Quagmire: The GWAC Farewell Tour (Archive)
Ace of Spades -- Thursday, August 22, 2002 -- 04:16:26 PMMake sure you read the new thread rules, which, in short, discourage lengthy yes it is/no it isn't fights, extended personal spats, and excessive parsing and hashing simple words and sentences into meaninglessness.
Farewell Tour Topic: Resolve old fights connected with Afghanistan and Iraq, like LizardBreath's curious insistence that Clinton told the truth when he said Saddam had WMD, but Bush told an Impeachment-worthy lie. Also, let's see those "predictions" one more time, huh?
New issues should go to GWAC:TNG.
We were right; you were wrong. Deal with it.
This thread is read-only.
This thread is tagged: iraq(All users will see what tags exist for a thread. Please tag carefully!)
PS, Cal:
Let me pander to your feminist outlook.
Female US troops stationed in Iraq will be allowed to drive and venture about unescorted by a male chaperone.
(In fact, as conquerors rather than invitees, all US troops will be able to do pretty much whatever they goddamned want.)
Actually, I have thought of that--not in the same terms you have, but basically that there's something to be said for really upsetting the Arabs, rather than shit all over ourselves trying not to offend them and then apologizing when they piss and moan.
As for female US troops, it is disgusting that they aren't allowed to do that in Saudi Arabia. They used to be able to.
but basically that there's something to be said for really upsetting the Arabs, rather than shit all over ourselves trying not to offend them and then apologizing when they piss and moan.
There's somthing to be said for it?
Is there anything to be said against it?
We tried being solicitous for forty goddamned years.
If we go back to being solicitous, they've won, and they know it.
If we go back to being solicitous, it will encourage them to strike again.
You think they care that the Taliban fell?
No, they do not. The fall of the Taliban is like a field goal to them. They're still ahead, 24-3.
I think it is reckless and self-destructive to let them know that they can attack us with so light a penalty.
This is not about Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is a specific symptom of a general disease. The disease is Arab/Muslim violence and their belief that God is on their side.
If they succeed in such a spectacular attack, and the only penalty the worlwide Arab/Muslim fanatical mass-murder network incurs is the fall of a single government which was insignificant and backwards even by their low standards (!), what lesson have they learned?
The lesson they learn is that Terrorism Works. Terrorism can strike a massive wound to the American economy, and the American response will be only to shake the fruit from one low tree.
If we are to win, me must persuade them that no, God is not your side, and you can tell that because God is letting your piss-shit countries being demolished one by one by one.
Actually, let me put it a better way:
Would you rather have the Towers standing and the 3000 American lives back, but with the Taliban still in power;
or
Would you rather have the Taliban out of power, Al Qaeda scattered and hunted, but with the Towers down and 3000 American dead?
Of course we'd all rather have the first.
But they'd all rather have the second.
The second outcome, for them, is a good one. Yes, they took a small hit. But they won a "great battle" against us; it is only to be expected that you lose a brigade or two in such a battle.
They're all willing to pay that small cost. They'd do it again if they had to choose again; does anyone doubt that?
So why the hell should we be talking about "mopping up Al Qaeda" now?
Yes, we should mop up Al Qaeda. But that is just one task. We should do, we must do, much more than that.
Al Gore will not be the 2004 Democratic nominee.
This story doesn't have anything to do with thread either, but I've been watching it unfold and think it's pretty interesting.
ED,
But...
The Democratic base -- especially the primary voters -- are very liberal, aren't they?
He is thinking that his previous vote for the Gulf War (as late, and as Hamlet-esque, as that was) immunizes him from charges of being airy-fairy on national defense. He probably has also had discussions with liberal Democrats about giving them the necessary cover of a national spokesman against the war-- for which he probably garnered their support.
Finally, his announcement is (slightly) against the polls, so he can claim "he's his own man."
Well, Ace, what the story shows to me is he's still got the tin ear and poor instincts he's always had. The only upside I can see for his shooting off his mouth when he clearly doesn't need to is that it demonstrates he's engaged and hence his forward-looking intentions. But on the downside, it's a lot of unnecessary risk. Unlike Daschle, he can avoid this debate entirely.
