The White House’s reliance on questionable operatives, and on plans involving possible lethal action inside Iran, has created anger as well as anxiety within the Special Operations and intelligence communities. JSOC’s operations in Iran are believed to be modelled on a program that has, with some success, used surrogates to target the Taliban leadership in the tribal territories of Waziristan, along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. But the situations in Waziristan and Iran are not comparable.
In Waziristan, “the program works because it’s small and smart guys are running it,” the former senior intelligence official told me. “It’s being executed by professionals. The N.S.A., the C.I.A., and the D.I.A.”””the Defense Intelligence Agency””“are right in there with the Special Forces and Pakistani intelligence, and they’re dealing with serious bad guys.” He added, “We have to be really careful in calling in the missiles. We have to hit certain houses at certain times. The people on the ground are watching through binoculars a few hundred yards away and calling specific locations, in latitude and longitude. We keep the Predator loitering until the targets go into a house, and we have to make sure our guys are far enough away so they don’t get hit.” One of the most prominent victims of the program, the former official said, was Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior Taliban commander, who was killed on January 31st, reportedly in a missile strike that also killed eleven other people.
A dispatch published on March 26th by the Washington Post reported on the increasing number of successful strikes against Taliban and other insurgent units in Pakistan’s tribal areas. A follow-up article noted that, in response, the Taliban had killed “dozens of people” suspected of providing information to the United States and its allies on the whereabouts of Taliban leaders. Many of the victims were thought to be American spies, and their executions””a beheading, in one case””were videotaped and distributed by DVD as a warning to others.
It is not simple to replicate the program in Iran. “Everybody’s arguing about the high-value-target list,” the former senior intelligence official said. “The Special Ops guys are pissed off because Cheney’s office set up priorities for categories of targets, and now he’s getting impatient and applying pressure for results. But it takes a long time to get the right guys in place.”
It looks like another Pentagon Papers-style leaking of information by is being conducted by trusted(?) individuals.
One day the New York Times, the next day the The New Yorker.
How politically convenient for the Democrat presidential and Congressional campaigns now being waged.
Is there a time coming when security administrators are going to have to pay attention to a person’s political leanings when granting security clearances?
There is a way to handle this situation and it is within the system of checks and balances already in place. All that the loyal opposition in Congress has to do is to demand clarification from the executive branch of government. If anything relating to national security is to be released to the public, then it should be released in accordance with the governmental processes given to the “loyal opposition” by the Constitution.
To do otherwise is to be ‘dis-loyal.’
Hersh’s reporting is of questionable reliability. This one is loaded with “anonymous sources.” Who knows? There’s no way to check him.
The NY Times and the Washington Post have both published classified information without clearance on several occasions in the past five years. My opinion is that some reporters and their sources should be indicted.
I listened to Mr. Hersh and his bias and visceral hatred of the President came through loud and clear.
[blockquote]How politically convenient for the Democrat presidential and Congressional campaigns now being waged.[/blockquote]
You mean like the White House and Lieberman coming out with the assertion there will be an al Qaeda attack in 2009?
[blockquote]There is a way to handle this situation and it is within the system of checks and balances already in place. All that the loyal opposition in Congress has to do is to demand clarification from the executive branch of government.[/blockquote]
Which is routinely refused by this administration.
[blockquote]My opinion is that some reporters and their sources should be indicted.[/blockquote]
You mean like the leaks coming from the White House and Vice President’s office designed to influence elections?
The person leaked the identity of an covert CIA agent in revenge for her husband’s honesty has still not been identified and indicted, although Libby was the sacrificial goat for his perjury.
The person leaked the identity of an covert CIA agent in revenge for her husband’s honesty has still not been identified and indicted, although Libby was the sacrificial goat for his perjury.
You need to follow the news more carefully. The person to whom you are referring is Richard Armitage (who didn’t do it for revenge but because he’s a self-important buffoon), and no one on the left side of the aisle has called for his indictment, because he was generally sympathetic to their position on issues.
This is the same Seymour Hersh who was predicting that we’d have our asses handed to us on plate in Afghanistan by the end of 2001, right?
