Have You No Shame, Mr. President?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

NEW YORK -- There was a time when some Americans of the left attacked Americans of the center and the right for being "prematurely anti-communist"; that is, they recognized Soviet communism in general and Joseph Stalin in particular for what they really were: totalitarian thugs and murderers.

The same sort of thing went the other way, too, with American lefties being attacked as premature anti-fascists when they questioned the wisdom of British and French appeasement of Hitler and, too, of the Soviet Union signing non-aggression treaties with the Nazis.

If you were too young to live through that, which means almost everybody alive today, you wonder how people could have been so stupid and how they could have been bullied into silence by that kind of shameless criticism.

Anyway, I was certainly too young to be part of any of that, and have always wondered how people got away with questioning the patriotism of premature dissenters.

Now, though, since President Bush's nutty little press conference last week, I take a certain pride in being prematurely against attacking Iraq. I also wonder why and how long we should politely take more and more of this patriotic ####### for being prematurely right.

There were those, a lot of us, and not all crazed liberals, who had a pretty good idea (and talked and wrote about) what was going to happen if the United States invaded Iraq for no particular reason -- at least no reason the government was sure of or could prove. Yeah, Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, no great distinction in much of the world, but there were those of us premature "defeatists" who tried to argue that the best we could hope for if we rolled our military dice in that sand was bloody sectarian chaos and civil war.

Actually, we were too optimistic and too patriotic. Many of us knew we could never bring democracy, stability and the American way of life to that part of the world. But we never for a moment thought that we would be incapable of controlling events, at least in the short run, or that we were capable of an incompetent, brutal and fearful occupation that would cripple us militarily and morally in the rest of the world. We were the good guys, not the guys capable of torture as a matter of policy.

So, there was the president, our president, last Monday morning on television, answering a challenge by reporters wanting to know if he agreed with our vice president's implication that anyone in Connecticut voting against the obsequious, self-righteous Joe Lieberman was emboldening "al-Qaida types" and sending the wrong message to terrorists abroad.

Said the president: "What all of us in this administration have been saying is that leaving Iraq before the mission is complete will send the wrong message to the enemy and will create a more dangerous world. ... In our judgment, the consequences for defeat in Iraq are unacceptable. I fully understand that some didn't think we ought to go in there in the first place. But defeat -- if you think it's bad now, imagine what Iraq would look like if the United States leaves before this government can defend itself and sustain itself. Chaos in Iraq would be very unsettling in the region."

Complete the mission? The mission is complete. Chaos in Iraq would be unsettling? There is chaos in Iraq.

"I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me," he said, which was nice. "This has nothing to do with patriotism; it has everything to do with understanding the world in which we live ..."

Well, he finally got that right. This is not about patriotism; it is about arrogance and ignorance at the highest levels of a great democracy. Have you no shame, Mr. President? Or is it you and Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who have never understood the world in which we live and think that you can bully us and bully history into believing it was our doing, not yours?

~ Richard Reeves

[GaryC 7]

To Richard Reeves, Have you no shame sir? You site the examples of the past. Appeasement of Hitler, the failure to recognise Communist Soviet totalitarian thuggery and yet you fail to see the vital importance of our battle against the radical muslim Fascist.

You say you take "pride" in being prematurely right. I say you are dead wrong. The war in Iraq has everything to do with the fight with terrorism. Al-Qaida is all over Iraq. They do their best to set one side against the other. They want civil war their because they know that will cause the left in this country to loose their nerve and force us out. You are playing right into their hands. They also know that the left will do anything to regain their power, including selling out our country for your own political gains. I will never forget the sight of Senator Reid joyfully declare "We killed the patriot act!". At every turn the left blocks and obstructs all of Bush's efforts to combat terrorism. You publicly out our intelligence plans, try to give captured terrorist the same rights as our own citizens and play apologists to the very people that want to kill us. This is treason of the highest order. Have you no shame Mr Reeves?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's a bad time to be a thinking man.

[heishe 2]

But Al Qaeda wasn't all over Iraq till we destroyed the Iraqi government. This is one of the bad consequences of the invasion the author anticipated. He wasn't wrong!

To Richard Reeves, Have you no shame sir? You site the examples of the past. Appeasement of Hitler, the failure to recognise Communist Soviet totalitarian thuggery and yet you fail to see the vital importance of our battle against the radical muslim Fascist.

