licking gwb’s ass and gung ho supporting the war on iraq; also viewing the war on terror uncritically; is not promoting jewish values. judaism teaches us to question authority, to stand up for justice, and to keep a low profile. shmuley does none of the above.

Yo Mobius & homeboy from Jewschool.com I’d love to meet you guys and say what up sometime when I am in NYC. For real. I’m just a Hebrew Homie like you guys. I’m sure we’d have a “real spiel” and you might see me differently when you spiel with me face to face. I just have a true heart to serve God. It’s not my fault that Yeshua (Jesus) is the True Jew Messiah. For real bro, try walking in my shoes. I can’t Heeb front. I’m too honest for that. If you got a #, feel free to email me at my http://www.50shekel.com site. I’d love to chat and challah with ya both. -Shek

Mobius says: “licking gwb’s ass and gung ho supporting the war on iraq; also viewing the war on terror uncritically; is not promoting jewish values. ”
Looks like God is a Democrat. Really, just think of the mockery you would heap on a right-wing version of that statement. (“Not respecting or supporting a leader who did the the right thing; failing to support a just war that removed a mass-murderer from power; making excuses for terrorists and their supporters; is not promoting Jewish values.”)
“judaism teaches us to question authority…”
Question, yes. Automatically oppose, no. Jew are supposed to oppose authority only when it opposes our beliefs; otherwise, Jews have traditionally supported authority.
“to stand up for justice,…”
Like, for example, supporting the overthrow of the butcher of hundreds of thousands.
” and to keep a low profile.”
That has varied according to time and place. It’s not a core teaching of Judaism, rather a response to circumstances which arguably don’t apply today. And, Mobius, low profile? Pot calling kettle?
I’m no fan of Shmully, but these are not the reasons.

Au contraire, Shtriemel. The old-fashioned, pre-metrosexual, non-sensitive don’t-give-a-damn style, done right (for example, by, ahem, me) will always work just fine. But that’s a whole other topic…

Really, just think of the mockery you would heap on a right-wing version of that statement. (“Not respecting or supporting a leader who did the the right thing; failing to support a just war that removed a mass-murderer from power; making excuses for terrorists and their supporters; is not promoting Jewish values.”)
gwb took america to war under the false assertions that iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that saddam hussein was involved in plotting the sept. 11 attacks. he claimed that saddam was an imminent threat to american security and needed to be removed. however, all subsequent congressional investigations found that information to be false and the current white house fiasco is proving moreso everyday that the administration falsified evidence in order to take the country to war. if you read the project for a new american century’s report “rebuilding america’s defenses” you’d see that the plan to invade iraq was on the table before bush even took office and that the administration was waiting for “a new pearl harbor” to give them the opportunity to strike. i fail to see how that was doing the “right thing.”
bush also said during his campaign and early in his presidency that he didn’t believe it was the responsibility of the united states to police the world. now you could say that that’s protectionist, or you could say, if you look at america’s involvement in world military affairs (with only few exceptions) generally it has been a rooted in a policy of economic imperialism and not in the slightest because of an impetus to secure the well-being of our fellow human beings. thus america’s better of staying out of things because their kavanah is not in the right place. if it were, we’d be in rwanda, somalia, sudan and kashmir right now, and we’d be pouring billions into providing cheap drugs to africa and not running around trying to stop cheap drugs from being manufactured. but we’re not. and why not? because there’s no profit to be made with that agenda. thus, we have no business sticking our noses anywhere because we can’t be trusted to do the right thing.
if you want to talk about not supporting terrorist leaders, i’d like to know why you’ve said nothing about bush’s $36 million gift to the taliban just six months before 9/11, halliburton’s off-shore business dealings with iran, their open-armed welcoming of qaddafi, their demand that israel arm the palestinian authority, and bush’s lovey dovey relationship with saudi arabia.
Question, yes. Automatically oppose, no. Jew are supposed to oppose authority only when it opposes our beliefs; otherwise, Jews have traditionally supported authority.
The Yehudi said, “When the Messiah comes, all the righteous will go to meet him — the leaders with their Hasidim. But there will be those leaders to whom the Messiah will say, “Go away with your Hasidim.” Then the Hasidim will come near and cry a lot and will say ‘Oh Messiah, in what way have we sinned; didn’t we have faith that our Rebbe was a true Zaddik? What is your criticism of us?” And the Messiah will reply ‘All man’s life, he should pray to God that he should merit to connect to a true Zaddik; and God will not withhold good from those who are wholehearted. And if you truly wanted to connect with a true Zaddik, he would have enlightened your eyes in truth. Clearly, in truth, your desire was not genuine.”
lesson: you should never stop questioning.
That has varied according to time and place. It’s not a core teaching of Judaism, rather a response to circumstances which arguably don’t apply today. And, Mobius, low profile? Pot calling kettle?
fair enough.