By the time 2004 rolls around, the only difference I can see his stance making is a negative one. Otherwise, it'll be forgotten. If we don't go and Saddam becomes a problem, bad for Gore. If we do go and we're successful, bad for Gore. If we don't go and nothing happens, who cares?
I think it unlikely that we go and it backfires.
Mainly, this is a situation when he could let Daschle and Gephardt have to commit, while he gets a pass. It's like voting "present" without having to be obvious about it.
Ace #642:
Gee, Eric, I seem to remember Saddam Hussein arranging for the assassination of an American President....Praytell, why did this vaunted "deterrence" of which you speak fail to deter him then?....Perhaps he thought that assassinating a former American President was allowed and fair game and was therefore not an act of war...? Well, he sure lucked out that Clinton was President at the time, and that that President apparently agreed that assassinating another US President was just a kind of diplomatic faux pas best dealt with by a stern warning....But I think most other people would say that was an act of war for which Saddam should have expected a devastating military response....And yet Saddam did it anyway....So where was all the "deterrence"?
True.
Oh, here's a good one: Every day Saddam's AAA and SAM sites light up our planes flying over the no-fly zone, and several times a month they attempt to shoot our planes down....They want a destroyed plane and a live American hostage....Tell me again: Where is this deterrence? Where is Saddam's fear of our "overwhelming response"?
Well, if he's been doing this "several times a month" for how many years now, he's got some crack shots manning his SAM stations, doesn't he? Regardless, yeah, if he actually shot someone down, he's got to know his ass would be in a sling. Even I would cease being a doubting Thomas at that point.
We are already at war with Hussein, dickhead. Our airplanes are flying over his country and occasionally engaging with enemy planes and occasionally dodging enemy missiles....How much longer are we required to fight this ongoing war for, exactly? Until an American pilot gets shot down or simply crashes? (plane crashes are, of course, distressingly common.)
I get your point, Ace, but how many American pilots and ground troops are going to die in an invasion? Carp all you want, but results don't lie -- the guy's been kept in a box, unable to harass his neighbors, and not a single American has been hurt. It could break, but right now, it ain't broke, so why go all out to fix it, as opposed to maybe fine-tuning it?
If you want to send a message wrt shooting at patrolling planes, do some strafing runs. Oh wait, that's what we have been doing. Every time Iraq fires on American or British planes, they attack the station, and usually a couple of nearby villages.
#648:
If you can give me 100% accurate, 100% complete information outlining the above, then I absolutely agree that we should not go to war.
What's that? You can't give me such 100% accurate and complete assurances?
Then you "haven't made your case" to me, and I'm afraid I'll have to make my decision based upon the limited information available to me.
That's what most human beings do throughout their lives-- they make decisions (often life-changing) based upon horribly incomplete and sometimes inaccurate information. But we MUST do so, because it's all we have ever had, all we have, and all we ever will have.
Funny. You're expecting 100% certitude of what is essentially proving a negative, and I clearly stated in #637 that even fifty percent evidence that Saddam is actively acquiring an arsenal that could threaten us or our interests would be good enough for me to agree with you guys.
You see, I have already quite clearly said this, several times -- expecting perfect information on this would be idiotic. But I don't think it is unreasonable to expect more than the "10, 20, 30%" figure Cheney threw over his shoulder.
(And yes, of course, I realize that it is mathematically impossible to arrive at a percentage figure of an unknown quantity. So really what I'm looking for is a few connecting strands of medium-quality facts, or one big one. I don't understand why that's so unreasonable.)
Fuck, it doesn't really inspire confidence, you know. Maybe it's 5%, but they just want us to take them at their word. Well, suppose we demonstrate just how we arrived at that word. We don't have any intel resources within Iraq, so what's compromised by saying "this infrared/satellite image could only be WMD activity"? Are we afraid of letting someone else know that we have massive amounts of high-tech surveillance equipment observing Iraq?
Idiots like Daschle and Eric are simply abrogating their duty to make decisions and foisting the blame for their own ditherings on to Bush, who was (shockingly) unable to provide the perfect information they seek.
Again, bullshit. No one expects perfect info. Howzabout some info.
