Indeed.

Now if that speech were televised...

bush doesn't have any successes, what else is kerry going to say? "well, bush has managed to successfully... cause a lot of people to die!"

Eh. It's nonsense about the hijacking threats being weaker than the intelligence about going to war. The highjacking intelligence should have triggered higher security at the airports, like we have now. It should have made it impossible for known terrorists to get onboard planes using their real names. It should have let the FAA know that any highjackers were likely to use the plane as a weapon (even if the nature of the weapon was wrong, i.e., suspected bomb on plane versus plane as missile). It should have allowed our President to realize that when a plane hit the WTC, it wasn't a poor pilot, but an attack which makes leading our defenses more important than a photo op reading to our children.

The faulty Iraq intelligence has killed nearly 700 American soldiers in a battle against a country that was no longer a threat to its bordering neighbors, much less ourselves.

I have a hard time seeing how other intelligent people can't understand that.

Kevin

well kevin that must mean you be the smartest people alive if no body else but you can understand it

That's actually not what I said. If you feel like countering my points, that's one thing. However, making up things I didn't say is a bit unfair.

Kevin

You have a very narrow view of what this war is about Kevin. Bush had numerous excellent reasons to invade Iraq and for you to just blow Saddam off as no threat is completely vacuous.

x, you are right. Bush has caused a lot of people to die, thousands of terrorists or deadenders, with the exception of 700 exceptional heros.
Because you have a different view of the world, does not make your view correct. it only makes it your view. It does not make my view correct either, but I am more partial to mine, than yours. :)

Kevin, iraq is an important staging area for the war on terrorists and the regimes that support them. Iraq is not ONLY about immediate threats. It was and continues to be an effort to solve the long term problems of terrorists who desire to kill Americans and anyone else who does not subscribe to their view. You do not have to agree with that, or even believe it to make it true. If you live in America, your FIRST loyalties should be TO America. If you do not live in America, then too bad for you.
Monday morning quarter-backing is counterproductive and will not put the towers back in the holes created by the TERRORISTS.
Bush and his staff, in my view, have led the United States well. His supporters and detractors should pull together to defeat terrorists. They are real, and they want YOU, and me, dead.
I am proud of the men and women fighting for my right to live free of terrorism. I am proud to be one of 300 million Americans that our armed services feel should be free to live their lives without fear and oppression.
If you are an American and do not like America and the government elected by the MAJORITY, you should probably go live elsewhere. That is also the beauty of democracy. You can state your views, and if unable to change the minds of the majorities, can go else where. Freedom is a wonderful thing.

Kevin:
They could have had specific threats "19 men will hijack planes from Logan in Sept" and it still would not have been enough. The knives that were used were NOT against FAA rules. The word 'Hijacking' had always implied 'gun_S_-smuggled-aboard' + "bomb aboard". As such, even 'completely overboard' pre910 procedures wouldn't have turned up the knives as a real threat.

I do agree that INS/FBI needed to do a lot better coordinating to prevent 'known terrorist names' from getting on planes. I'd also point out that there's a pile of people who have "known terrorist names" NOW - who are still getting on planes! (After a strip search + FBI interview).

You know, I know, we all know that if the airlines had denied passage to a couple of people on a 'watch list' on vague mutterings of 'he's almost a qualified pilot' or 'he's been to Afghanistan' there would have been major lawsuits. We don't have to guess, because there are lawsuits even in a post-911 world over precisely the same things!

Even the "photo-op with the kids" is a hindsight position. Information from the press was pretty darn sketchy in the minutes between the two strikes - how much more do you think anyone in the govt had in there? The sheer volume of planes in the air meant it took more than 20+ minutes to get 'we're fine' back from all of the other planes. IIRC there were still questions at noon about a couple of planes! Two different stations (CNN and ABC I think) claimed the first strike was a smaller plane! They also both were muttering about 'what a horrible accident'. A second strike removes any doubt - you no longer have any interest in waiting for firm reporting - it is clear it was someone's intentional act.