Uh Mobius, you do of course know that your handy Yehudi quote is colored by its historical context. It is nothing less than a partisan jab against the rise of the Polish Hassidic movement. The reverence of Tzadikim has a long and well established position in the Judaism. And of course, the Hassiddic movement was pretty radical in its day. So yeah, go ahead and question – but it’s best done from the perspective of enlightened discourse and study, from a position of knowledge and respect. A few months in a Yeshivah usually isn’t enough. And questioning does not mean the formulation of ex post facto justifications so that your radical subjectivist view of Judaism conveniently fits into a pre-existing lifestyle and world view. But that’s just my opinion – I mean what the hell do I know.

OK, here goes.
The first point is that if Mobius and his ilk were sincere in elevating global human rights as their highest priority, THE INTENTIONS AND MALFEASANCE OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WOULDN’T MATTER. (Sorry about the screaming caps; needed emphasis.) Even if Bush actually lied, even if the USA was only liberating Iraq for its own greedy purposes, the invasion should still have been heartily endorsed by Mobius. After all, Iraq is far safer and better off without Saddam. The number of lives lost – American, Iraqi, otherwise – in fighting are miniscule compared to lives taken (and what would be taken) by Saddam. So why don’t leftists support the war? Because it’s far more important to them to discredit America and the Bush Administration. When was the left ever concerned about Iraqis? (Now Palestinians, that’s another matter. But even that has little to do with the Palestinians…)
Next, let’s take on the bundle of lies about the Iraq war.
“gwb took america to war under the false assertions that iraq had weapons of mass destruction …”
First, Bush was hardly alone in believing Iraq had WMD. All American intelligence agencies thought so, along with all the major foreign ones (even France’s). Congress believed this too. The CLINTON Administration believed this (and in fact advocated an invasion in the late 90’s, but naturally lacked the balls to carry out). Even the leftists believed this -I recall that one of their arguments against invasion was that Saddam would use WMD against US soldiers. And it was very credible – Saddam was refusing to submit to the UN inspections he had agreed to. In fact, Saddam still retained on his payroll various experts in nuclear weapons and chemical WMD. There is no reason to think that “Bush lied” – unless you think a great many other people conspired to lie with him.
“and that saddam hussein was involved in plotting the sept. 11 attacks. ”
Not so. Bush said only that there had been contacts between Saddam’s government and al-Qaeda, which is true. And this item was not used in and of itself as a reason to go to war.
“he claimed that saddam was an imminent threat to american security and needed to be removed.”
Completely false. He made it very clear that the danger was NOT imminent, but that it would be foolish to wait. Check the statements.
“however, all subsequent congressional investigations found that information to be false…”
Which information? And are you aware that those investigations clearly said that Bush did not lie, massage facts, or pressure intelligence agencies to tell him what he wanted to hear?
“..and the current white house fiasco is proving moreso everyday that the administration falsified evidence in order to take the country to war.”
The special prosecutor said that his investigations have nothing to do with the case, or lack thereof, for war. They are about the outing of Plame. Libby is accused of lying about his conversations about Plame, not of outing her. Try to understand the facts before you mangle them.
“if you read the project for a new american century’s report “rebuilding america’s defenses” you’d see that the plan to invade iraq was on the table before bush even took office and that the administration was waiting for “a new pearl harbor” to give them the opportunity to strike. ”
Well, here’s an open secret for you: the US perpetually has plans available to invade just about every country, even Canada, probably. Just in case. Second, it would be surprising had the Administration not been ready to invade Iraq. Iraq spent the 90’s violating its agreements with the UN (agreed to at the close of Gulf War I by Saddam) in almost every possible respect. Some people in the Clinton Administration were starting to advocate an invasion for this reason. And these violations, cited by the Administration in its request to the UN, ALONE constitute ample justification for the war. Were you going to mention these violations? Did you know about them? Were you hoping I didn’t?