#670:
I personally think that the world should fear that the US will begin toppling every regime we don't like the next time a terrorist attack hits us.
Don't you?
Yes. And we did just that; we grabbed Afghanistan by the short hairs and drove as many as possible of the Islamist scum into the ground.
And after 9/11, if all we do is take out one country's regime, they will be emboldened anew. The deaths of 3000 Americans requires more of a response than one low-casualty regime change in Afghanistan. Anything less than that will be perceived as a success for the terrorists, 90% of whom aren't based in Afghanistan, and indeed have never been there.
They've never been in Iraq, either.
These assholes -- and especially the governments that support or harbor them -- must know in no uncertain terms that when Americans die, enemy governments fall.
There is no other way.
Yes. Suppose we actually try that on the governments harboring them? Indirectly, that may be a ancillary point to invading Iraq -- Saddam's an asshole anyway, and controlling Iraq's oil would enable us to disengage from our buddies in Saudi. Which is not necessarily a bad thing at all.
But you know, it might be cheaper, faster, more efficient, and save a couple of lives if maybe Americans considered conserving just a bit. I know, heaven forfend. God wants us driving Hummers.
Incidentally, it seems to me that there are only two groups in the world who continue to insist on the fantasy that bin Laden is still alive: 1) the remnants of Al Qaeda; and 2) The Democratic Party.
It would be helpful to actually see his head on a pike, but yeah, he's probably dead.
#683:
If we are to win, me must persuade them that no, God is not your side, and you can tell that because God is letting your piss-shit countries being demolished one by one by one.
True, but this is almost Falwellian in scope, just from the opposite perspective. But yeah, that's the only way to get through to religious nutjobs of any stripe, is to pound it into their head that God is not protecting them.
ED's absolutely right wrt Gore's tin ear.
The guy's got no sense of timing at all. Following a week which saw us bust a terror cell in the US, capture an honest-to-God 9-11 planner we've been searching for since shortly after the event, and scores of terrorists with al-Qaeda links rounded up all over the world, along comes Al to take cheap shots at Bush's anti-terror campaign.
Dope.
I disagree.
I heard someone else put it like this:
If Bush is successful in Iraq and in the War on Terrorism generally, then Gore has no chance, no matter what he does, whether he supports Bush or attacks him.
Gore can only succeed in one scenario: A scenario in which Bush is unsuccessful in Iraq or in the War on Terrorism generally.
Therefore, Gore is smart to position himself in such a way that he is able to exploit a Bush failure, because he can't win under any other scenario.
Mapping out Gore's options...
if Bush is successful
....and Gore supports: GOre loses
....and Gore attacks: Gore loses
if Bush is a failure
...and Gore supports: Gore loses (likely to a more critical anti-war Democrat in the primary; even if he gets the nod, he isn't in a good position to exploit Bush's failure, since of course he supported all of Bush's decisions)
...and Gore attacks: Gore will probably win
Further, the Democratic Party is chiefly anti-war. Don't forget that. You can't win a primary without appealing to the hard-core base, and you can't win an election without having your hard-core base enthusiastically behind you. (In fact, it's theoretically possible to win a low-turnout election with only your base, so long as they fully turn out while moderates largely sit out.)
And Klieg Lights McCain gets in.
Now to deal with Eric the Red's various obfuscations and quibbilations...
Ace #642:
[To a long screed in which I proved that Saddam is NOT being deterred, Eric the Red confesses;]
True.
And that's all he says.
Hysterical.
It's nice to have him concede the bloody obvious, but I'd like to see Eric now internalize that concession and work the logic through.
Well, if he's been [shooting at our planes] "several times a month" for how many years now, he's got some crack shots manning his SAM stations, doesn't he?
Irrelevant. The point is that Saddam is not deterred, not that he poses a direct threat to our high-tech air force.
Osama bin Laden (when alive) also proved no threat at all to our air force. He did, however, pose a threat to softer targets.
Note to Eric the Red: Not even Russia poses an insuperable threat to our air force. Britain alone poses a threat to air force, but only when we fight in equal numbers and we don't exploit our other advantages.