You say you take "pride" in being prematurely right. I say you are dead wrong. The war in Iraq has everything to do with the fight with terrorism. Al-Qaida is all over Iraq. They do their best to set one side against the other. They want civil war their because they know that will cause the left in this country to loose their nerve and force us out. You are playing right into their hands. They also know that the left will do anything to regain their power, including selling out our country for your own political gains. I will never forget the sight of Senator Reid joyfully declare "We killed the patriot act!". At every turn the left blocks and obstructs all of Bush's efforts to combat terrorism. You publicly out our intelligence plans, try to give captured terrorist the same rights as our own citizens and play apologists to the very people that want to kill us. This is treason of the highest order. Have you no shame Mr Reeves?

[GaryC 7]

But Al Qaeda wasn't all over Iraq till we destroyed the Iraqi government. This is one of the bad consequences of the invasion the author anticipated. He wasn't wrong!

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan, fled to Iraq after being injured as the Taliban fell (prior to the U.S./Iraq war). He received medical care and convalesced for two months in Baghdad. He then opened a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq and arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan.

CIA director George Tenet wrote in a letter to Senator Bob Graham dated October 7, 2002. "We have solid reporting of senior level contact between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information exists that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. . . . We have credible reporting that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities."

Source: http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/

Actually, Saddam Hussein knew plenty about terrorism. In essence, he owned and operated a full-service general store for global terrorists, complete with cash, diplomatic aid, safe haven, training, and even medical attention. Such assistance violated United Nations Security Council Resolution 687. The results not only broke international law, but also were deadly, as this chart demonstrates:

Let’s start with money. At a minimum, we know that Saddam Hussein’s government supported terrorism by paying "bonuses" of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. How do we know this? Tariq Aziz, Hussein's own deputy prime minister, was stunningly candid about the Baathist government’s underwriting of terrorist killings in Israel.

“President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000,” Aziz, announced at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen on March 11, 2002, Reuters reported the next day.

Source: http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Edited August 28, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Let’s start with money. At a minimum, we know that Saddam Hussein’s government supported terrorism by paying "bonuses" of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. How do we know this? Tariq Aziz, Hussein's own deputy prime minister, was stunningly candid about the Baathist government’s underwriting of terrorist killings in Israel.

“President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000,” Aziz, announced at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen on March 11, 2002, Reuters reported the next day.

Edited August 28, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[Fischkoepfin 1]

But Al Qaeda wasn't all over Iraq till we destroyed the Iraqi government. This is one of the bad consequences of the invasion the author anticipated. He wasn't wrong!

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan, fled to Iraq after being injured as the Taliban fell (prior to the U.S./Iraq war). He received medical care and convalesced for two months in Baghdad. He then opened a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq and arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan.

CIA director George Tenet wrote in a letter to Senator Bob Graham dated October 7, 2002. "We have solid reporting of senior level contact between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information exists that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. . . . We have credible reporting that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities."

Source: http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/

Actually, Saddam Hussein knew plenty about terrorism. In essence, he owned and operated a full-service general store for global terrorists, complete with cash, diplomatic aid, safe haven, training, and even medical attention. Such assistance violated United Nations Security Council Resolution 687. The results not only broke international law, but also were deadly, as this chart demonstrates:

Let’s start with money. At a minimum, we know that Saddam Hussein’s government supported terrorism by paying "bonuses" of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. How do we know this? Tariq Aziz, Hussein's own deputy prime minister, was stunningly candid about the Baathist government’s underwriting of terrorist killings in Israel.

“President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000,” Aziz, announced at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen on March 11, 2002, Reuters reported the next day.

Source: http://www.husseinandterror.com/

All of the statements from 2002, showing a link between Hussein and Al-Quaeda, have been discounted since due to faulty intelligence. That, of course, does not mean that he did not fund suicide bombers, but, despite what some people might think, Hamas is not an arm of Al-Quaeda. That's like claiming ETA is part of the IRA.

Whatever you think or thought of the war in Iraq, the American invasion has undoubtedly caused terrorism to flourish in Iraq. Prior to the invasion, there were neither daily suicide bombings nor road bombings nor kidnappings by random organizations interested in money, holy war, freedom, or all three.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The significant stockpiles of chemical / biological agents or the growing "R&D programme" still have yet to materialise. Though some folks seemed to think that a Fox News report alluding to the discovery of decaying 15 year old chemical agents amounted to a smoking gun. Hardly.