“bush also said during his campaign and early in his presidency that he didn’t believe it was the responsibility of the united states to police the world. now you could say that that’s protectionist,”
No, it’s common sense. Even the most interventionist Administration can’t place the USA in a position where the USA is required to police EVERYTHING.
“if you look at america’s involvement in world military affairs (with only few exceptions) generally it has been a rooted in a policy of economic imperialism and not in the slightest because of an impetus to secure the well-being of our fellow human beings.”
No, the policy has been based on justified self-interest (not economic imperialism) with some charity thrown in. And there’s nothing wrong with that. The US is not required to fight everyone’s wars or give up all of its money. (Have you volunteered for any just wars lately?) It is only required not to encroach on other countries’ just interests, and I think the US has by and large met this requirement over the last 60 years. Even if your standards of behavior were correct, you’d still be in the position of criticizing the US for failing to meet standards that have never been imposed on any country in history.
“thus america’s better of staying out of things because their kavanah is not in the right place.”
What a purist you are. Let all the victims die because America’s kavanah isn’t what it should be. That’s not just wrong, it’s sick. Big of you to write off (OTHER) people’s lives for the sake of your purity. And that’s surely not Judaism, either. (Mitoch Shelo lishma, ba lishma…)
“and we’d be pouring billions into providing cheap drugs to africa and not running around trying to stop cheap drugs from being manufactured. but we’re not.”
What in the hell are you talking about? The US is now providing free drugs to Africans (lots of sources, but for fun, check out Rolling Stone’s recent interview with Bono).
“thus, we have no business sticking our noses anywhere because we can’t be trusted to do the right thing.”
If only you would say that to Iraqi families who lost members to Saddam, and were forced to watch their wives and mothers be raped by Saddam’s goons.
“if you want to talk about not supporting terrorist leaders, i’d like to know why you’ve said nothing …
Probably because I don’t have a political blog. I react to what’s said here.
“about bush’s $36 million gift to the taliban just six months before 9/11”
I believe that’s $43 mil, and in fact I didn’t agree with it. But it was for the purposes of humanitarian aid. As a conservative, I didn’t like it because I believe that such aid is fungible and ends up benefiting the regime. Too bad the Administration went with the fuzzy-headed State Department / liberal thinking on that. And you may now want to rethink aid to some African countries. But don’t try to have it both ways -blame the US when they don’t give, blame the US when they give.
“halliburton’s off-shore business dealings with iran,”
Did Halliburton do anything that was illegal or that other companies didn’t do? It’s the job of the government to close the loopholes in such areas. Otherwise heads of companies are forced to either do things like deal with Iran, or forfeit opportunities (thus screwing the shareholders) to other companies.
“their open-armed welcoming of qaddafi, ”
Say what? Didn’t Qaddafi give up his nuclear program? Shouldn’t we be encouraging that sort of thing?
“their demand that israel arm the palestinian authority”
Like that was their idea. This is just a continuation of Oslo. Much thanks to Rabin, Peres and Clinton. It would be nice if Bush could just openly side with Israel 100%. But given American interests, no President has or can do that. We judge them based on how far they lean toward Israel, not on whether they do everything we want.
“and bush’s lovey dovey relationship with saudi arabia”.
Wake up. This has been going on since FDR.
I just wanted to make it clear to whoever might still be reading this that the reason I have such deep contempt for leftists is not because I disagree with them. I’m capable of disagreeing without having negative feelings about my opponents. No, it’s because of the cheap shots, the facts taken out of context, and the lies, as demonstrated above.
I have no idea whether you knew of anything I wrote above or not. If you didn’t, you are far too ignorant to be preaching to others. If you did, you’re too sleazy.
I’m not sure what the Chassidic story added, since I didn’t deny that Jews should question. I do find it disturbing that you don’t seem to see the huge difference between questioning and opposing. And remember that Chassidism is only one of several versions of Orthodox Judaism. The very idea that the Messiah’s main concern with people would be whether they connected with a tzaddik properly would not sit very well with most Orthodox Jews.
Time for a drink….