Ken Peck:
[i]The person leaked the identity of an covert CIA agent in revenge for her husband’s honesty has still not been identified and indicted, although Libby was the sacrificial goat for his perjury.[/i]
You have got to be kidding me. Here’s the name: Richard Armitage. Look it up: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/08/leak.armitage/index.html
That you would cling to “Plamegate” as some kind of indictment of the President is pretty unfortunate.
This shouldn’t be surprising to anyone. It’s how the administration works. The administration really believes Iran is lying and is now looking for the information. It’s aggressive and helps the Iranian Theocrats justify themselves (after all, would the US do this if Iran DID have nuclear weapons?), but these are details.
Hersh is one of the most well-respected journalists in the country because he’s not beholden to any media outlet. He’s been wrong, but most of the time he’s been right. I know of no responsible journalists who doubts his integrity. He’s one of the truest examples of an independent journalist around. He doesn’t pander to the government.
Of course, the best people can do is say, he has a visceral hatred of the president.
Of course, in spite of the president’s promise to bring the lawbreaker to justice, Richard Armitage was never indicted. And, of course, it is the Executive, not the Congress, that is charged with the duty to prosecute those who break the law.
It isn’t clear why the “side of the aisle” has anything whatever to do with the enforcement of the law.
John Wilkins: Given that Iran has long been the world’s most renowned state sponsor of terrorism, and that they have been materially supporting the insurgents in Iraq against our troops, why [i]shouldn’t[/i] the President believe Iran is lying? What information are you privy to that he is not? Or do you just not trust him?
That you would be blind to Mr. Hersh’s bias is not a surprise. That you do not see the treason in his reports is unfortunate.
Ken Peck: if enforcement of the law is such a big deal to you, then I’m sure you are of the opinion that the 42nd President of the United States should have been removed from office as a result of his impeachment.
Sy Hersh has been trying to peddle this “W is gonna blow Iran off the map after the election” for well over a year. I personally wish we would, but true to form it will be the Israeli’s who will end up doing our dirty work.
Check out this post at Power Line on Mr. Hersh’s article.
Ken & John, right on, brothers! This Administration is run by a cabal of right-wing neo-con headed by Cheney. It has been a disaster on economic grounds alone: because of the trillions of debt Cheney/Bush have heaped upon us, the dollar has plunged under their reign. The exchange rate alone is a VERY large part of the escalating oil prices — the dollar simply does not go as far as it did before the Iraq invasion and occupation. Oil futures are valued in dollars, and the speculators (leery of investing in the dollar itself) have rushed in as our currency has plummeted in value. It’s been a good buy for most; and the big oil companies’ profits have hit astronomical, jaw-dropping all-time highs (and of course, we taxpayers continue to subsidize these firms with all sorts of tax breaks.) That smell from the Capitol Dome reeks of oil!
The next President (whomever is elected) has a horrible, horrible economy as well as disastrous foreign policy to unsnarl.
And billqs: If the Israelis DO invade Iran, it will be with weapons and supplies paid for by us US taxpayers. And if they DO invade Iran, the Middle East will simply EXPLODE. I pray that wiser, cooler heads will prevail, and soon! (Altho from experience, Cheney/Bush ignored their own ‘wise men’, the Baker Commission, so who knows what they are doing now, and what harm they are about to cause all of us? What do they care? Their kids are safe, NOT in the military; and they are about to retire on their fat government pensions….and the next Administration will be left to deal with the mess!)
Ken & John, you are correct, but as you probably know, not many on this blog will stick their head up and publicly agree with you! 🙂 However, many, many are reading these comments and nodding in agreement. Just remember, our views on these matters are those of the vast, vast majority of Americans who are sick and disgusted by this six-year war, and the effect it is having on our economy and lives. Now, we must make SURE to VOTE!
Re #4: “The person leaked the identity of an covert CIA agent in revenge for her husband’s honesty has still not been identified and indicted, although Libby was the sacrificial goat for his perjury.”
Ken, you can’t be serious. Joe Wilson has been discredited and debunked even by liberals in his dishonesty in this whole affair. He deceitfully suggested that he was sent by Cheney, which he wasn’t. He then said Irag never tried to get yellow cake from Niger, and then in front of congress provided evidence which showed just the opposite. The Congressional Democrats’ thirst for blood seemed to end when they found the bean-spiller was Richard Armitage.
