide bombers.

And then, next post...

Let's look at two similar examples: Iran under the mullahs...[Iran] funds terrorist attacks against Israel and Lebanon via proxies"

Sure, Shem, funding mosques, funding Hizbollah. Paying imam's salaries, paying the operating costs of bomb belt factories. Six of one, half dozen of the other. Sharp as a bowling ball, your "hypocrite" argument is.

|11.21.05 @ 2:00PM|#

M1EK, joe, thoreau, Jennifer, etc. are all hypocrites on that particular issue.

Hmmm, I've never heard thoreau be anything but civil, even when demolishing a weak argument. And I've never heard any of them talk about the importance of getting along with other people while calling them names. But I'll keep my eyes open. Ya hear that, TB'ers? I'm a'watchin! ;)

Hakluyt|11.21.05 @ 2:20PM|#

Les,

thoreau is a hypocrite because he tends to attack me alone for flaming. Then again, the only reason he has a problem with me is because I flame him.

And I've never heard any of them talk about the importance of getting along with other people while calling them names.

Heh. jennifer, joe and thoreau formed a little cabal to ignore me because they argue that I am a bad, bad flamer.

I on the other hand flame when I feel like it and don't act the hypocrite about other people flaming.

|11.21.05 @ 2:28PM|#

"If you are suggesting that bombing Saudi Arabia by itself will stop terror-funding, then you are wrong."

Not a policy recommendation, but I think there is a level of bombing destructiveness that could get the job done. I think here of the terms under which the Japanese surrendered.

They thought they would be wiped from the face of the earth, and they had a fairly significant transformation as a result. The starting point of the US reconstruction of Japan was that we'd demonstrated a willingness to wipe out Japanese people a hundred thousand at a time. You still need boots on the ground, just as we needed reconstruction, but the starting point may be very significant.

Hakluyt|11.21.05 @ 2:31PM|#

Jason Ligon,

Sorry, but hitting Saudi Arabia with a few nukes is immoral. It violates the rule of proportionality.

M1EK|11.21.05 @ 3:04PM|#

"Saudi Arabia did not attack us. Al Qaeda attacked us. Should England have bombed Ireland (and Boston and Chicago, by your reasoning)?"

That's stupid. The policy of the US government has not been to pay off Catholic Churches to preach hate towards England to get our own disaffected youth to go join the IRA and attack England instead of us.

Or has it?

Tyler|11.21.05 @ 3:15PM|#

I can't believe what I'm reading -- on 'Reason' of all places.

Jean Schmidt didn't call Murtha a coward. It doesn't take a graduate degree in English & Grammar to parse this one. She said "cowards cut and run; Marines don't." She did not say, "Murtha is a coward." The only way you could infer that is if you think he is, or if you're just looking for another excuse to go and be angry at Republicans (as if there aren't enough).

That aside, say she did. Why is a Marine exempt from being called a coward if the policy he advocates is, in fact, cowardly? Why does the left - or I'm sad to say in this case, libertarians - defend someone or some group as beyond reproach in every debate?

Seriously now -- "fucking whore?" "Cunt know-nothing jizz bag?" Real intellectual.

|11.21.05 @ 3:22PM|#

"The policy of the US government has not been to pay off Catholic Churches to preach hate towards England to get our own disaffected youth to go join the IRA and attack England instead of us."

Most of the IRA's funding came from American citizens, and virtually all of the people who planted the bombs were Irish. And the Irish government was always quite forthright (before the peace process) that the unification of the island was its long term goal. No, the analogy is not stupid, it's a near-perfect match. The only distinction is that the Irish government itself wasn't providing the money, that the citizens were doing it. Lemme guess - there's an Irish side to your family, and not an Arab one, right?

Tyler, she said, "A marine gave me a message for Representative Murtha: Marines don't cut and run. Cowards cut and run." She "passed on that message" to a retired colonel with two purple hearts.

|11.21.05 @ 3:28PM|#

M1EK can't tell the difference between the Irish government, the IRA and its sympathizers just as he can't tell the difference between the Saudi government, Al Qaeda and its sympathizers.

|11.21.05 @ 3:38PM|#

How do you know so much about the IRA, Mr. Boyle?

You wouldn't be on the wrong side in our global struggle against violent extremism, would you?

|11.21.05 @ 3:38PM|#

If we were to make a Dr. Strangelove for today, I think it would have to feature some nut who wanted to change Muslim culture by taking out the Kaaba.

|11.21.05 @ 4:47PM|#

funding mosques, funding Hizbollah. Paying imam's salaries, paying the operating costs of bomb belt factories.

And many of the actions Hizbollah carries out are the same sort of charity operations that mosques accomplish. It's one of the major reasons theat they're so popular. Conversely, many mosques serve as cover for terrorist actions. The line that you're pointing to isn't nearly as clear-cut as you're making it out to be.

M1EK|11.21.05 @ 5:13PM|#

"Most of the IRA's funding came from American citizens, and virtually all of the people who planted the bombs were Irish. And the Irish government was always quite forthright (before the peace process) that the unification of the island was its long term goal. No, the analogy is not stupid, it's a near-perfect match."

No, it's fucking stupid. Here's the part you';re missing. I will capitalize where it may be helpful for you.

The policy of the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT was not to PAY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH to spread a bunch of vile extremist crap all over the world to make sure that DISAFFECTED AMERICAN YOUTH would attack ENGLAND instead of THE UNITED STATES.

However,

The policy of the SAUDI ARABIAN GOVERNMENT was, in fact, to PAY THE WAHABBIS to spread a bunch of vile extremist crap all over the world to make sure that DISAFFECTED SAUDI YOUTH would attack THE UNITED STATES instead of THE SAUDIS.

|11.21.05 @ 5:19PM|#

thoreau,

I'm an Social Democrat and Labor Party man, myself.