Bush CERTAINLY LIED!!!
J, I truely cant believe how much of an apologist you are for the criminal administration of GW Bush. Here is a president who has not ever told a truth in his life. The man has a history of telling half-truths, bending the truth for his advantage, and basically lying to everyone around him. Has he ever been responsible for a single decision he has made.
Tax Cuts… Did they really turn the deficit into the surplus? No… Yet Bush touted this as his ECONOMIC REFORM package. Most Americans agree with me that the country is not headed in the right direction. Companies are being given tax breaks for moving operations to other countries, outsourcing has increased, net pay has decreased, poverty is once again on the rise, and the deficit is out of control.
Bush lied about 9/11, he lied about the supposed connections between AlQueda and Iraq, he lied about the WMD, he lied about what he knew and when he knew it. He lied the other day about what intellegence was known by the Senators who “voted for the war”. It seems they didn’t have all the information which the White House had. Why is Bush lying so much?
I am a proud Jew, and a proud Democrat. I am progressive in my secular beliefs and I am conservative in my religious beliefs. GW Bush is in the back pocket of the Evangelical Christians. This is why he seems so evil to me {G-d, when I look at his face I want to hurl}.
Whether or not taking Saddam out is another question altogether. That is something which should have been discussed and voted on. THE END DOESNT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. PREEMPTIVE WAR IS WRONG {Because your ‘evidence’ may not be right}. The way Bush is running America into the ground is OBSCENE.
I can’t believe G-d, the L-rd bless his name, condones what this man is doing. He goes around believing that what he does is G-ds will, but we know otherwise. He doesn’t believe in conservation of energy, believes we can pollute the planet without concern, thinks the US needs to fight 5 simultaneous wars, and doesn’t have a clue about what the majority of Americans think. He just DOESNT CARE… Like father like son…
Plus the administration now openly supports torture, reducing peoples civil rights, removing privacy protections [Patriot Act], among other evil things. I don’t want to hear about Terrorism, as I am 100% against terrorists. I am a victim of 9/11 and want to kill all terrorists. But I also am a realist, and I don’t believe torture works. I don’t believe that the only way to catch terrorists is to destroy all the civil rights that people have.
Can Bushs brain comprehend the reality of the situation?
I dont think so…

shmuley blows. boooo.

J,
It was never about whether Iraq had WMD. Yes, we all thought he had it because we watched rather blithely as he used them in the past. The question was whether, in a post-9/11 world, we could divert our resources away from the war on terror and towards the invasion and occupation of a country that posed ZERO IMMINENT THREAT to the United States (and, in so doing, provide the biggest geographic, ideological and strategic boon to Al Qaeda in its history). Opposition to the war was founded in the evidence that Hussein was not an imminent threat and that he was not connected in any way to our enemies on 9/11.
You say “Check the statements.” Okay. August 26, 2002, Cheney said “Many of us are convinced that Saddam Hussein will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon.” Many of us?? Nobody in any reputable intelligence agency believed that.
You could make a case for war based on “eventual threat.” It would be a bad case for war in my opinion, but you could make it. But this Administration did not talk about eventual threats. They spoke, repeatedly and consistently, about imminent threats from Hussein based on his imminent nuclear capabilities and his connections to the 9/11 terrorists. To this day, Bush talks about Iraq, terror and 9/11 as if they’re all wrapped up in the same package. They’re not — although, as a result of our mendacious and incompetent foreign policy, Iraq is now very connected to anti-American terror. But don’t mistake what is happening today with what happened prior to the invasion. We idiotically gave Iraq to al-Zarqawi practically as a gift wrapped with a giant bowtie, and now we’re tragically paying the price. Or are you going to argue that the huge presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq today was grounds to invade them two years ago? Don’t twist it: there was zero Al Qaeda presence there until we created the conditions for them to flourish. As for your comment that Bush only mentioned contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda, please don’t backtrack and take things out of context. Bush made those comments in the context of references to Iraq’s imminent threat and the attacks of 9/11. He didn’t need to say Hussein was flying on the airplanes into the World Trade Center to get his point across. That point was that Iraq was involved with Al Qaeda, our 9/11 enemies.
If you want more evidence of the distortions and lies of the Administration, just read the Downing Street Memo: “The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” That wasn’t said by anti-war agitators. It was said by the British government.
Or read this.
But don’t rewrite history. Our strategic interests have been compromised too much for the lies and distortions to continue unchecked.