Little Cabbage, are you really that much a supporter of Saddam, or do you just hate Bush that much? I suspect there is nothing that Bush could do to please you. Clinton went to war with Serbia with much less justification than Bush. At least Iraq was in violation of of the peace treaty it signed at the end of the first Gulf War.
I guess my biggest problem with Hersh on this “the Administration is trying to get the current Iranian government overthrown” story is that he says it as if it would be a bad thing.
Of course, in spite of the president’s promise to bring the lawbreaker to justice, Richard Armitage was never indicted. And, of course, it is the Executive, not the Congress, that is charged with the duty to prosecute those who break the law.
Ken, I must either conclude that you are a deliberate liar or that you are an ignoramus. The President, at the demand of the Democrats, gave the prosecution of this case to a Special Prosecutor, who found out early that Armitage was the “leaker”. Yet he did not indict him but instead went for Libby who was politically a better catch and indicted him on specious charges.
[b]Bernini[/b] said: “why shouldn’t the President believe Iran is lying? What information are you privy to that he is not? Or do you just not trust him? ”
Yeah! Just like when Iraq said they didn’t have WMDs, but the President knew they were lying, so we trusted him and look how well it turned out! Oh, wait…
Scott, really, let’s be reasonable here. The president didn’t lie about WMD. And if you don’t think he had them, just ask the Kurds who lost tens of thousands of their people from being gassed. And yes, it has turned out well for the Iraqi people who now don’t have to worry about being dragged out of their house to be tortured, raped or killed by their president or his sons, and they’re finally able to have schools, cell phones, running water and hospitals that they didn’t have before – not to mention the right to vote.
With all due respect, Scott, the “Bush lied, Iraq had no WMDs” is a tired and frankly juvenile argument. The Russians thought Saddam had them. The Germans did too. As did the British and the French. If he [i]didn’t[/i] have them, why the deception and doubletalk? And who’s to say he didn’t take the 13 month run-up to the invasion as an opportunity to stow everything he [i]did[/i] have in Syria? I simply do not accept the premise of the accusation that Bush lied about anything. He acted on the best information he had available. And I for one am glad that he did.
[blockquote]If he didn’t have them, why the deception and doubletalk?[/blockquote]
There is a fairly good reason for the deception and doubletalk — to make Iran and the U.S. believe he had them in order to deter either country from attacking Iraq. At least in the case of the U.S., the deception and doubletalk failed to achieve its purpose. And, in the case of Iran, the U.S. opened the door to Iran (and al Qaeda) by attacking.
Given that Saddam could have demonstrated the total absence of WMDs by allowing the inspectors full access, as was part of the agreement of our ceasefire in 1991, and that he consistently thwarted such inspections there are only two logical explanations for what was going on and what happened. The looney and mouthfrothing ones usually presented on the left do not count.
1. Saddam was bluffing, making us think he had WMDs but counting on us to huff and puff, lob a missle or two, but do nothing much more than that. The benefit for him would be that suspicion of his possession of WMDs would grow in the region, strengthening his hand against Iran, his perpetual enemy. It would also make him look like he had stood the West down, building up his credibility as a Muslim leader in the region, thus further strengthening his rule in Iraq, which later reports show was getting increasingly unstable, hense his increasing brutality.
2. He wasn’t bluffing but actually had somethings he wanted to hide, and used the time gained by his throwing obstacles before the inspectors and the build up to the invasion to get his material mobilized and out of the country. There are reports that many passenger aircraft flew into Syria. By the time we gained any level of control over Iraq he might well have moved what he had into safer territory, thinking he ride out this invasion and negotiate a new surrender as he did the Gulf War, and come ragain his power and resume his build up when we tired of paying attention.
The very fact that we found no substantial WMDs proves Bush’s honesty. For if he really was one to bring us into a war on false pretenses would it make any sense not to plant WMDs there to be conveniently found and shown to the world. Bush can’t be cunning enough to fool America and the world one minute and then collosally stupid the next on the same issue.
But, again, that’s logic, and has less appeal to the Bush-haters.