Notice also that Eric the Red says "If it is true that Saddam is shooting at our planes..." as if he really wants to dispute the claim but doesn't have the balls or the facts to do so.
Read a fucking newspaper from the last ten years, dude.
Regardless, yeah, if he actually shot someone down, he's got to know his ass would be in a sling. Even I would cease being a doubting Thomas at that point.
Bullshit. You would claim 1) that Bush had deliberately sent our planes into a dangerous SAM trap in order to provoke a pretext for war, and 2) that we were violating their sovereignty for even flying over their country, so you can hardly call a counter-attack an "act of war."
Furthermore, you are making the ludicrous distinction between murder and attempted murder. Whether you are successful in killing your target or not, you are still guilty of the attempt. And it's the attempt that counts.
Apparently Eric the Red thinks that Saddam can shoot at our planes from now until next Red Oktober and it doesn't constitute an act of war... until a missile actually hits home.
I get your point, Ace, but how many American pilots and ground troops are going to die in an invasion?
299 total Coalition troops died last time.
There were zero combat deaths in Kosovo.
There have been-- what? -- no more than 30 combat deaths in Afghanistan, the "Graveyard of Empires," as so many on the Chicken Little Left liked to call it.
Carp all you want, but results don't lie -- the guy's been kept in a box, unable to harass his neighbors, and not a single American has been hurt. It could break, but right now, it ain't broke, so why go all out to fix it, as opposed to maybe fine-tuning it?
How to square this with Eric the Red's concession that it's of course "True" that Saddam wasn't deterred from attempting an assassination on Bush the Elder?
Ah. I see. Eric the Red is subtly shifting his argument that Saddam has been "deterred" (he hasn't been) to Saddam has been physically "contained," i.e., Saddam hasn't moved his troops across his borders yet.
Osama bin Laden (when alive) didn't move his troops across his borders either.
If you want to send a message wrt shooting at patrolling planes, do some strafing runs. Oh wait, that's what we have been doing. Every time Iraq fires on American or British planes, they attack the station, and usually a couple of nearby villages.
A har har har har har. Right. We attack "Nearby villages."
You know, just for shits and giggles.
Asshole. Fuck you, you dipshit.
"Funny. You're expecting 100% certitude of what is essentially proving a negative, and I clearly stated in #637 that even fifty percent evidence that Saddam is actively acquiring an arsenal that could threaten us or our interests would be good enough for me to agree with you guys."
Saddam is buying uranium from Africa.
As he sits on tub of oil second only to Saudi Arabia, he has no need of nuclear power.
Ergo, he is buying the uranium for a different reason.
Case closed, you moronic obfuscator.
" So really what I'm looking for is a few connecting strands of medium-quality facts, or one big one. I don't understand why that's so unreasonable."
Saddam is buying uranium from Africa.
Saddam has an entire staff of nuclear physicists attempting to build him a bomb. Several of those men have defected and reported that Saddam is within no more than 2-3 years of producing 3 nuclear bombs.
Ahhhhhhh... of course, those defectors are lying, right? It's all a put-up job by the CIA, right?
"Well, suppose we demonstrate just how we arrived at that word. We don't have any intel resources within Iraq, so what's compromised by saying "this infrared/satellite image could only be WMD activity"?"
Stupid.
Does anthrax show up as some unique color on an infrared image?
No, it doesn't.
Does uranium?
No.
Infrared shows heat, dickhead. Nothing more. There are methods of identifying a specific molecule or atom, but these techniques generally work inside a lab, not from 15,000 miles up in the sky.
If we had some method of long-range uranium detection, we'd have already installed such machines in all of our ports and border checkpoints, wouldn't we have?
Last time I checked, the best method of finding uranium was via a Geiger counter, and that only works from 10-30 feet away (longer if there's a lot of uranium, but certainly no more than a hundred yards!)
" No one expects perfect info. Howzabout some info."
Howzabout Saddam's nuclear scientists telling us precisely what he's been working on.
Every time we give you actual fucking information, you ignore it.
And then you ask for "some information."
Okay. Let's go through this again:
Saddam is buying uranium from Africa.
Saddam is buying weapons technology from the Ukraine.