J: Iraq is far safer and better off without Saddam? Are you shitting me. There aer suickde bombers killing hundreds if not thousands every month. We have looted and ruined the place, with Halburton, and other theives. The infant morality rate is way up and now there are death squads killing people in broad daylight.
Stop watching faux news.

sorry, that’s “war”

I’d like to respond to EV, Dameocrat, and beto (and thanks to cipher, for posting about something else!). And where’s Mobius??
First, EV.
Most of EV’s post makes a completely different point than the Mobius post I was responding to. My response dealt with whether it’s fair to say Bush and his Administration lied. EV (except at the end of his post) takes on the question as to whether the invasion was a good idea – and I disagree with his analysis, but here it’s more of a judgment call.
First, the end of EV’s post.
“If you want more evidence of the distortions and lies of the Administration, just read the Downing Street Memo: “The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” That wasn’t said by anti-war agitators. It was said by the British government.”
Mm, no. It was said by one member of the British intelligence establishment. Was it accurate, or just one man’s opinion? (This is why hearsay evidence is frowned upon.) And what does it mean? “Fixed” doesn’t necessarily mean falsehood. The statement may have meant something like “marshalling the relevant facts and intelligence to make the argument for the policy”. Additionally, there are some doubts as to the accuracy of the transcription (especially important when the arguments hang on a few words of the Memo).
The article linked to doesn’t contain anything helpful to “Bush lied” either. Read it closely. It mentions three cases wherein different intelligence agencies or different analysts reached different conclusions about particular items of evidence. (Shocking.) It’s not “lying” for an administration to reach conclusions based on favoring one agency/person’s view over another. (This is how elected governments are supposed to work. Elected officials are supposed to make use of expertise in all relevant fields- intelligence, foreign policy, economics, military, etc. – but then to DRAW THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS.
Re Cheneys’s statement, let’s have some context. The statement hinges on what “fairly soon” means. Well, here’s the rest of the statement.
“Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon. Just how soon, we cannot really gauge. Intelligence is an uncertain business, even in the best of circumstances.”
EV, I’m not accusing you of deliberately withholding the last two sentences. But in context, the statement looks rather different, doesn’t it?
Now for EV’s main argument.
“The question was whether, in a post-9/11 world, we could divert our resources away from the war on terror and towards the invasion and occupation of a country that posed ZERO IMMINENT THREAT to the United States (and, in so doing, provide the biggest geographic, ideological and strategic boon to Al Qaeda in its history). ”
As a taxpayer, I’m as concerned as anyone about America’s resources. But the US is fully capable of handling more than one conflict at a time. Considering America’s huge GDP (which grew again last quarter, thank you very much), this alone is not an argument against the invasion.
As for al-Qaeda, you’ll have to elaborate. Yes, our soldiers in Iraq do present another target to the terrorists, but on the other hand, if we can stabilize Iraq (and without Dem carping, we can), we’ll have created an open, viable alternative in the Arab world to the Scylla-and-Charybdes of secular tyranny and Islamist lunacy. Also, and just as important, success in Iraq will help reestablish respect for American power, allowing us to win some wars without even fighting them (Syria out of Lebanon; Libya giving up nukes).
“But this Administration did not talk about eventual threats. They spoke, repeatedly and consistently, about imminent threats from Hussein based on his imminent nuclear capabilities and his connections to the 9/11 terrorists. ”
See above. False re “imminent”; and the Admin was accurate re the connections (which it admitted were tenuous).
“To this day, Bush talks about Iraq, terror and 9/11 as if they’re all wrapped up in the same package. They’re not — although, as a result of our mendacious and incompetent foreign policy, Iraq is now very connected to anti-American terror. ”
They are indeed connected. They are all evidence of the lack of a pro-active US policy in the Middle East. Ten years of Saddam thumbing his nose at the US (and shooting at our planes) was not just a nuisance. It harmed America’s credibility and diminished respect for American power across the world.
“We idiotically gave Iraq to al-Zarqawi practically as a gift wrapped with a giant bowtie, and now we’re tragically paying the price. ”
Very flip. Far too early to call, and resolve on the part of the US, a hundred Zarqawis couldn’t succeed in Iraq. The only way he wins is if the US guarantees him that if he can hold on two more years, he wins (paging Senator Levin).
“Don’t twist it: there was zero Al Qaeda presence there until we created the conditions for them to flourish.”
I don’t twist anything; my posts on this thread make clear that al-Qaeda presence was not th ereason for the invasion.
“As for your comment that Bush only mentioned contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda, please don’t backtrack and take things out of context. Bush made those comments in the context of references to Iraq’s imminent threat and the attacks of 9/11. He didn’t need to say Hussein was flying on the airplanes into the World Trade Center to get his point across. That point was that Iraq was involved with Al Qaeda, our 9/11 enemies.”
You can impute a “between the lines” message if you want, but if you have to resort to an argument to the effect that Bush’s words were accurate, but he juxtaposed two items in order to mislead, you’re on pretty weak ground. Especially since there were other arguments used to explain the invasion.
I’m still waiting for the anti-war analysis of the ten years of violations. You guys seem allergic to that subject.

Beto was kind enough to call my Mobius response post “persuasive”, so I’ll mellow out with a drink first.
OK.
I said “”No, the policy has been based on justified self-interest (not economic imperialism) with some charity thrown in. And there’s nothing wrong with that. The US is not required to fight everyone’s wars or give up all of its money. (Have you volunteered for any just wars lately?) It is only required not to encroach on other countries’ just interests, and I think the US has by and large met this requirement over the last 60 years. ”
Beto responds “c’mon baby. with all due respect to a persuasive post, how about arbenz in guatemala, 1954. democratically elected. how about allende in chile. for starters. that’s some encroaching.”
Good points, but I choose my words carefully. Note the “by and large”. We could no doubt add dozens more to your two items. But my point would remain. If you consider the jungle that international relations is and always has been, and consider the difficult positions the US has been in due to its role in the world (example – the dubious allies we had in fighting Communism, kind of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t scenario), I stand behind my statement. And your examples may constitute blemishes on the US record, but considering that we were fighting the Soviets, doesn’t that at least mitigate the blame?
“”leftists” may have a boring party line, but you can’t deny a lot of ugly facts. the us is not the ugliest nation. but it’s ugly.
Moi? Deny facts? No way. And as for ugliness, you need the context. You can say that a .380 hitter in the Major Leagues fails most of the time, and you’d be right, technically. But those of us who follow baseball know that a steady .380 will get a player straight into the Hall of Fame. Same with the US. International relations are ugly, yes. But the US, or any other country, should properly be compared to other countries, past and present. By this standard, the US is Catherine Zeta-Jones.
Re Bush’s intelligence, true, he’s not the best speaker, but that’s not the only indicator of intelligence. And I thought he did fine in the debates (not that his competition was so hot).
Re the military-industrial complex problem you mention (extra credit for those who know who first popularized this problem – not who you’d expect), I agree to a point that arms manufacturers can influence policy far more than we’d like. But we can’t stop production altogether – what would happen to the US or Israel without defense? So- any ideas? We may just have to accept this problem as the lesser of two evils.
Re Exxon – even if Exxon was hoping for war, you hugely overestimate its ability to get the war started. In every war (and every major event) there are many thousand intended and unintended winners and losers. You need a lot more than a “war, then profit” argument to show causality (as the French guy in Matrix II might say).

So when are J and the other macho pro war people volunteering to go over to fight in Iraq or send their kids over there? With a draft this war would last another 5 minutes. The majority of the people in this country think the Bushies lied and the war wasn’t worth it.

J,
What I don’t understand about your posts is your fervent support for the war, and for the Bush Administration’s rationale for the war, when so many former hawks have turned on the administration in light of both the execution of the war and the revelations about the Administration’s pre-war shenanigans that brought us to this point. I actually think you’re a smart guy, which is why I’m surprised you don’t seem to have taken into account a full two years of horror in Iraq as a result of the Administration’s policies. Based on your arguments, I get the feeling next you’re gonna say that the Iraqis are about to greet us with flowers. No wonder you’ve turned to drinking! Okay, on to the usual quotes…
“Mm, no. It was said by one member of the British intelligence establishment.”
– In the meeting notes, there is no record of any debate over that point by any other officer in the meeting, including Prime Minister Blair. Elsewhere in the Memo, Foreign Secretary Straw is recorded as saying “[Hussein’s] WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.” Blair noted that “There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change.”
“‘Fixed’ doesn’t necessarily mean falsehood.”
That sounds like something Bill Clinton would say, J. Anyway, if you want to get into semantics: there are lies by omission and commission. Fixing intelligence means deliberately omitting conflicting and contradictory data to get the outcome you want. If it comes out that a scientist fixes the outcome of an experiment, the scientist will be discredited and likely lose his job.
“It’s not ‘lying’ for an administration to reach conclusions based on favoring one agency/person’s view over another.”
But it is lying for an Administration to actively suppress – from information given to Congress and from the public – intelligence estimates that contradicted its cherry-picked data, and then to draw public conclusions based on a portrait that they know is only half the picture.
“Re Cheneys’s statement, let’s have some context.”
You’re right, I didn’t see the fuller quote. But honestly, there’s no dearth of quotes on this! So here’s a couple others:
“He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.” Bush, March 6, 2003
“[The Iraq regime] has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.” – Bush, March 17, 2003
Please let me know which members of al Qaeda were trained by Saddam Hussein’s regime.
“As a taxpayer, I’m as concerned as anyone about America’s resources. But the US is fully capable of handling more than one conflict at a time. Considering America’s huge GDP (which grew again last quarter, thank you very much), this alone is not an argument against the invasion.”
By “resources,” surely you know I meant financial as well as military. As we are now painfully aware, we simply do not have the military resources to handle more than one conflict of this nature at a time. This is why we’re incapacitated in our dealings with North Korea and Iran – two countries that pose far greater threats than Iraq ever did. And they know this, and they’re using it to their advantage. As another poster indicated, I’m surprised a pro-war advocate such as yourself doesn’t insist on a national draft so that we can implement security for once and for all. As we’ve learned, we cannot rebuild Iraq on the cheap.
“Yes, our soldiers in Iraq do present another target to the terrorists…”
You’re missing (or obfuscating) the bigger picture. It’s not that soldiers are a target, it’s that the lack of security is creating the kind of chaotic instability that terror infrastructures feed off. Al Qaeda and its offshoots are swarming into Iraq and using it as their base for international terror, period.
“on the other hand, if we can stabilize Iraq…”
If we can stabilize Iraq? That’s a pretty big “if.” Have you been following what’s happening there, or do you just watch an endless loop of Bush carrying a turkey around to the troops? There’s a frighteningly strong chance now that Iraq becomes a terrorist-haven fractured/failed state or a theocracy – because of our invasion and implementation of the occupation. But how do you recommend we stabilize Iraq? Through “staying the course”?
“They are indeed connected. They are all evidence of the lack of a pro-active US policy in the Middle East. Ten years of Saddam thumbing his nose at the US (and shooting at our planes) was not just a nuisance. It harmed America’s credibility and diminished respect for American power across the world.”
Even if this is true, it had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11. Your broader arguments don’t address the concrete issue of conflation of Iraq with Al Qaeda and 9/11. They are not connected except by your specious “we don’t look good with a black eye” argument, which does not address the specific issue of conflation.
“I’m still waiting for the anti-war analysis of the ten years of violations. You guys seem allergic to that subject.”
The ten years of violations were not good, true, but as we know now, containment, however flawed, was working. How do you answer that point, anyway – that the lack of WMDs shows that containment actually worked? The bigger question is whether, given our limited military capacities, it was worth invading and occupying a state that posed no threat to us, and that would only become a threat to us if we invaded and occupied it – as critics of the war argued from before it even began. You seem rather allergic to that question. I’d also be curious to hear whether you feel any mistakes have been made by the Bush Administration since deciding to invade and occupy Iraq, and whether it has learned from these mistakes by changing its policy and by replacing incompetent officials with competent ones. Finally, on a slightly different topic, I’d like to know how campaigning tirelessly for a national policy of torture – while openly claiming “We do not torture” – will make Americans safer and Iraq more democratic.
This is taking me too long, and it’s no doubt boring to most other people on this site, so I’ll be a nice sensitive liberal and I’ll let you have the last word when you respond. Unless you really piss me off.