[i]There is a fairly good reason for the deception and doubletalk—to make Iran and the U.S. believe he had them in order to deter either country from attacking Iraq.[/i]
You can’t seriously believe that. Why on earth [i]wouldn’t[/i] Saddam think that the U.S. would attack? Did he think Bush was playing patty-cake with him? Was there something in the two trips to the U.N., speeches before Congress, official declarations, deadline setting and military buildup in Kuwait that would make Saddam take Bush less than seriously? I’m sorry Ken, but your answer makes no rational sense.
23. Bernini wrote:
[blockquote]There is a fairly good reason for the deception and doubletalk—to make Iran and the U.S. believe he had them in order to deter either country from attacking Iraq.
You can’t seriously believe that. Why on earth wouldn’t Saddam think that the U.S. would attack? Did he think Bush was playing patty-cake with him? Was there something in the two trips to the U.N., speeches before Congress, official declarations, deadline setting and military buildup in Kuwait that would make Saddam take Bush less than seriously? I’m sorry Ken, but your answer makes no rational sense.[/blockquote]
I’m sorry, but you’re the one who makes no rational sense.
Yes, George Bush gave Saddam Hussein every reason to believe that Iraq was in danger from an attack by the U.S. And Iran gave him every reason to believe that Iraq was in danger from an attack by Iran.
Hussein’s only hope to deter such attacks, lacking any way to repell them, was simply to try to make Bush, Iran and others believe that he had what he did not have — weapons of mass destruction. That is why he had to play games and why he had to hinder the U.N. inspectors; he could not afford to let the world know that he had no defense against attacks.
#24 Ken Peck,
I’m having trouble following your argument and logic. You seem to be saying that Saddam had to pretend he had WMD to prevent an attack; yet having WMD was the very thing that would lead to an attack. It seems to me that he could have deterred an attack by letting in the UN inspectors, left them un-harrassed and prove to the world that he didn’t have WMD. Then the US and allies would have had no reason to attack.
25. RevK wrote:
[blockquote]I’m having trouble following your argument and logic.[/blockquote]
And I’m having trouble following your argument and logic.
Hussein faced [b]two[/b] enemies. Perhaps proving that he had no WMD might have deterred Bush (although that is doubtful, as Bush had other objectives); but it would [b]not[/b] have deterred Iran.
It was necessary for him to make [b]both[/b] the U.S. and Iran believe that it would be too dangerous to invade. And the best way to do that would to make [b]both[/b] think that an invasion would result in unleasing chemical and biological weapons. Consequently he could not let the U.N. inspectors discover that no such weapons existed.
It would seem that Hussein’s policy did deter Iran. Apparently nothing would have deterred Bush.
(I would also note that the U.S. did not allow the U.N. inspectors to complete their work — forcing them out so an attack could be launched.)
And, of course, what Bush did accomplish was to open Iraq to meddling from Iran and al Qaeda, with the result that we are still there and still suffering casualties.
Revk, Saddam had two enemies: Iran and the U.S.. Iran he could keep at bay with the threat of WMDs, and only a threat of superior force would do with Iran. They are not gentlemanly players. Now that bluff might seem like risking a U.S. invasion, but look at our history, especially our immediate history. The U.N. didn’t want us to go in. France didn’t want us to go in. Germany didn’t. Russia didn’t. All these countries knew and thought what we knew and thought. They all, for reasons that had less to do with international stability, did not want to force Saddam to dismantle his WMD program. Food for Oil scandal? Saddam was betting that we’d follow suit, much as we had done in the dacade prior, even though he tried to assasinate a former President. He hadn’t counted on a new President determining that 9/11 changed the old geopolitical game plans. He gambled and lost, and handed us with the mess we have now, which is turning out better than it seemed it would only a year ago. But whoever really knows the future?
Ken and Chris, I think you’ve both been reading the Daily Kos too much. When you offer up little throwaway accusations such as:
[i](although that is doubtful, as Bush had other objectives)[/i]
…I have to just laugh. As though we are all to accept the premise that Bush acted on some sort of secret, malicious blackhearted intent. That kind of foolishness implies that the President of the United States would [i]actually[/i] commit the lives of the men and women of the American military to carry out his personal conspiratorial agenda. That is as staggeringly absurd as it is stunningly insulting.