Well, IF no WMD are EVER found in (or from) Iraq, then Clinton, Gore, John Kerry, the Congress, and the UN were wrong too.

But as everyone knows, Saddam did have and use WMD in the past.

How many people have died of murder in the US since this time last year?

In WWII, we lost hundreds in one to two weeks on a regular basis.

Perspective is in order (though all losses are tragic and unfortunate).

Joe Citizen - Iraq may be a staging area in the battle against terrorism, though reports are that there were few terrorists in Iraq before the war, and many more now. Know another good staging area? Afghanistan! We still have many soldiers there, fighting and dying, and they don't have the full support of this government, simply because they chose to fight two wars at the same time.

Also, I find it's important to find what mistakes we made in the past, leading up to the massive intelligence failure and tragedy that was 9/11. It's not Monday Morning Quarterbacking. It's figuring out what we did then, so we know what needs to change to protect ourselves in the future.

I don't have a problem with the minority of people who elected George W. Bush. I'm no staunch democrat, and would have voted for McCain over Gore, had that been the option. I do object to you belief that because I don't agree with our President, that I'm a bad citizen, or a bad American. Is everyone who voted for Dole in 1996 a bad American, because they didn't support the last President to win an election? Of course not. They were fulfilling thier Constitutional rights, and honestly hoped to change the country for the better. I want to live in an America where we constantly try to fix our problems, instead of sticking our heads in the sand, ignoring them, fearing that we'll be labelled bad Americans.

Junkyard God - Bush had many reasons for going to Iraq, and the American public wasn't buying any of them, prior to his insistence and faulty information that they were a threat to America. Only at that point did Americans by and large feel that something should be done about them. In retrospect, he was wrong. They weren't a threat. They had no weapons. And while it's fine to blame the people under him who gave him that information, it would appear that they stressed to him that they didn't believe the intel. Bush had decided to go to war with Iraq since the beginning of his presidency, for whatever reason. That he used the events of 9/11, events which Iraq played no role, as a battle cry to go to war is disgraceful, doubly so when you take into account that he couldn't be bothered to finish the job in Afghanistan.

Kevin

The problem appears to be proactiveness and reactiveness. A free society generally reacts to situations – it gets attacked first then counter attacks. A fascist or communist society is more proactive – secret police, detentions, and offensive warfare. Before 911 we weren’t proactive enough, as that would have involved detaining people without sufficient cause – a bit fascist. A war against Afghanistan would have been unthinkable – Soviets had already done that and failed. Assassinations, no matter how justified, were illegal and dirty. The government is accused of not doing enough before 911 and doing too much after 911. It would be impossible to get a balance that would please everyone.

The Iraq War appears to be somewhat unusual as it is quite proactive – or is it? In the GWOT a lot of nations are potential enemies and the US is just reacting against them. It seems that people have forgotten the concept of war by proxy whereby you encourage with arms, money and sanctuary the foes of your enemy. For some reason you cannot engage your enemy directly so you manipulate others to do it for you. The US has done a lot of this sort of thing in Central and South America, Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria use terrorist organisations to fight their enemies by proxy. With the fall of the Soviet Union our main impediment to direct warfare was removed thus allowing us to engage our enemies directly. If our enemies see that we will use direct military force against them they will stop their proxy war against us. Iraq was the logical country to strike first for a multitude of reasons that we are all familiar with. It was also something of the “soft underbelly” of the Middle East. Libya has understood the lesson and now we shall see if the others have too.

You mean send 135,000 troops to Afghanistan? Not sure I buy this argument, Kevin.

Seems to me it's been "easier" for us to fight in two places than AQ.

Agree with your citizenship points (and for recognizing that the President is not directly elected on a national basis) :)

Al,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Proof that two people can have the same information, and reasonably look at it in differnet perspectives.