Not to mention the whole issue with Saddam seeking to buy uranium from Nigeria which turned out to be completely bogus, based on falsified documents - but which the administration used (for the purposes of blatant propaganda) against the objections of a great many people in the international intelligence community; and which resulted in the Plame affair - for which an administration official has already been indicted. Yet apparently its all about Wilson/Plame's political agenda. Forgive me while I bite my tongue

Edited August 28, 2006 by erekose

[Fischkoepfin 1]

The significant stockpiles of chemical / biological agents or the growing "R&D programme" still have yet to materialise. Though some folks seemed to think that a Fox News report alluding to the discovery of decaying 15 year old chemical agents amounted to a smoking gun. Hardly…

Add that to the fact, that inspectors were in Iraq prior to the American invasion. Yes, they had been kicked out in 1998, but reentered in 2002 following the UN-resolution. Throughout the entire discussion leading up to the invasion, Hans Blix, chief UN-inspector, emphasized that they had not found any new evidence of WMD. And yes, he did say his inspectors needed until June to make sure, but as later inspections have shown (including the official American search), Blix was right.

[rclouse 0]

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan, fled to Iraq after being injured as the Taliban fell (prior to the U.S./Iraq war). He received medical care and convalesced for two months in Baghdad. He then opened a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq and arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan.

CIA director George Tenet wrote in a letter to Senator Bob Graham dated October 7, 2002. "We have solid reporting of senior level contact between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information exists that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. . . . We have credible reporting that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities."

Source: http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/

It's fun taking quotes out of context! You can make people believe almost any crazy old thing!

[jjjimmy 0]

You can not take comments from sen. clinton given in 2002 at face value because she was being fed the same bad information as the rest of the country.The fact is that comparisons can be made to many mideast gov. in regard to aid given to terrorist factions for example we know that the saudis have given aid to many of these groups but you dont hear people on the right talking about that.Sadam hussien was a bad guy but i dont believe that it was our job to try and free a people who have no concept of freedom and when given an chance to vote chose people from radical islamic groups as leaders.You only need look at the palistinian choices of hamas to understand this.In the end aggression is never good, history has proven that.and i dont pretend to have the answer to this problem but i think the current events show that neither does this administration.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You can not take comments from sen. clinton given in 2002 at face value because she was being fed the same bad information as the rest of the country.The fact is that comparisons can be made to many mideast gov. in regard to aid given to terrorist factions for example we know that the saudis have given aid to many of these groups but you dont hear people on the right talking about that.Sadam hussien was a bad guy but i dont believe that it was our job to try and free a people who have no concept of freedom and when given an chance to vote chose people from radical islamic groups as leaders.You only need look at the palistinian choices of hamas to understand this.In the end aggression is never good, history has proven that.and i dont pretend to have the answer to this problem but i think the current events show that neither does this administration.

[vartan 0]

i dont believe that it was our job to try and free a people who have no concept of freedom

I disagree I think everyone should have a chance at freedom.

when given an chance to vote chose people from radical islamic groups as leaders.

Hahah you think they have a choice??? no .. My family is from Iraq my aunt 2 cousins and uncle just came to the US 2 years ago... Oh wait .. that is right my uncle never made it to the US because he had to fight in Saddams army against his will and was killed.. They were Christians.. they had no choice.. They had no vote.. If they had freedom they would have..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I disagree I think everyone should have a chance at freedom.

That's all well and good, but (not that you are) to suggest that liberating Iraqis was the specific, tacit goal of the war completely disregards the questionable politics involved in the decision.

when given an chance to vote chose people from radical islamic groups as leaders.

Well there is a historical tendency that national threats / tragedies push people towards aggressive forms of nationalism. Certainly, as I've said before Iran handing kicking out the Shah and handing over government of their country to a religious theocracy in 1979 can be viewed in those terms.

As to whether or not totalitarianism comes first, it’s a bit of a "chicken and the egg" thing.

Edited August 28, 2006 by erekose

[Veiled Princess 1]

Al-Qaida is all over Iraq.

Al-qaida is all over Iraq because the US invaded and crushed Iraq and took out the person who (bad as he was) was actually keeping al-qaida out of Iraq.