What else are we to believe? No, wait, don’t tell me. Cheney was actually the puppeteer, calling the shots with his hand up Dumbya’s back. Cheney didn’t care about Saddam, he just cared about getting his cronies at Halliburton into Iraq so they could control the oilfields and line the pockets of the Bu$Hitler/Darth Cheney neocon inner circle. The price of oil today is actually all part of a massive conspiracy to enrich the Bu$Hitler family while they enslave and murder the innocent people of the Middle East. So while Cheney sits back sending the Scooter Libbys of the world out to take his fall in order to deflect attention from his own heinous war crimes, he lights Cuban cigars through that evil crooked grin with $1000 bills, his ill-gotten big oil windfall profits gain.
…that sound about right?
Bernini, I only read Kos to get my blood boiling and to learn what the nutjobs think (like I didn’t know already). Ken and I seem to be making some similar points, and some dissimilar points. I do not believe Bush had ulterior motives. Read my argument above. He was worried about the threat of Iraq, especially an Iraq with nukes. Nor did he “not allow the inspectors to complete their work”. It was Saddam that did that. Bush pulled them out since they weren’t able to do anything anyways. When the firechief knows a building’s going down he pulls out the firemen so that demolition can proceed. Saddam misjudged Bush. It is not, as Ken says, that “nothing could deter” Bush from invading. Actually learning that Saddam was bluffing would have detered Bush. To believe otherwise seems without grounds in evidence or charity. Saddam’s mistake was in thinking Bush was like France. Iran he understood. France he understood. Clinton he understood. He thought he understood W, that he would be like his father and pull back from invading Iraq. He was mistaken.
This is all premised upon the idea that he was bluffing Iran and the West.
Am I to take it by your responces that you believe that he was not bluffing, that he actually possessed WMDs, or a sufficiently advanced nuclear program, but was able to ship it out in time? I do not discount that possibility, but since it is the more hypothetical than supposing that they never were there in greater measures than his pre-existing stockpiles (as they aren’t there now and we have no solid evidence of their presence in Syria or elsewhere) I find it easier to argue the merits of the Invasion based on the “Bluff” hypothesis. It doesn’t much change the logic about what needs to be done with relationship to Iran. It only underscores the need to seriously consider that possibility again. But since it is impossible to know for sure which is the truth, when nukes in the hands of apocaplyptic minded fanatics are concerned, prudence says we should assume the danger is real.
Bernini,
Your givens are interesting. They assume much. Remember how the Shah was in power? We might have supported social democracy rather than tyranny and we got Theocrats who enjoy supporting small scale military operations against our friends. My view is that when we support tyrants, our victims will remember. The CIA has a term called “blowback.” I’m not justifying the violence. But I don’t think we have clean hands in Iran’s history. Remember also that Khatami had an offer to the US for peace with Israel in 2003, but was rebuffed. It resulted in his loss and a set back in Islamic moderation. If I were an Iranian leader, I’d think the US wasn’t really interested in peace, but more interested in war.
Iran’s game is pretty simple. They think that Israel runs US policy. True? Well, if so, then best to antagonize he people who run US policy: Israel. And since Olmert seems to be discussing things with Syria and others, they might have better luck.
You offer a pretty interesting caricature of Bush’s thought up to the war in Iraq. I think Bush wanted to invade Iraq for the hell of it. After all, he’s just a rich kid who never had to go to war himself. Remember – people love a war. There’s meaning in it. If its small and of little cost, you get remembered. You build political capital. Nobody can oppose you because you are the leader.
I think the Neocons wanted a place besides Saudi Arabia where they could have a foothold and thought Iraqis would be supportive of an invasion. Bush Jr. thought Bush Sr. was whimpy for having calculated (correctly) the costs of invading Iraq. In the end, i think the Neocons were a lot like liberals with guns: invade and you can make a democracy.