Saddam has a staff of nuclear scientists and yet no need of a peaceful nuclear reactor.
Some of Saddam's nuclear scientists have defected and confirmed that he is still attempting to build a nuclear bomb.
Saddam built a reactor in the eighties.
Saddam smuggles in dual-use technology from Europe.
Even while weapons inspectors were in his country, Saddam was *still* working on WMD, and we know this because we *found* lots of WMD and WMD technology.
I demand that you respond to each one of these facts."Yes. And we did just that; we grabbed Afghanistan by the short hairs and drove as many as possible of the Islamist scum into the ground."
Afghanistan is the terrorist world's version of the Montreal Expos. So their league contracted. So what?
"Yes. Suppose we actually try that on the governments harboring them? "
Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Furthermore, the Blair government has determined that two of bin Laden's lieutenants were trained by Saddam.
And who do you think Saddam hired to kill Bush the Elder?
"Indirectly, that may be a ancillary point to invading Iraq -- Saddam's an asshole anyway, and controlling Iraq's oil would enable us to disengage from our buddies in Saudi. Which is not necessarily a bad thing at all."
You think?
"But you know, it might be cheaper, faster, more efficient, and save a couple of lives if maybe Americans considered conserving just a bit. I know, heaven forfend. God wants us driving Hummers."
No matter what the question, Eric the Red's answer is that we should stop driving SUV's.
Like so many on the America-hating Left, Eric the Pink Pussy is far more concerned about the threat America poses to her enemies than the threat her enemies pose to America.
Eric obfuscates about the "thousands of America dead" he fears. Bullshit. His cute little lies about our planes "attacking nearby villages" for no reason other than simple muderous rage gives the game away.
He's not concerned about Ameican casualties; he's concerned about American victims.
But just like racists have learned to use a more acceptable vocabulary, i.e., "racial codewords," to get their points across, the Hate America Left has learned to stop whining about enemy casualties and claim they're just worried that some of our boys will come home in boxes.
Our boys will be fine and I'm pretty sure you know that. But that's never been your worry.
Does this get the Case to 30%? 40%? 70%? Or, More Likely, will there be new objections raised?
Give me some real information, Dick.
I mean, you know that Tony Blair is part of the Militay-Industrial-Prison-Oil Complex, you know?
North Sea oil fields ring a bell? Hel-l-l-l-o...?
And he's making these claims just to boost his popularity polls. Surely you've heard how enthused the British public is about an Iraq action...?
Hey, look. I'm just furious that this whole Iraq boondoggle is taking away from our real priorities, breast and colon cancer.
What do you think all of our attacks on "nearby villages" is about, dude?
(visions of an ace American copter gunner smoking weed and yelling to an empathetic CNN reporter over the rat-tat-tat of his machine gun and The Doors, "You just need to lead the older villagers a little less")
Dude, Noam Chomsky laid this all out in Uncle Sam wants to Destroy Nearby Villages last year.
Open your eyes, asshole.
Heh, heh! Look! A nearby village! Let's get some, boys! Whoo-hoo! Yeah! Yeah! Get a little! You like that, you Nearby Village! Yeeeee-haw, look at them scatter!
Don't patronize me, fuckface.
The man is in a box. Poppy's boy is just trying to clean up Daddy's mess.
We had to destroy the Nearby Village in order to save it.
You know that.
Oh sure.
Let Chevron make your policy.
"Tango, Tango, this is Bravo Zephyr, I can't be sure, but I think I've got a Nearby Village on my scope, over."
"Tango Tango Bravo Zephyr, please confirm, please confirm, over."
"Read you, read you. I see people milling about a central square, I think I see a cow or something."
"Tango Tango Bravo Zephyr, please confirm that target is a cow, over."
"Roger Wilco, dropping down to 5000, will confirm target is 'cow,' over... Tango Tango, this is Bravo Zephyr, I have confirmed subject is cow. It has horns."
"Bravo Zephyr, we need to be absolutely positive on this. Can you positively confirm suspicious human settlement is in fact a 'Nearby Village'?"
"Tango Tango, confidence is high, repeat, confidence is high. I see some people loading hay onto a cart, repeat, I see hay on a cart, over."