I'm sorry, did you ask me something about Irish politics? ;-)

|11.21.05 @ 5:22PM|#

Shem, "many?" How about, many people who dislike Jesse Jackson are racists? Many people who support the Iraq war hate Arabs? We're not going to get very far with this line of "reasoning."

The issue raised was not about mosques that do religious work, charity work, and serve as a cover for terrorism. The point was about the preaching of Wahabbiist ideas, and I stand firm in my opposition that funding preachers who say things against us is a world away from funding militants who commit mass murder against us.

|11.21.05 @ 5:27PM|#

It's not that I don't understand your point, son. Your point is actually rather simplistic and obvious, and I imagine a medium-dull 12 year old would grasp it right away.

The problem is that I disagree with it. On two levels: First, words are not bombs. Second, even if I were to grant that the Saudi government was as guilty as you claim, you have been arguing for waging war agains the Saudi people.

And I'll also draw your, and everyone else's attention, to the fact that discussing THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, is a sad dodge, because the parallel I drew was to the Irish government, who did in fact endorse a message of resistance to England for decades.

M1EK|11.21.05 @ 5:49PM|#

"And I'll also draw your, and everyone else's attention, to the fact that discussing THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, is a sad dodge, because the parallel I drew was to the Irish government, who did in fact endorse a message of resistance to England for decades."

Sorry, your very first attempt to make this analogy included the cities of Chicago and Boston. It was a reasonable conclusion that you meant THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT.

But nevertheless, let's go back to the Irish.

Did the Irish government not only endorse, but in fact, PAY the Catholic Church to go out and preach against the evil English, so that disaffected Irish youth would attack England rather than the Irish government?

You keep missing the key point here. Hint: PAY. Not just SAY, but PAY.

|11.21.05 @ 5:52PM|#

"It was a reasonable conclusion that you meant THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT."

Or would have been, if you hadn't also been discussing the actions of individual Saudi citizens.

The Irish govenrment eliminated the middle man, and simply preached resistance to the English. That's a mighty fine reed on which to hang the annihiliation of one nation's population, and the preservation of another's.

M1EK|11.21.05 @ 5:53PM|#

"and I stand firm in my opposition that funding preachers who say things against us is a world away from funding militants who commit mass murder against us."

What the Saudis did was definitely the first, and 80% of the way to the second. What a few American citizens supposedly did in relation to the IRA is barely the second, and none of the first; in fact, our government actively discouraged said activities.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/001296.php

"Prominent members of the Saudi royal family continue to supply millions of dollars to al-Qaida and related groups, U.S. officials said, according to Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence service"

Again for fun analogy time. If Dick Cheney were donating a hundred grand here and there to fund the IRA, and Bush knew about it and did nothing, would the British be justified in demanding that we stop under the threat of military action? I'd say HELL YES.

M1EK|11.21.05 @ 5:54PM|#

"The Irish govenrment eliminated the middle man, and simply preached resistance to the English."

While I feel you're overstating in an attempt to desperately equate these situations, we preached resistance to many groups over the years. Paying somebody to indoctrinate your own disaffected youth to commit acts of terrorism, despite your claims, is quite a different thing.

|11.21.05 @ 8:12PM|#

If Dick Cheney were donating a hundred grand here and there to fund the IRA, and Bush knew about it and did nothing, would the British be justified in demanding that we stop under the threat of military action? I'd say HELL YES.

Again with the bonehead justification argument! Just because something is justifiable, doesn't mean it's smart. In your fantastic scenario, would it have been smart for the British to attack the United States if Cheney didn't stop?

M1EK|11.22.05 @ 9:14AM|#

"In your fantastic scenario, would it have been smart for the British to attack the United States if Cheney didn't stop?"

'Smart'? No, because we'd mop the floor with 'em. How is that relevant to the question of us and Saudi Arabia?

|11.22.05 @ 12:18PM|#

How is that relevant to the question of us and Saudi Arabia?

Even if I assume you're right, and we have some justification for invading Saudi Arabia, how do I know that we'd be better off for having invaded? Isn't it likely that invading Saudi Arabia would create more problems than it would solve?

Among other things, isn't it likely that attacking Saudi Arabia would radicalize Al Qaeda sympathizers throughout the Muslim world? By attacking Saudi Arabia, aren't you hoping to cut off Al Qaeda support? I don't understand why I shouldn't expect it to have the opposite effect.

And, once again, if we attacked the Saudi government, wouldn't it give a green light to our worst enemies to try to take the country? Leaving whom to defend Saudi resources from our enemies? Would you have us occupy Saudi Arabia?

To me, victory in the War on Terror looks a lot like post World War II Germany, where the children of Nazis are dismayed at the disgrace their parents heaped on their progeny. ...where former Nazis hide their past in embarrassment and shame. Attacking the government of Saudi Arabia wouldn't bring us any closer to that.

...to say nothing of the negative impact it would have on our national security.

M1EK|11.22.05 @ 2:23PM|#

"Isn't it likely that invading Saudi Arabia would create more problems than it would solve?"

Taken AS A GIVEN that all of your negatives would happen (I don't agree, but let's accept them for now),

the lesson that governments have learned from 9/11 is apparently: as long as you only PAY, SUPPORT, CODDLE, and ENCOURAGE the terrorists who murder a couple of thousand of Americans on their own soil, you get off scot-free.

Couldn't the long-term ramifications of that be pretty darn bad, too?

NOTHING we're even trying to do now does ANYTHING to make the Saudis less likely to support al Qaeda. Only al Qaeda's stupidly early attacks in SA did anything on that score.