You're absolutely right that it's easier to say on 9/12 what went wrong than to anticipate it on 9/10. Still, one of the roles of the Government is to defend the citizens. Our government failed to do that on 9/11. Is it their fault? Well, they didn't fund the terrorists, they didn't train the terrorists, they didn't pilot the planes. I may think poorly of our president, but I'm not a tinfoil hat type. No, they didn't cause it to happen. But I feel that with the information they had, they had a fighting chance to prevent it. Moreso, with all the criticism they've faced recently due to the 9/11 commission, I imagine that if they had done anything in response to the numerous theats and inklings that were working there way up the system, that they would provide those documents. That they haven't makes me believe that those documents don't exist, and that our government, helmed by our President, didn't take them seriously. I could be terribly mistaken, I admit that. It's simply my thought process.

I also grant you the point that the government might have been sued by people who were blacklisted because they shared a name with a known terrorist. Frankly, that's a risk I would be willing to take. If you're not, I understand, and don't fault you. Again, personal opinion.

Again, I'd like to thank you for your polite tone, even though you disagree with me.

Kevin

I believe we are now into the third year of a global war that will likely last as long as World War III (Cold War), that is, 40 years or more. The strategic considerations for the Iraq campaign are solid; there was noplace better within the Mid-East to attack. WMD were merely the legalistic arguments, unimportant to any but lawyers.

Kevin:

Think you misunderstood comments re. Iraq as a staging area. Joe didn't mean a staging area for terrorists as much as a staging area for US. In that regard, Afganistan is much too poor and far removed from the epicenter of terrorism (i.e. Saudi Arabia) to truly serve as an effective base of operations. Likewise, the relatively high level of eduction and natural resources in Iraq make recovery and prosperity possible in the near-term. Combine that with the fact that Iraq is the only country to effectively bridge the many culturals throughout the region (large Arab and Kurdish population, as well as the Shiia connection to Persians) and Iraq is the ally to have against terrorism in the coming years.

Concerning the never-ending "war was based on WMD deception" cannard, I will try and consolidate my thoughts better and post them at my sad little blog soon.

Kevin As long as we're being polite, I'd like to remind you that his title is President, not Junkyard God - Bush. He was duly elected. And please do not start with the little diversion about how he 'stole' Florida, or I'll have to counter with how the Gore camp wanted to throw out the Overseas military votes - among other irregularities.

Dean,

I hope you don't really feel that the WMD were merely the reason for the lawyers. As much as some people don't like to admit it, World Opinion is important. When you tell the world that you're going to invade another country because they've done XYZ, and they haven't, those countries will be less likely to believe you and support you the next time you tell them anything. It's the Boy Who Cried Wolf, only with people's lives at stake, not sheep's.

Cap'n Doc.

Good catch. :) Actually, I was naming the prior poster Junkyard God, but I'd been trying to type "President Bush", as I know sometimes these discussions become heated. Nor was my intent to bring up Florida. I was merely restating the fact (and it is fact), that President Bush was not the choice of most Americans who voted in the 2000 election. He won the game by the rules, but he is not the representative of the majority, as had been stated in this thread, where my patriotism was called into question.

submandave.

I understood the concept of Iraq as a staging area, but for what? Wholescale invasions of other countries in the region? We've been told, time and time again, that the war on terror (Which I suppose I should say I support, less I'm framed as pro-terrorist) will not be fought like other wars. There is no Terroristan, where once we take the capital, we've won. The peope we're fighting are all over the world. They're in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, America, Canada, Great Brittain, Spain, France, Russia, Jamaica, Brazil, you name it. But that's exactly how we appear to be fighting it. Iraq was lumped in as part of the GWOT, despite the fact that they weren't the home of terror, despite the fact that it was relatively terrorist free, given Saddam's control of the country. He controlled thugs who didn't permit that sort of thing. Now, before I'm labelled as pro-Saddam, I dont' think he was a good person, or should have been in control of Iraq. But if one ignores the facts because they don't support their theory, one's being short-sighted.