"Bravo Zephyr, you have clearance to fire, repeat, you have clearance to fire."
"Tango Tango, message received, lighting up subject Nearby Village now, repeat, preparing to fire."
(RIO): "Wait! Wait! Holy shit! That's not a Nearby Village! That's not a Nearby Village! It's a Distant Hamlet, It's a Distant Hamlet!"
"Tango Tango, disengage your weapons! Disengage your weapons!"
"Tango Tango, cannot hear you, I have tone and I am firing."
(RIO): "Oh god! Oh god! It's a Distant Hamlet! It's a Distant Hamlet! Jesus Christ, what have we done?!?!"
Seen on the nose of an F-15:
Bandits XXXXXXXXX
SAM Sites XXXXXX
Nearby Villages XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Cows XXX (Plus one unconfirmed)
If Bush is successful in Iraq and in the War on Terrorism generally, then Gore has no chance, no matter what he does, whether he supports Bush or attacks him.
Gore can only succeed in one scenario: A scenario in which Bush is unsuccessful in Iraq or in the War on Terrorism generally.
I agree.
...but, if he were smart he would have waited till there was a lull. God knows there've been enough opportunities - and there will be plenty more - for him to come forward and start whining what have you done for us lately?
It's just bizarre that he chooses the most successful week thus far of the entire post-Afghanistan campaign to cast aspersions on the Bush administration's anti-terror efforts. Looking at it objectively (which, believe me, I am able to do, even when it's Gore), he comes off looking like the 2nd-string bench warming QB, hoping really hard that the big boy breaks his leg.
Albright: Mr. President, the situation has become grave. The Iraqis are regularly firing on our flyovers in the no fly zone.
Clinton: Don't you think I know that?
Albright: Yes, sir. But it's the British. They want a more muscular response.
Clinton: What do you mean?
Berger: They have determined that we need to make Saddam pay for each attack.
Clinton: Are you suggesting what I think you are suggesting?
Albright: Nearby villages. We need to hit them.
Clinton: Oh. That wasn't what I thought you were suggesting.
Berger: The British are convinced that if every time we are fired upon, we lay waste to a nearby village, scaring the citizenry and otherwise creating senseless bloodshed and havoc, Saddam will be deterred.
Clinton: Well, I know I would be. Let's do it.
Albright: Thank you, Mr. President.
Clinton: But hey . . . (raising finger). I don't want any Kurds hit. Just regular old Iraqis in the nearby villages. Got it?
Berger: Understood, sir.
Grafitti on a Iraqi wall:
AMERICA OUT OF NEARBY VILLAGES
"Target is painted, target is painted, I need confirm to fire..."
"I have a positive kill, I have a positive kill..."
"All right, we took out the SAM site."
(RIO)"Hey, there's a Nearby Village."
"All right, let's buzz them and wave to them... Let them see the colors and know that Kilroy is here. They'll like that."
(RIO) "But... won't that be exactly what they're expecting?"
"Maybe... what do you have in mind?"
(RIO)"Now I'm just spitballing here, but hear me out..."
In one account, an attack on May 12, 1999 in a field at Abu Auani, near Mosul in the north killed 19 and wounded 46 people. After the initial missile attack, men gathered to aid the wounded and the dead; while doing so, another missile landed and hit more people.
"Quick, Charlie, turn around. They're coming to get the wounded! They're coming to get the wounded!"
That's the thing that always gets me about the Confused Left. They always put us into double-binds.
They say: "America supports tyrants."
We say: "Okay, we'll take those tyrants out."
They say: "NO! We didn't mean that."
All right.
They say: "America doesn't share aid with these countries."
We say: "Okay, we'll give aid to these countries, and trade with them."
They say: "You're supporting tyrants!"
Okely-dokely.
They say: "You created Saddam!"
We say: "All right, we shall correct our error."
They say: "NOOOOOO! Don't touch a hair on his precious head!"
Fair enough.
They say: "This embargo is killing the Iraqi people!"
We say: "All right, we'll take out Saddam and immediately end the embargo."
They say: "NO! We should give the embargo more time to work!"
Hmmmmmmm...