The problem is that bush is a simple thinker who wants “bumper sticker” solutions and easy answers. He’s not one for complex issues or difficult decisions. He sticks by his gut because that is “leadership” even if he makes a mistake. Or perhaps – for his supporters – he’s divine in his ability to avoid mistakes. But the iraq war speaks for itself. I doubt you could say the world is a better place after we invaded, and I imagine $800 billion dollars could save a lot of lives all over the world.
Including the United States.
The problem is that bush is a simple thinker who wants “bumper sticker†solutions and easy answers. He’s not one for complex issues or difficult decisions.
The real problem, John, is that you are a simple minded selfrighteous and judgmental ass.
31. Chris Hathaway wrote:
[blockquote]The real problem, John, is that you are a simple minded selfrighteous and judgmental ass.[/blockquote]
Now there’s a intelligent, rational, logical contribution to the thread.
NOT!
[i]You offer a pretty interesting caricature of Bush’s thought up to the war in Iraq. I think Bush wanted to invade Iraq for the hell of it. After all, he’s just a rich kid who never had to go to war himself.[/i]
Are you serious?
To say that Bush went to war in Iraq “for the hell of it” is damned cynical and frankly, beyond the pale. There is nothing exaggerated about my description of Bush’s run-up to the war. He went to the UN twice. He went to Congress twice. He gave Saddam EVERY OPPORTUNITY to comply with the SIXTEEN U.N. resolutions in which he was in violation. He set a date certain, told Saddam (and the world) the consequences for non-compliance. When Saddam failed to come into compliance with the international community (as defined by the SIXTEEN U.N. resolutions with which he was in violation), Bush did exactly what he said he’d do.
That there are those in this country who failed to recognize what was happening at the time and now choose to make *&^% up to fit their own personal preferences is not just dishonest, it’s completely insidious.
OK Ken. I’ll unpack it:
John calls Bush “a simple thinker who wants “bumper sticker†solutions and easy answers.†How does he know this? Does he know Bush personally so as to make this judgment of his person? No. Does John assume Bush has an opposing philosophical view of the world to his, which, erroneous though it is, is still a product of the complexity of his experiences, and conclusions based upon the perception of those experiences, which interact with one another in an increasing spiral to create the matrices of our interpretive template of all events, that which shapes our judgment? Does he assume that Bush is a man capable of reasoning like himself, who yet comes to disastrously wrong conclusions based upon flawed premises? No. John does not do this. Instead, John he that Bush has an inferior mind, one that doesn’t like to “reason†like John does. No, John is the superior intellect to the simple minded Bush.
The irony here is that making this assumption of Bush is itself a “simple solutionâ€, a bumper sticker solution. Why argue the merits of Bush’s ideas when you can dismiss them saying “Bush is an idiotâ€. Yes, of course, if Bush thought, like the rest of us do, thinking that deals with complexity, then he would naturally agree with us. Right? It’s so simple.
Well truth is both simple and complex. We perceive it simply. But the hermeneutic matrix by which we see the simplicity of our beliefs is built through a complex process. The idea that equally intelligent people can view reality and events so differently is testimony that the simple truth does not come to us so simply and that we should be careful to examine the paths which we tread intellectually to arrive at our conclusions. Doing this builds up the intellectual self awareness and forensic logic that should enable us to understand how we are right, if we are indeed right, and how our opponents are wrong, without making the simple conclusion that we’re right because we are rational and they are idiots.
John dismisses the difficult and complex solution and goes for a simple minded explanation. The problem for John, isn’t with Bush’s ideas. It is with Bush himself. This way John doesn’t have to argue ideas.
How convenient.
How’s that?
[i]I doubt you could say the world is a better place after we invaded, and I imagine $800 billion dollars could save a lot of lives all over the world. [/i]
Almost forgot that one.
Yes, you’re damn right I think the world is a better place to be missing one more vicious tyrannical thug who rapes, murders, steals and plunders at his own whim. Or would it be better for the Iraqis to continue to live under Saddams bloody thumb? If you answer yes, then I really don’t know what to make of you or your moral compass.
+1 Chris
35. Bernini wrote:
[blockquote]I doubt you could say the world is a better place after we invaded, and I imagine $800 billion dollars could save a lot of lives all over the world.
Yes, you’re damn right I think the world is a better place to be missing one more vicious tyrannical thug who rapes, murders, steals and plunders at his own whim. Or would it be better for the Iraqis to continue to live under Saddams bloody thumb? If you answer yes, then I really don’t know what to make of you or your moral compass.[/blockquote]
And over 4,000 Americans dead, over 10,000 Americans disabled, over 30,000 Americans wounded and tens of thousands of Iraqis killed and others wounded and displaced.
Supposedly the U.S. attacked Iraq because Hussein (whom, by the way, we encouraged in his tyranny when it was convenient to do so) was hidding WMDs. But finding none, we supposedly attempt to justify that attack on the basis of “liberating” the Iraqis from an evil dicator.
I’ll admit to the curious idea that if a people want to be rid of their government, they are the ones who ought to do it, not some foreigners. I wonder how our founding fathers would have regarded being “liberated” from British rule by, say, Spain. I also think it is unrealistic for the U.S. to take on the role of international policeman and political liberator. I suspect that the people of the world wouldn’t particularly appreciate it.
And the fact of the matter is that we have all sort of buddies who are tyrants whom we vigorously support, such as the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and China.
And the fact also is that we did not finish the task in Afghanistan, in order to undertake an ill-advised and ill-executed adventure in Iraq. Bin Laden is still at large. Al Qaeda is growing in strength. Our national security is gravely compromised. And our economy is trashed.
Ken, you do realize that the Founding Fathers actively courted foriegn assistance, most notably sending Ben Franklin to openly beg for assistance (financial, logistical, and direct military intervention) from King Louis XVI of France?
Yes. I am aware of that.
I am also aware that the Iraqi “Revolutionary Government” didn’t send emissaries seeking assistance in their revolution.
I suspect that our Rounding Fathers would have taken exception had France (or Spain or Russia) unilaterally attempted to “liberate” them from British rule.
“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.”
Ken, your talking points are stale, misinformed and stupid.
The casualties argument is a red herring. The critical difference is whether or not one believes that the sacrifice offered by those 4,000 American service men & women were in vain or not. You (and those like you) clearly believe they were most assuredly in vain. I (and those like me) think they are most assuredly NOT in vain.
What price freedom, Ken? Were the 28,000 Confederate soldiers who died at Gettysburg [b]alone[/b] enough to atone for our “national sin” of slavery? Were the 5,100 American soldiers who lost their lives on D-Day [b]alone[/b] worth it to free Europe from Hitler’s aggression?
[i]And our economy is trashed.[/i]
Tell me how it’s trashed, Ken. Just because the New York Times says it don’t make it so. You MUST free yourself of MoveOn’s talking points if you expect to be taken seriously.
[i]I suspect that our Rounding Fathers would have taken exception had France (or Spain or Russia) unilaterally attempted to “liberate†them from British rule.[/i]
Ken, you are making a completely inappropriate historical comparison. There is NOTHING similar or parallel to the circumstances surrounding the American Revolution and our intervention in Iraq. You are waving that red herring around like it was a weapon. The only thing you’re succeeding in hitting is your own head. I’d advise you to stop before you embarrass yourself further.
40. Bernini wrote:
[blockquote]Ken, your talking points are stale, misinformed and stupid.[/blockquote]
My, what Christian charity! (Not to mention utter illogic.)
[blockquote]The casualties argument is a red herring. The critical difference is whether or not one believes that the sacrifice offered by those 4,000 American service men & women were in vain or not.[/blockquote]
That is disgraceful! The casualties are [b]not[/b] “a red herring.” It is very real. And, while we are at it, the sacrifice has been made by the 10,000+ permanently maimed, the 30,000+ wounded, the hundreds of thousands who have stood in harms way in Iraq, and their families who have been separated from husbands, wifes, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, son, and daughters.
And while they have made their sacrifices for their country, they do not all agree with the policy which sent them to Iraq.
“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.†(George Washington)
The casualties themselves are not a red herring. Your arguments are.
I’m amazed that Ken has the courage to continue debating after being handed his hat TWICE with reference to the Plame affair. Apparently he is not embarrassed easily by his own gross misinformation. It makes it easier to argue when you don’t really hasve to worry about having tha facts on your side.