As an American citizen, I question the President's tactics, as is my right as a citizen of this great country. Could I be wrong? Of course I could be. I could be right, too. Fortunately for the many citizens of this country, I'm not the one making these decisions. I do not, however, feel that President Bush is the proper one to be making them either. Would Kerry be better? I don't know. No one does.

Also, while I agree that having Iraq as an ally would be very useful, I'm not sure that will be the end result, even if we do help bring democracy to that nation.

Back to the main topic, because I think I explained myself poorly the first time: I don't think the same level of evidence is required to tighten up security as is required to launch a pre-emptive attack on a foreign nation.

Jeff:

"How many people have died of murder in the US since this time last year? In WWII, we lost hundreds in one to two weeks on a regular basis. Perspective is in order (though all losses are tragic and unfortunate)."

By your logic, we shouldn't have done anything in response to 9/11, because ten times more people die in auto accidents than did on 9/11. Perspective is in order (though all losses are tragic and unfortunate).

Nice spin, x.

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your point.

The 700 have died as a result of DOING SOMETHING post 9/11.

I certainly did not mean to say we should not have done anything after 9/11 and I applaud your support of our President's post 9/11 policies.

Yer comin' around, x. Won't be long til your cured.

I am working anc can't keep up with the thread but I will respond.

Kevin,

You said the American people did not buy Bush's many reasons for going to war. That is a false statement. It was the official policy of the US to overthrough Saddam as far back as 1998, passed by Congress, signed by Clinton. Bush was given authorization by the majority in Congress to invade. This was after his UN speech of 9/12/02 in which he layed out in detail the numerous reasons for which Saddam must go.

In addition, you say that the war in Iraq distracts from the war in Afghanistan. How are you measuring this? The troops in Afghanistan continue their work. Indirect pressure on Musharref from our victory in Iraq has forced him to apply force on the Pakistani side of the border. This, and the fact that AQ has been fighting tooth and nail to keep us from succeeding in Iraq, indicates a clear linkage. And, our country can fight in two places at the same time, you know.

Kevin:

I have always thought "War on Terror" was convenient but a bit of a misnomer. It would be more accurate to say it is actually a war on terror with a global reach. This meaning that while we may have concerns from a humanitarian and cultural basis in something like the IRA used to do, it really wouldn't apply to the GWOT as the IRA have shown no interest in exporting their terror or threatening US national security. If we can agree that my description more accurately reflects the realistic goals of the war, it then seems obvious that there are two primary and simultaneous aproaches to the goal: 1. eliminate the terrorists, and 2. eliminate the means by which terrorists achieve global reach. While the first is obviously a big part of what we did and continue doing in Afganistan, I feel the campaign in Iraq directly supports the second.

I will agree all day that Saddam's Iraq was largely devoid of terrorist acts, but I don't think it therefore follows that it was devoid of terrorists. To use one of the most noted cases, where did Abu Nidal spend his last days and who foot the bill? While not directly linkable to 9/11, Saddam did have ties and connections to various known terrorists and terrorist organizations (including al-Queda).

Now, try to look at the following without using your hind sight: You are at war, and there is a country that is not only in a very strategic position, but is explicitly hostile. The government of this country has known associations with your enemies. The best estimates are that he posesses WMD (remember, no hind sight here), has demonstrated in the past a willingness to use them and has refused, despite repeated warnings, to prove he no longer has them. Do you wait it out in the status quo, betting that these presumed WMD don't show up somewhere you don't want? Also consider that because of this bad guy you have been keeping military assets in Saudi Arabia to protect their oil fields, a presence that was specifically cited as a factor in the 9/11 attacks. Or, do you take care of the bad guy now and eliminate another source of terrorism support, getting your forces out of Saudi as a bonus?

Returning to your original point, though, I agree with Fred Thompson. The infamous PDB said that Bin Ladin had wanted to attack in the US since 1997. That he might try hijacking to get prisoners released. Do you really believe the President should personally initiate heightened airport security everytime there is an analysis that summarizes nefarious four-year long desires? This was summary background information, the main point of which was "we know he's out there and we're keeping a watch". If we were looking in the wrong direction or if we overlooked something is important to discover and, if possible, fix, but that's "in the grass" stuff and certainly not anything a politically driven commission will shed any light on.

submandave

Excellent points made regarding Iraq. I must admit I never looked at it that way, and you present a compelling argument. I'm still not sure I agree with the actions taken, but that's probably the best argument for war with Iraq that I've seen. Give me some time to think it over.