They say: "The Iraqis claim that some of these SAM attacks have resulted in civilian casualties!"
We say: "Okay, we'll get rid of Saddam so that the air raids are no longer necessary."
They say: "Wait a minute! These air patrols are a cost-effective method of containment!"
I see.
Or rather: I don't see, and I don't think I'm expected to see. Whatever America does, it's wrong.
They don't have policy prescriptions, i.e., a systematic plan for what America should do. All they have is bitching. No matter what action America takes, they reserve the right to bitch about it. Trade with Iraq? We're supporting a tyrant. Embargo Iraq? We're killing Iraqi babies.
When they're confronted with this, they always retreat to the stock answer "Well America created this situation in the first place!" In other words, confronted with the fact that they criticize all possible present and future American actions, they claim that it is past American actions that have brought about this odd state.
Not only is this wrong -- Saddam seized power himself without the aid of the CIA -- but it is irrelevant even if true. Even if America caused some problems in the past, surely there is some action we could take that would satisfy the Confused Left. But no-- if we do A, they whine. If we do not-A, they whine louder.
Further, as Christopher Hitchens points out, if it is true that America "caused all this," that makes it all the more morally necessary for America to solve the problem. The Left whines that America "created" the Taliban. Okay then-- doesn't that mean that America has the responsibility of removing the Taliban from power?
Of course not.
Because the Confused Left isn't interested in announcing a coherent program for American action. They only want to bitch about whatever it is America does.
You can't beat "something" with "nothing."*
Double-binds. The last recourse of a moral and intellectual coward.
* For reasons to obvious to enumerate, I reject "Let's get rid of SUV's" as a coherent plan for American action.
"I . . . I can't."
"Jesus Christ, Ramsey, you turn your fucking crate around right now or I will shitcan you from this man's Navy, do you understand?"
[over radio] "That's a good lad, Ramsay. Turn the plane around and do your duty."
"But . . . look. I . . . This is madness."
"Ramsey! This is a direct order. You go back and mow down those Iraqi stragglers this instant."
[over radio] "Please, lad."
Ace of Spades -- Tuesday, September 24, 2002 -- 11:53:42 AM -- 693 of 715
The problem with that analysis is the timing of it. When was Gulf War I relative to the election? What was 41's popularity after Gulf War I? Hence...
...isn't strictly true. It's highly unlikely that Bush will be as self-evidently successful in the War on Terror as his father was the first go around in Iraq. Moreover, the first time it didn't make any difference in the election anyway.
Unless we have some new at least mini-WTC type setbacks between now and 2004, I think the WoT's impact on the presidential election will be minimal. Provided the Democratic nominee doesn't shoot himself in the foot totally by being a George McGovern about it.
You're right that getting the nomination is different and allows for more leftward tilt than does winning the general election, but so far Gore's likely opponents are staying well to the right of the position he's staking out, so he needn't go any farther left than that. In any case, the hard left in the Democratic Party can't be counted on, especially to vote for Gore and over this issue: remember his record on Gulf War I, which primary opponents could always hammer him for as a "flipflop," not to mention quoting what he said during Operation Desert Fox.
Again, the sole advantage for Gore I see is that he stakes out his territory and tacitly declares, "Yeah, I'm running, I'm the opposition."
But it would have been much more advantageous to take the opportunity given him to not commit and instead stick to the economic message. Which is what the Democrats have to pin their hopes on anyway. They won't win if the major issue in 2004 is one of foreign policy.
An analysis that Eric the Red can endorse...
Robert Fisk decides that the fact that Saddam is vigorously producing WMD is a ringing indictment: of America and Britain.
"Tony Blair's "dossier" on Iraq is a shocking document. Reading it can only fill a decent human being with shame and outrage. Its pages are final proof – if the contents are true – that a massive crime against humanity has been committed in Iraq. For if the details of Saddam's building of weapons of mass destruction are correct – and I will come to the "ifs" and "buts" and "coulds" later – it means that our massive, obstructive, brutal policy of UN sanctions has totally failed. In other words, half a million Iraqi children were killed by us – for nothing."
Saddam's developing WMD? Shame on the West; it's all our fault!