There are two things I do disagree with you, however. The first is the notorious PDB. It read that known terrorists within the country were making preperations consistent with a high jacking. That wasn't the historical information that Dr. Rice kept mentioning, but, to use her words, actionable intelligence. If you were President, and were told that, would you be willing to heighten airport security to prevent highjackings? I would.

The second is your claim the the so-called 9/11 Commission is politically motivated. It's comprised of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats so that there is a balance on it. If it comes back with a report that disparages the Bush Administration, it's going to be because it happened on their watch. I've read speculation in mainstream papers that it's going to give poor marks to both the Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration, as perhaps it should. If it happened under President Clinton's watch, or Reagan's, or Carter's, or Ford's, the report would hurt them too. The present administration ignored current intelligence, for reasons that are beyond me.

I think that's it for me for the night. Thanks to the people who took time out of their days to discuss this with me.

Kevin

I've never understood the argument from the left that by fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq we are somehow taking away from the fight against Al Qaeda.

one of the roles of the Government is to defend the citizens. Our government failed to do that on 9/11.

If, in the face of the WTC and Pentagon attacks, the government did nothing, then that would be true. However, given that there was an attack in progress, and the government reacted with immediate force, I'd say they did a pretty good job in the circumstances.

Jeff: "and I applaud your support of our President’s post 9/11 policies."

Where did I say that in my post? I applaud going after Bin Laden, no more, no less. The President has clearly fouled up the entire act of prosecuting the real culprits behind 9/11.

STOP THE WAR!

The one waged by Islamofacists against all western people and interests. Who are these americans who think Bush, and their own people in the military are the enemy?

Derek, they all think Bush invented the WMD thing. Ya know, he got Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Blair and all the liberals in congress to go along.

Oh, and he got the UN to think it as well.

They probably think Bush gassed the Kurds.

Jeff,

Do you know, I think I remember reading that Pass the Gas said "Bush made that Kurd gassing story up years ago before he ever ran for ANY political office"?

The Loony Left constantly remind me of that "War Hero" crap that the Kerry campaign spews !!! It makes as much sense as Pass the Gas's comment.

Kevin wrote in regard to the Historical Docukment PDB,

" If you were President, and were told that, would you be willing to heighten airport security to prevent highjackings? I would."

What were we told? The paragraph above the paragraph that says 'Hijackings' and 'Surveillance of New York Federal Buildings' specifically says 'NOT CORROBORATED!'

Read the PDB again Kevin.

Also.. What does 'Heighten Security' have to do with stopping the 9/11 plot? You would basically have to shut down all of the airports since box knives were considered A OK by the FAA and there was a federal law that would issue $500 Fines to any Airport that questioned 2 Arabs or more. E.t.c. E.t.c. E.t.c. Heightend Security would not have prevented the 9/11 plot.

The only ones wanting to place blame on both Clinton and Bush are those that want to believe we could have done something about 9/11 that would have prevented the attacks.

But with Jamie Gorelick's 1995 Memo that created a Chinese Wall between FBI and CIA, there is no way in God's Green Earth that President Bush could have 'predicted the future' and churned up a strategy to prevent 9/11 from happening along side the Chinese Wall.

So, after a determined - but failed - effort to stop the 911 commission from ever being formed, and attempting to stack the commission with Republican dead weight, and stonewalling on essential documents, and holding out on the Rice testimony, and demanding the buddy system for a "visit" by Bush/Cheney....now the GOP is trying to discredit the commission report before it's even released.

Some GOP voters will not see through the fog, and will say that Bush is God and was not responsible for protecting the nation prior to 911. Some GOP voters, exhausted by repeated efforts to defend Bush's many failures, will realize that they have been fighting a losing cause and harming the country. The closer we look, the more Bush bleeds.

Next up, the pre-Iraq war intellegence commission report.

leaddog2 You may be lucky that Pass the Gas doesn't visit this pge very often, if at all. I can't imagine Pass tellin' a Stretcher like that one. You give him more credit than he deserves.

The thing about the comparison of Iraq to Vietnam, is that it backfires. Militarily, Vietnam as a whole and Tet especially were American wins. It was politicians like Ted Kennedy that stopped our support for the South in 74 and 75, after we had pulled out, after the North had signed a peace treaty and then violated it. It was politicians like Ted Kennedy that lost that war, that made every American death to no effect.

If this is Bush's Vietnam, what that tells me is that no matter how well our military does at acheiving victory or rebuilding Iraq, there are politicans who are bound and determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Some of then are the same guys as last time.

Cap'n Doc,

Pass did say something like that. I will admit that I MAY have enhanced it, but only VERY slightly.

However, we get similar comments from x and Partiot constantly. They must be McAuliffe hires at the DNC. I hear he reduced the intelligence required for political writers to the 50 (or so) IQ level.

Based on what they post, that figures!

I always find it both comical and pathetic to read the excrutiatingly careful logical meanderings of those who would dearly love to see a sufficient number of US casualties to cause us to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan - whilst pretending to love our troops and claim to be patriots. 'Tis merely a game of verbal "Twister" and disingenuous in the extreme.

The adoption of certain types of posting nyms often reveals the level of deceit you can expect: "Patriot" / "Truth" / ad nauseum

It is certainly easy for a president who avoided fighting in Vietnam to send troops to be butchered in Iraq under false pretences. (WMD)

The families of the 700 soldiers killed in vain and of the thousands maimed will certainly have a different view point.

Truth

Only if their dumb enough to believe you "Truth". You should really change your name to "Bizzaro Truth" it fits you much better.

Brian, is that the extent of your argument?

Pretty sad!

Truth

The families of the 700 soldiers killed in vain

Jumping the gun a bit there, Truth. Those 700 soldiers died to bring to Iraqis the right to have discussions like the ones on this web site. Discussions that you are participating in. Discussions that brought swift sentences of torture and death to hundreds of thousands under Saddam.

And you don't think it odd, perhaps even hypocritical, that you use your freedom of speech to defend someone who tortured and murdered so many who were trying to get the freedoms you're enjoying?

That is the truth. And you have done a horrid job of living up to your namesake.

If you think I wrote one single word to defend Saddham you must have misread my posting.

I was only pointing out that if by trying to find a remedy for the disease Saddham your cure is the creation of an Islamic state I would argue that you should sue your doctors.

In this case WB, Rumfeld, Cheney and co.

Truth

You declared the soldiers' deaths to be "in vain" (your words). Dictionary definitions:

"1. Having no real substance, value, or importance; empty; void; worthless; unsatisfying.

"2. Destitute of forge or efficacy; effecting no purpose; fruitless; ineffectual."

So, the soldiers' deaths are pointless. Let's just go ahead and return Saddam to power, if that's the case. In fact, I dare you to say that in northern Iraq. That's where the Kurds mostly live, just in case you don't already know. That's where they have their very own Kurdish Holocaust museum, dedicated to the memory of Saddam's Kurdish victims. Go ahead and tell them that it's all been an exercise in vanity. Or, if you don't have the means to travel that far, just go to Detroit instead, and say it to someone who risked his life to escape the Butcher of Baghdad. You already said it on here. Go ahead and say that to him.

If you have the balls, that is.

All that garbage to miss the point. So being such a patient guy I will repeat it just for you as you seem a bit slow.

If you have destroyed Saddham's regime to replace it by an Islamic state then these 700 US soldiers would have died in vain.

Got it this time?

Go and ask the people under the Talibans if they were happier than the Iraqis under Saddham?

Truth

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: