The final round of my debate with David Horowitz about Glenn Beck and the future of the Republican party appears on Frontpage.
Some excerpts:
FRUM: You think that conservatives lose when they are insufficiently vocal, insufficiently confrontational, insufficiently mobilized. You see a national majority in Palin’s politics of cultural grievance, and the paranoid alienation Beck offers his Fox television audience. But the evidence is against you on all counts.
Angry protest politics did not work for the Left in the 1960s. Angry protest politics will not work for the right in the 2000s.
That’s not to deny the importance of this bloc of voters or the significance of their concerns. Rather, I’m saying that we have to join this bloc to the other blocs conservatives also need – married women, the educated, upwardly mobile immigrants. The wild, extreme and sometimes racially tinged talk we unfortunately hear from the most visible personalities on the right is detrimental to this effort.
HOROWITZ: I think Republicans generally want a fighter. You can be a centrist and a fighter. Why not? But in the first nine months of the Obama Administration, it is Palin who has set the standard in facing down the Left.
You say that angry protests did not work for the Left during the 60s. Are you forgetting that our angry protests were aimed at the Democrats and that by destroying the Democrats we elected Reagan governor of California, and Nixon president in 1968? Psychotic anger worked for the Democrats in 2006 and 2008 and brought them victories in Congress and the White House. What can you be thinking?
You can read the whole exchange here.
78 responses so far
1 DFL // Oct 2, 2009 at 8:38 am
Political parties tend to win more converts with sugar than vinegar. The success of Ronald Reagan is proof of that. Angry politics works only in the worst of times, like in Depression-Era Louisiana during the Huey Long era. The French rioters of 1968 were trounced by the French people who wanted the law and order of Charles De Gaulle rather than the calamity of Danny the Red. The college loudmouth radicals and the black rioters of the 1960s were vital to the Republican resurgence after the Goldwater hiding of 1964.
That said, a party that ignores or denigrates it’s base also loses. John McCain is a great example of this. He could have been a party leader yet he delights more in stabbing his party base in the back than in defeating the opposition. George W. Bush did much the same as McCain. Part of the anger of Republican conservatives is that they have been ill-served by Rrepublican party leaders.
2 sinz54 // Oct 2, 2009 at 10:03 am
Frum:
Well, it seemed to work for the black militants.
It became a kind of kabuki theater: Black agitators would incite crowds to rampage through neighborhoods, trashing and looting stores, torching cars, etc. Then the terrified mayor would “walk the streets to cool passions.” And along the way, he would promise to shower the black neighborhoods with favors.
This type of racial extortion did work. I lived in New York City and I saw it done to mayors Lindsay and Beame. It was only with the election of men of tougher stuff like Koch and Giuliani that it stopped working.
3 sinz54 // Oct 2, 2009 at 10:08 am
dfl:
Yet public opinion p0lls taken right through 2006 showed that support for Bush by self-identified conservatives was around 85%.
There was a little grumbling about Medicare Part D. But for the most part, the GOP base adored Bush. Criticize Bush on a blog like Little Green Footballs or RedState and you got instantly banned.
The first time I saw the GOP base actually oppose Bush was on Bush’s immigration bill–and that was in 2007, the penultimate year of Bush’s presidency.
The truth is, the only reason the GOP base feels “ill-served” by Bush is that Bush’s bumbling on things like Iraq enabled a doctrinaire liberal to capture the White House. But they never look in a mirror and think about what THEY did–or didn’t do–to circle the wagons around Bush’s bumbling and keep America heading on a disastrous course that forced Americans to take a chance on a doctrinaire liberal.
4 raygun // Oct 2, 2009 at 10:47 am
Sarah sets the standard, and a very low one it is.
5 balconesfault // Oct 2, 2009 at 11:38 am
Psychotic anger worked for the Democrats in 2006 and 2008 and brought them victories in Congress and the White House.
Love that line. If Horowitz sells that idea to the Republican Party as a whole … it’s going to be a nuclear winter for teh GOP.
6 Levedi // Oct 2, 2009 at 12:23 pm
“But in the first nine months of the Obama Administration, it is Palin who has set the standard in facing down the Left.”
Is Horowitz serious? In the first nine months of the Obama admin all she’s done is quit her job and write her book, both of which made her look like a weak leader and an opportunist. Oh, yeah, there was also that celebrity spat with David Letterman. No one who isn’t an actual Palin fan has any idea what she’s up to beyond these three things. They, and I, see her as a stuffed shirt and a hasbeen already. Even the Palin fans I know can’t tell you specifically what she’s been doing other than those three things. Sure, she’s given a couple speeches, but nobody read them. Even NRO doesn’t have much mention of her lately because what is there to say? Kathleen Parker was right for once – Palin is going to go down in history as a could have been. If she’s remembered at all. Horowitz’s citing of Palin just proves Frum’s point.
7 mymy // Oct 2, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Mr.Frum.I want to thank you.After reading all the negative stuff written about Glen Beck,I decided to listen for myself.I found his show and tuned in just as he was talking about the Olympics.It was really funny.Thank you for pushing me to try his show.I will certainly tune in on Monday
8 balconesfault // Oct 2, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Votes? How many people believe mymy never watched Beck before?
9 EscapeVelocity // Oct 2, 2009 at 12:46 pm
balconesfault, you are clearly not a nuanced thinker.
The Democrats pander to Nutroots Nation now, as a speaking and fundraising regular stop in the primaries.
You cant understand the multipronged multigroups multitactics approach, in which the grassroots does more than just pound the pavement and quietly vote for the GOP. Or maybe you are just terrified of the active Conservative Base, deeply motivated and learning the Leftist tactics for success.
It was nice to have a complacent staid conservative to go up against, now 2 sides are fighting the war.
10 EscapeVelocity // Oct 2, 2009 at 12:48 pm
The GOP and the Conservative movement are 2 different things, related, yet different. the 1000 headed hyrdra that is highly motivated on a visceral emotional level, to do whatever is necessary to succeed.
11 anniemargret // Oct 2, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I beg to differ with Mr. Horowitz’s interpretation that ‘pyschotic anger’ from liberals won the election.
There was most definitely rage against Bush, rightly earned, who went from a 90% approval rating after he was first election, to 23% when he left office.
The war in Iraq, one of the biggest strategic errors made, the horrendous indifference shown during the Katrina disaster, illegal wiretapping, Cheney’s and Condi’s lies and manipulations, the trillion dollar combined deficits, jobs losses, tax cuts for the rich, corporate welfare, sanctioning of torture as policy, Abu Gahraib, and an ability by the Bush administration to ratchet up antagonism among allies, were only a few reason why they lost. Add in the endless culture wars dominated by right wing TV and radio, and there was a real backlash.
There wasn’t remotely anything ‘psychotic’ about any of it. Now compare all of that to today’s GOP… ill-informed, racist, culture-baiting, fear-mongering, obvious indifference to the healthcare cost crisis as Americans die from lack of it. Now who’s using ‘psychotic’ as a baseline?
Right now, there is talk that Palin could be a ’serious contender’ for the GOP in 2012 . Un.Be.Liev.Able. What the GOP wants now is a smart-alecky, sassy, sarcastic, divisive ‘culture warrior hottie’ as their leader. Romney, Pawlenty, Huckabee are has-beens- not colorful or sassy enough. Too educated, too articulate, too bland. As I read this column just now I looked up on the right side of the page and there is another culture baiter, Michelle Bachmann. Ugh. Double-ugh.
Yep…They would make the perfect Pres/VP contenders for the GOP.
12 balconesfault // Oct 2, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Escape – you escape reality once again by labelling “nutroots” people who are largely advocating for positions that have over 40% support in this nation … many much greater than 50% support.
The majority of Americans now believe that we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq. The majority of Americans do not believe that abortion should be totally outlawed. The majority of Americans – 65% according to the latest poll – believe we should have a “public option”, and that percentage grows when you frame the question “should Americans be able to buy into a Medicare-type system”, since people love their Medicare.
Oh yeah – and the majority of Americans voted for Obama. In fact, only once in the last 6 Presidential elections has the Republican Candidate won a majority of the public vote.
Escapevelocity rants against the leftists who hate America. What Escape doesn’t realize is that the way he defines “leftist” … leftists ARE America.
13 EscapeVelocity // Oct 2, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Im with Horowitz, lock, stock, and barrel.
14 mymy // Oct 2, 2009 at 12:56 pm
BALCON I don’t watch much TV.No Hannity,Orielly,Maddow, none of them.Sorry we do watch Cardinal baseball.I get all the yelling I need from my husband when the umpires don’t agree with him
15 EscapeVelocity // Oct 2, 2009 at 12:56 pm
What we are seeing is the culmination of the 60s New Left’s confrontation with Western Civilization.
16 EscapeVelocity // Oct 2, 2009 at 12:57 pm
In Europe its going to lead to a nasty Religio-Ethnic Cleansing.
17 anniemargret // Oct 2, 2009 at 12:59 pm
escape: the ’60s’ are so way over. Over. Over and out.
18 balconesfault // Oct 2, 2009 at 12:59 pm
escape – can you go a day without a racist diatribe?
Just wondering.
19 EscapeVelocity // Oct 2, 2009 at 1:13 pm
escape: the ’60s’ are so way over. Over. Over and out. — Annie Margaret
Im heading over to the Women’s Studies department, then over to the AfricanAmerican Studies Department, then on to the Gay & Lesbian Studies Department, then over to the… just to confirm AnnieMargarets delusions.
20 Tommy Boy // Oct 2, 2009 at 1:42 pm
“she’s given a couple speeches, but nobody read them.”
I prefer to deal with facts and reality. It appears that her speeches and op-eds are actually very well-read if you live in the factual world.
http://online.wsj.com/public/page/most_popular.html#0
According to this data compiles by the Wall Street Journal, her op-ed was actually the most read op-ed this month and the third most read item overall this month.
I take it you didn’t read her cap-and-trade op-ed in the Washington Post. Well, John Kerry and Barbara Boxer, the leading Democrats on environmental issues, read it and decided to respond to it with an op-ed of their own.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/23/AR2009072302633.html
And you also seem to be forgetting about the fact that a controversial provision pertaining to end-of-life care was removed the same week she raised concerns about it in a Facebook post. Unless your head was in the sand during the healthcare debate, you might have missed the President himself addressing the point on no less than five occasions (did you forget his speech to a joint session of Congress or are you claiming that nobody watched that either?) trying to counter the argument.
I’m sorry pal but I live in the factual world where data matters. You may want to get yourself informed because you seem to be one of the few people who aren’t reading these op-eds.
21 Tommy Boy // Oct 2, 2009 at 1:46 pm
And as for the point that nobody read her speeches, does nobody include Paul Krugman or Paul Berman, the leading Demcrat on the House Foreign Relations Committee, both of whom disagreed wih her point of view.
You seem to be in the minority pal. Provide some citations to provide support for your argument or you’ll be just as useless as anniemarget, who adds nothing but her unsubstantiated opinion.
At least Frum provides data to support his argument, though I think he misinterprets it. Frum has never been able to explain though from the exit polls why among American who considered Palin a factor in their vote, that a substantial majority of them voted for McCain.
22 rbottoms // Oct 2, 2009 at 2:28 pm
That sounds like racking up a Trillion dollar hit to the economy , getting 4,000+ soldiers killed, and 40,000+ maimed is a mere trifle. A minor mistake.
23 DFL // Oct 2, 2009 at 2:41 pm
A terrible mistake, Mr. Bottoms. I wish the Republicans would learn from the disaster in Iraq but my hopes are not sanguine. Republican foreign policy thinking seems to be centered on Wilsonian spasms wrapped around alarmist shrieking. Republicans are dependent on the military vote which in turn encourages Republicans into misguided gambits like Iraq.
24 Arch // Oct 2, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Am I the only one who can’t find round 3. The link takes you to the front page of err, Frontpage. I see a link there for round 2.
On this, btw, I am with Frum. Beck comes across as grapenuts and that’s not the image conservatives should cultivate. I also believe more people voted against McCain because of Sarah Palin and her clearly not being ready for the presidency, than voted for him because of her.
25 balconesfault // Oct 2, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Republicans are dependent on the military vote which in turn encourages Republicans into misguided gambits like Iraq.
I don’t think so. The military wasn’t exactly chomping at the bit to go invade Iraq – it was rather a cadre of neocons from the PNAC, most of whom had done their best during their lifetime to avoid service – who pushed that debacle. And it was non-neocons in the Bush White House – also with no military background – who saw a war against Iraq as a political winner for the 2004 elections.
The Republicans won’t learn from the disaster in Iraq until they’re willing to admit it was a disaster. And the Republican Party is increasingly becoming neocon concentrate, as people who consider it a disaster leave the party. In March polling on the issue, 40% of Americans think invading Iraq was a good idea – including 39% of independents … and 79% of Republicans. This was the most recent I could find with party affiliation included – in the MOST recent polls (Sept 19-23) 67% of Americans think the war “was not worth it”.
But a Republican will still tell you that the “we shouldn’t have invaded” position, now held by up to 67% of Americans … is enough to label someone a leftist. Good luck with that.
26 balconesfault // Oct 2, 2009 at 2:58 pm
arch: I also believe more people voted against McCain because of Sarah Palin and her clearly not being ready for the presidency, than voted for him because of her.
That’s hard to tell – because it’s hard to tell how many social conservatives would have followed Dr. Dobson’s threat and stayed home last November had McCain nominated someone who wasn’t considered a movement social conservative.
Who else could have filled that role? McCain and Huckabee seemed to hate each other – that wouldn’t work. You sure weren’t going to bring them aboard with the heretic Romney, or with the philanderer (and worse yet, friend of gays) Giuliani. I was betting Brownback. But McCain went for the splash and chose Palin, presumably because she had also made the claim that she didn’t take federal money for the bridge to nowhere (technically right I guess – she just took the money and didn’t build the bridge) which fit in well with his economic program of restoring budget integrity by attacking earmarks.
The social conservatives may well have an argument – that without Palin they wouldn’t have shown up at rallies, or donated money, or manned phone banks, or voted … and that McCain’s loss might have been even worse.
And that’s not a very bright scenario for the Republican Party as it moves forward.
27 DFL // Oct 2, 2009 at 4:32 pm
balconesfault, I include retired military as military. There are tens of millions of retired military in this country, they are strongly Republican, and they tend to favor the vigorous use of the active military. Although it is not acknowledged by the punditry, retired military is one of the major factions of the Republican Party and they were vital in McCain’s nomination, especially in Florida and South Carolina.
28 Levedi // Oct 2, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Tommy-boy, you raise some good and relevant facts. And I’ll concede that “no body” was hyperbole. But I dispute your interpretation of the facts. Palin’s editorial was the most popular editorial this month? So what? The total subscribed readership of the WSJ is 2million people. The average reader has an income of over $200,000. (This is according to the dowjones.com cached WSJ fact sheet.) These are hardly typical Americans – they aren’t representative at all of the voters the GOP needs to attract to win major elections. Even if we assume that every subscriber (or an equivalent number of subscribers and online readers) read the editorials and that every one of those subscribers agreed with Palin’s position, that’s a population roughly equivalent to two Columbus, Ohios. Hardly a popular mandate there, even with some really generous assumptions about the readers.
Furthermore, I did read Palin’s editorials. They’re frustratingly weak. I already agree with most of her basic points and I find her presentation of them unconvincing and thinly supported. What on earth do you think this kind of writing is going to do for the unconvinced? The fact that Krugman responded doesn’t mean much – I’d argue that it’s more evidence that she’s become part of the media echo chamber. Palin is repeating talking points that are being made with more force, better evidence and louder voices by other conservative writers. Her Obamacare and Cap and Trade articles came after weeks of writing and tv commentary by other people, not to mention the organization of massive public protests. She’s not causative, she’s correlative. That’s not leadership, that’s getting on the bandwagon after other people have put it together.
(FWIW – I wanted Palin to be a great, or at least a good, new voice in conservative politics. I was one of those voters who was energized by her nomination. But I’ve watched her keenly since then and she hasn’t lived up to her initial promise. I wish it wasn’t so, but I still expect her to be old news by the time the 2012 election rolls around.)
29 Tommy Boy // Oct 2, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Levidi,
I thought Frum’s complaint is that we don’t do well enough with wealthier, educated voters. Aren’t those the people that read the Wall Street Journal?
Under your line of reasoning, then nobody read Obama’s op-ed in the New York Times since the people who read the NY Times are unrepresentative of America.
So effectively, if nobody is reading Obama or Palin, then nobody else is getting their material read. Wouldn’t that be the logical extension of your argument
30 Tommy Boy // Oct 2, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Levidi,
Your initial argument was that nobody knows what she’s doing. Then you concede she’s a part of the “media echo chamber,” whatever that phrase means. If she’s a part of that chamber, then the media is telling you what they are doing. How else are people supposed to know what you are doing unless they hear about it from the media? You seem to be conceding that her arguments are getting discussed fairly regularly in the media.
As for those other conservative writers, how can you make the argument that nobody is hearing what Palin says while at the same citing these writers who have significantly less name recognition (which is probably an understatement on my part)?
Even accepting your premise that she’s using arguments that others introduced, her high profile is what pushes these arguments into the “media echo chamber.” Why would you not want information published in the “media echo chamber” as that is how Americans consume news? If Palin pushes the same argument pushed by Steven Hayward of AEI, the media will obviously focus on it more if Palin pushes it because of her name recognition. It’s the same principle with Clinton, Obama, and any dem. Of course, you could be of the viewpoint that few Americans consume any news, and well, there’s not much Palin can do about that.
31 Moderate // Oct 2, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Reading Horowitz’s rebuttal is horrifying. He cannot be serious. He is too smart for this.
Is there any doubt – any doubt whatsoever – that Horowitz has hitched his fortune to Palin because he views her as an empty vessel likely to execute his extreme foreign policy ideas?
David Horowitz’s (and Bill Kristol’s) support of Sarah Palin is ipso facto evidence that they shouldn’t be trusted. It’s a shame: if they make any good points, I’ll still wonder “Why trust them? They’ve shown that they have no problem with lying.”
32 EscapeVelocity // Oct 2, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Just thought Id through this in there for all the Pro Abortion RINOs here…
Support For Abortion Slips
Issue Ranks Lower on the Agenda
Pew Research…
http://people-press.org/report/549/support-for-abortion-slips
33 EscapeVelocity // Oct 2, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Id rather be the party of retired military than the party of Jane Fonda.
34 EscapeVelocity // Oct 2, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Balconesfault said
Escape – you escape reality once again by labelling “nutroots” people who are largely advocating for positions that have over 40% support in this nation … many much greater than 50% support.
The majority of Americans now believe that we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq. The majority of Americans do not believe that abortion should be totally outlawed. The majority of Americans – 65% according to the latest poll – believe we should have a “public option”, and that percentage grows when you frame the question “should Americans be able to buy into a Medicare-type system”, since people love their Medicare.
Oh yeah – and the majority of Americans voted for Obama. In fact, only once in the last 6 Presidential elections has the Republican Candidate won a majority of the public vote.
Escapevelocity rants against the leftists who hate America. What Escape doesn’t realize is that the way he defines “leftist” … leftists ARE America.
———-
Yes the Nutroots (and their Lefting MSM allies have been very effective in poisoning support for Iraq.)
What does all this mean?
It means the BusHitler ChimpyMcHaliburton Troofers are a model to follow for some portion of the Conservative movement in order to promote their agenda.
But let us remember who created that type of politics….the Radical Left. Interestingly enough, these Radical Leftists are even more radical than the New Left of the 60s which are the zeitgeist now and have already marched through the institutions. No amount of success will ever be enough, they will keep pushing Left, making ever greater demands, further past every success.
35 The Plan // Oct 3, 2009 at 8:34 am
[...] here for the final round in my debate with David Horowitz that started with David’s critique of my [...]
36 sinz54 // Oct 3, 2009 at 9:34 am
dfl:
That’s ridiculous–and insulting to our men and women in uniform.
Despite what Leftists like you think, our enlisted troops are NOT warmongers. They don’t want to be sent off to yet another war–because they might be killed. And with the large percentage of minorities among the enlisted, this bloc is just as likely to vote for a Dem as for a Repub.
Polls have consistently shown this.
The officer corps is more conservative–but it’s too small to be a significant bloc of voters.
Finally, it wasn’t the soldiers who pushed Bush into Iraq. It was a collection of political scientists and columnists, most of whom had never served in uniform, who made up the Project for a New American Century (PNAC).
But thank you for lowering your cloaking device and letting us know what you really think of our men and women in uniform. I’m going to quote you extensively on other blogs. You’re going to be famous!
37 sinz54 // Oct 3, 2009 at 9:44 am
balconesfault:
Not necessarily.
The 2008 nomination process had some unique elements.
Back in the summer of 2007, the social conservatives had fallen in love with Fred Thompson, whose campaign was later to crash and burn.
The 5 way split between Thompson, Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani and McCain made it possible for four of these candidates to destroy each other while McCain, a known foe of the social conservatives, squeaked through with moderate votes and (in some states) even crossover votes from Democrats and Independents. That infuriated both social conservatives and all GOP partisans who felt that McCain “stole” the nomination with votes from non-Republicans. There were outraged calls for the GOP to disallow crossover voting in the future (which is impossible; in states like New Hampshire it’s mandated by state law).
Going forward, it’s vital that the GOP find candidates who have truly broad-based support–who can reach out to moderates while not alienating social conservatives. And who can reach out to social conservatives early and lock up their votes, and then reach out to other groups.
Reagan did that in 1980. Both Bushes did that. Pawlenty could do that.
38 sinz54 // Oct 3, 2009 at 9:48 am
escapevelocity:
Support for the Iraq War held at around 70% in the polls. Until December 2003, when David Kay announced to Congress that there was no WMD in Iraq.
Support for the war took an immediate hit of around 12 points. And as the insurgency increased, support for the war started to decline steadily.
The Iraq War was a disaster. Bush told the world we were going to invade Iraq to disarm Saddam–because Saddam, he said, “had amassed the most terrible stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.”
Where is it?
What exactly have our troops been fighting for, these last 5 years?
And was that the reason we were originally given?
39 sinz54 // Oct 3, 2009 at 9:55 am
rbottoms:
I guess you missed the part of my post where I said:
“….and keep America heading on a disastrous course….”
The GOP base knows that the public turned against Bush. That’s an undeniable fact from the polls and other evidence.
But the GOP base cannot admit that Bush’s policies were the cause. Because that would mean that Bush, their hero, screwed up.
So the argument I’ve heard on the staunch conservative blogs is that Bush just wasn’t articulate enough. He couldn’t argue his policies effectively to the public against all the “liberal media” who were arguing the opposite.
40 Chekote // Oct 3, 2009 at 10:32 am
Tommy-Boy
I have asked this on another blog, are you on Palin’s payroll?
41 Chekote // Oct 3, 2009 at 10:38 am
But the GOP base cannot admit that Bush’s policies were the cause. Because that would mean that Bush, their hero, screwed up.
This is not true. If you mean admitting that the world is not better off without Saddam terrorizing his own population and the region, no you will never get anyone to admit that. Were mistakes made in terms of intelligence assessment and the initial post-war startegy? Sure. I know very few in conservative circles who don’t admit that that Iraq mishandled. The lesson that we need to learn from Vietnam and now Iraq is that the American people WILL NOT support a drawn out conflict. On the domestic front, lots of Republicans turned against Bush regarding his spending, bailouts. How do you think he got down to approval numbers in the 20%?
42 Chekote // Oct 3, 2009 at 10:42 am
What exactly have our troops been fighting for, these last 5 years?
To prevent a power vaccum which will allow Iran to extert even more influence in the region. Do you want allow Iran to blackmail the world by holding 40% of the oil reserves hostage? Look at the havoc that $4.00/gallon price wreaked on the global economy and it only lasted a few months. Do you really want to see what $10/gallon does?
43 balconesfault // Oct 3, 2009 at 10:50 am
How do you think he got down to approval numbers in the 20%?
Well, during most of the last years of Bush’s Presidency, polls showed Republican Party affiliation in the 20’s. Since approval ratings for Bush by Dems and Independents crashed and burned thanks to Iraq and Katrina and the economy … by late 2008 Bush had approval ratings in the 20% range because the vast majority of the Republican Party still supported him.
Had they not, his ratings would have been in the low teens.
44 balconesfault // Oct 3, 2009 at 10:52 am
To prevent a power vaccum which will allow Iran to extert even more influence in the region.
Ummm – you do understand that the current government of Iraq is much much more closely allied with Iran than Saddam would ever have been, don’t you?
45 Chekote // Oct 3, 2009 at 11:02 am
balcon
As long as the US is stationed in Iraq, Iran’s influence will be limited. Besides, where do you get your assertion that they are more closely allied? The New York Times? That rag of the ideological Left. Let’s withdraw and the let gas prices skyrocket. That would make you liberals happy. You know, I am almost tempted to wish that Obama gets 100% of his way so that this generation gets a taste of the Carter years and how disconnected with reality liberal policies are.
So far, we were told to support the stimulus package because it was going to prevent the unemployment from going about 8%. It is now at 9.8% and most analysts predict it will rise about 10%. We were told that the world would love us once again and we would get all kinds of cooperation. So far Obama’s personal appeal could not get Chicago to make it past the first round. We are not getting any more help than Bush did in Afghanistan, the Guantanamo prisoners. Iran is still pursuing nuclear weapons. The reality is that countries do what they do because they perceive it to be in their self-interest. The fact that they like Obama more than Bush is irrelevant. Again, let Obama get his way so that people who believe the baloney that was fed during the campaign will get a taste of reality.
46 Chekote // Oct 3, 2009 at 11:03 am
Balcon
Mac got 46% of the vote. This country has been even split since 2000. That means that a lot of people who are/vote Republican turned against Bush.
47 midcon // Oct 3, 2009 at 11:07 am
dfl. It is very obvious that you know nothing about military thinking or culture or you would not have made that post. The military believes it is the chief defender of our nation. They also recognize and accept (but do not truly believe in) that they are an instrument of foreign policy.
When they are defending the nation they fully support military action. When they are instruments of foreign policy, they obey orders. There are differences in how they react to their orders. Our military does not seek war and nor do the active or retired military leaders lobby for it or support such endeavors. Foreign policy quagmires are anethma to the military culture because they like to know who the enemy is. If you understood anything about our military, you would not be saying such things and you would have a lot more respect for those who are the staunchest defenders of our Constitution.
48 Chekote // Oct 3, 2009 at 11:25 am
#47
Bravo!
49 balconesfault // Oct 3, 2009 at 11:34 am
As long as the US is stationed in Iraq, Iran’s influence will be limited.
This is true. If the purpose of our military is to maintain access to certain natural resources around the world, this is consistent. Although I’ve argued since the fall of the Iron Curtain that we should raise sufficient tax on our domestic oil consumption to pay for about 1/2 of our DOD budget – something that would have made a lot of regulations and subsidies over that time period that pushed for greater fuel efficiency (CAFE, ethanol subsidies, hybrid tax credits, etc) unnecessary while probably leaving us with close to no national debt right now. Because when you get down to it, that’s mainly what our DOD has been doing over that time period – policing the producing and shipping of oil.
Besides, where do you get your assertion that they are more closely allied? The New York Times? That rag of the ideological Left.
Let’s address the reflexive stupidity first. The NY Times was a primary conduit of the White House propoganda on WMDs prior to the invasion of Iraq, and their editorial page supported the invasion.
Second, do you realize where Al-Maliki spent his years in exile from Saddam? Try Teheran.
Do you trust the WSJ, meanwhile?
Thursday, Jun 18, 2009
(From THE WALL STREET JOURNAL)
By Gina Chon BAGHDAD — After the fall of Saddam Hussein, Iraq mended ties with Iran, once a nemesis where many of Iraq’s leading Shiite Muslim politicians found refuge from Mr. Hussein’s repressive regime.
AUGUST 25, 2009
(From THE WALL STREET JOURNAL)
By CHARLES LEVINSON
Iraq’s Shiite parties on Monday said they have formed a new alliance to compete in January’s parliamentary vote that doesn’t include Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s party — fracturing the country’s ruling Shiite coalition.
The new alliance — led by the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, which has strong historic ties to Iran — shakes up the political landscape and highlights the increasing divisions among Iraq’s once-unified Shiite parties.
Right now it looks like the leading parties in the upcoming elections will be a Maliki government which embraces close ties with Iran … and the New Alliance which will pretty much be directed by Iran.
50 balconesfault // Oct 3, 2009 at 11:39 am
ChecoteMac got 46% of the vote. This country has been even split since 2000. That means that a lot of people who are/vote Republican turned against Bush.
This is irrelevant to the discussion. Bush was still widely approved of by people who call themselves Republican right through the end of his Presidency. That a lot of people who considered themselves Independent (about 10% of whom had considered themselves Republicans back in 2004) voted for McCain does nothing to affect that fact.
And those independents still don’t approve of what Bush did … while the rank and file Republicans still largely defend Bush and his policies. Which creates a very effective fireblock to prevent those independents from returning to the Republican Party, even as they’re dissatisfied with Obama.
51 EscapeVelocity // Oct 3, 2009 at 11:55 am
The Left these days would have been bellyaching about WW2, about the War Crimes against the German People with mass aerial bombings.
The warmonger FDR. Trooferism over Pearl Harbor. Gulag Japanese internment camps. Etc etc etc…
This is the crapfest rampant on the Western Left. They will never support a US war effort and most will try to actively undermine it.
All an enemy has to do is hold out long enough and eventually the Left will cause such a ruckus that the American people will just want it to end….or they will get enough of a majority in Congress to defund it.
Ho Chi Min and his cohorts were demoralized after the failure of the Tet Offensive, however, then they saw the reaction in the American Media and the American Left, and were heartened. They knew that there strategy should solely focus on American public opinion…and they would eventually win.
52 midcon // Oct 3, 2009 at 12:45 pm
escape, Where ever did you get the idea that the North Vietnamese were demoralized after Tet? The U.S. ultimate success in the Tet Offensive simply caused the realization by NV leadership that they could not defeat the U.S. by conventional means. This resulted in a change in their strategy to return to the guerilla warfare, which ultimately provide a path to victory. Demoralized the VC? First time I have ever heard of that and I was actually in the military during during the height of Vietnam War. Were you ever even the military – or alive during Vietnam? Gotta be careful what books you read if you do that is.
53 sinz54 // Oct 3, 2009 at 1:04 pm
chekote:
I see it’s time to clear the air on a whole bunch of things. So you’ll forgive me for a rather long post:
Liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam was not the original casus belli, as anyone can see from the original war resolution of October 2002.
Giving the Iraqi people a chance at self-government is nice. But it was not the original reason for war. Just like ending the Holocaust of the Jews wasn’t the original reason the U.S. entered World War II. It was a nice side effect though.
Saddam’s ability to “terrorize the region” had evaporated after the Gulf War of 1991. It was only paranoia on the part of the Bushies that caused them to believe otherwise.
When the New York World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, a crackpot theorist, Dr. Laurie Mylroie, started pushing the theory that the bombing had been ordered by Saddam in revenge for his Gulf War loss. Actually, as the FBI discovered later, this was America’s first demonstration of what Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda could do, in revenge for the U.S. stationing troops on the “sacred soil” of Saudi Arabia. But Mylroie lobbied important conservative figures, such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, who would go on to take important positions in the Bush Administration.
The bombings continued: Khobar Towers in 1996, the U.S.S. Cole in October 2000. Each time the FBI found evidence leading to known terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and perhaps Hezbollah. Each time Laurie Mylroie said no, these bombings were caused by Saddam. And Wolfowitz and Perle eventually bought Mylroie’s theory that al-Qaeda was just a sideshow; the real terrorist threat was Saddam.
So that when the 9-11 attack occurred, Bushies like Wolfowitz and Perle were sure that Saddam must have had a hand in it, just like Mylroie had “proved” he had plotted all those other terrorist attacks.
In October 2001, just one month later, unknown terrorists sent anthrax through the U.S. mails, killing and injuring many, and panicking America. Laurie Mylroie again argued that these killings had been ordered by Saddam, making it even more “urgent” that we strike Iraq immediately! (In 2008, the FBI found that these killings were caused by a psychotic scientist who had the delusion that a college sorority–Kappa Kappa Gamma–was part of a plot to hurt men or something.)
Laurie Mylroie is truly the unsung villainess of the decade, a female Doctor Strangelove. Few Americans know her name. But it was HER original theory that Saddam was the real terrorist threat to America–that led to where we are today.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.bergen.html
As for your point about a long drawn-out conflict, that was due to a disastrous strategic error made by the Bushies. From the Freedom of Information Act, we have learned that their original plan was to just decapitate the Saddam regime, assuming that the lower levels of government and the rest of society would remain largely intact. And the U.S. could leave as soon as the first free elections were held–or so they thought.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB214/index.htm
What the Bushies ignored was that Third World countries are personality cults. Decapitate the personality and the rest of the government dissolves; you’re left with anarchy. Then you’re forced into a nation-building exercise, which takes a huge occupation force and hence is NEVER popular with Americans. Because they forgot that, the force of military and civilians they sent into Iraq was totally inadequate to maintain civil order and begin the process of rebuilding the Iraqi nation. They never thought that would be needed.
Had the Bushies bothered to ask our think-tanks and war colleges, that’s what they would have been told. Here, for example, is a RAND Corporation report on the factors of a successful military occupation. The biggest single determining factor is having enough troops to maintain presence. Their analysis suggested that you need a minimum ratio of one soldier for every 50 civilians. For Iraq, with a population of 26 million, that would mean you would need 520,000 occupation troops.
http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/summer2003/burden.html
And here is a study from the U.S. Army War College, which reached similar conclusions:
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/1995/quinliv.htm
Failure to provide such a force at the beginning led to the collapse of Iraqi society, inter-ethnic violence, and the rise of al-Qaeda terrorism.
After General Petraeus took over, his tactical brilliance helped him make do with fewer. But what really changed the situation was the so-called Anbar Awakening, in which Iraqis finally became so disgusted with al-Qaeda brutality that they decided to support their government.
Strategically, as James Webb pointed out, the replacement of Saddam (Sunni) and his formidable army by a government in which Shiites are dominant and which is still too weak to defend itself, has only served to strengthen Iran’s strategic position.
But Ms. Mylroie is still satisfied:
“I take satisfaction that we went to war with Iraq and got rid of Saddam Hussein. The rest is details.”
— Dr. Laurie Mylroie
54 balconesfault // Oct 3, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Watch it midcon – or you’re about to be labelled a western hating lover of radical leftism.
55 lasulasu // Oct 3, 2009 at 1:12 pm
escapevelocity // Oct 2, 2009 at 1:13 pm escape: the ’60s’ are so way over. Over. Over and out. — Annie Margaret “Im heading over to the Women’s Studies department, then over to the African American Studies Department, then on to the Gay & Lesbian Studies Department, then over to the… just to confirm AnnieMargarets delusions.”
Sorry for the necropost, but Escape, what exactly does that prove? I went to the UW website, a University located in Liberal Washington. Here are some departments listed. African , American Ethnic, American Indian, Asian, Canadian, Classics, European, French and Italian, Germanics, International, Japan, Jewish, Korea, Latin American, Middle East, Russian, East European and Central Asian, Scandinavian, South Asian, Spanish and Portuguese, and Women Studies.
Perhaps it just shows how you cherry pick information to support your twisted world view.
True, no Men studies, but if that chaps your hide, feel free to start one. Though you may find your worst nightmare if it morphs into the nonexistent Gay studies…
56 sinz54 // Oct 3, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Chekote:
The Left-wing always said that the Iraq War was all about oil. You’re essentially agreeing with them on the most recent 5 years of it, anyway.
That’s too bad.
BTW, the Arab oil embargo of 1973, which did such damage to the U.S. economy, was initiated by our “friend and ally,” Saudi Arabia–not by Saddam’s Iraq.
57 anniemargret // Oct 3, 2009 at 9:48 pm
I didn’t then, and still do not believe there was any true illegal or moral invasion of Iraq. It was drummed up and propagandized by Condi “mushroom clouds over Cleveland” and Cheney deliberate attempt to fear-monger Americans into supporting the invasion of Iraq – ” “This is a man of great evil, as the President said. And he is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.”
Also baseless is the notion that we took out a dictator because we were concerned about ‘his killing his own people’ when one views that infamous photo of Rumseld and Saddam shaking hands. The idea that we are going to invade countries to ’save the people’ from dictators just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
Saddam was contained; this notion that he was going to invade or bomb other countries around him was clearly an effort to scare the American people in supporting the war. Israel has some of the best anti-missile capabilities in that part of the world – Saddam wasn’t that stupid to think he could attack his neighbors, and UNSCOM weapons experts knew he never had that capability as far back as in 90s.
Here’s the conservative viewpoint on why we invaded Iraq:
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article2471.html
Bush wanted to invade Iraq long before the events of 9/11:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htm
There should be an immediate tax on gasoline to force this country to get off oil. Would it make ‘we liberals happy’ to have higher gas prices? Don’t be absurd. But this country needs to start sacrificing somewhere. We got our heads in sand. As I mentioned before in another thread, China is already way ahead of us in green energy – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
They are already ahead of us in math and science and we still sitting around in this country talking about more oil wars.
We get off our collective butts and into green energy industries…to be totally self-contained, so our children, and our grandchildren are not fighting *oil wars* into the next century, or being forced to ‘contain’ Iran (add in Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc…) with permanent bases around the world. There are thousands of college graduates, eager and willing to work, who need a new industry so that we get ahead of the game instead of playing a defensive posture in energy.
Also, this fantasy that our military is a never-ending resource whenever and whereever we want to place them is unrealistic – especially if you take a good hard look at the devastation the military has gone thru since Iraq and Afghanistan.
58 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 3, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Sinz wrote: “[The Bushies] forgot that, the force of military and civilians they sent into Iraq was totally inadequate to maintain civil order and begin the process of rebuilding the Iraqi nation . . . Had the Bushies bothered to ask our think-tanks and war colleges, that’s what they would have been told. ”
The Bushies neither forgot nor did they need to ask a think-tank or war college. They were given this vital piece of information first-hand by one of their own employees (Gen. Shinseki) and they completely rejected it right before firing the guy. And, all the NeoCons and practially all GOP leaders say by silently. Even as late as the eve of the 2006 elections none of them were willing to publicly say that Bush was risking the lives of American soldiers by keeping Rumsfeld as Sec Def. Bush was a complete disaster in foreign and domestic policy and the entire GOP/Conservative establishment was still willing to stand by him as they thought it would lead to electoral success.
Incidentally, you are dead wrong in your post at #36. dfl is no Leftist. He is a conservative. You may wish to refrain from labeling others and, instead, simply critique their comments on the merits.
59 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 3, 2009 at 10:40 pm
I meant to write: “And, all the NeoCons and practially all GOP leaders sat by silently.”
60 Chekote // Oct 4, 2009 at 8:53 am
Annie
So we were going to man the no fly zones established post the first Iraq War forever? How much did that cost? We did it for over ten years. As far as Condi and Cheney drumming up fears, based on the international intelligence evidence at the time they did the responsible thing: look at the worse case scenario. It was a catastrophic intelligence mistake. If WMDs were found nobody would be talking about illegal war and all the rest of the nonsense that has been going on. People act like Saddam was a legitimate leader. He wasn’t, just like any dictator. And torture? Take a look at what Saddam did to his opposition. Things like cutting people’s tongues in public. That’s torture. Not depriving someone of sleep or making them think they are going to drown. Or putting underwear on their head. Frankly, I don’t care if they pull toenails off a terrorist if it means saving innocent civilian lives. And I don’t mean just American lives.
61 Chekote // Oct 4, 2009 at 9:03 am
The Left-wing always said that the Iraq War was all about oil. You’re essentially agreeing with them on the most recent 5 years of it, anyway.
We went because we thought Hussein has WMDs. Unlike Somalia where we left we things went wrong, in Iraq we couldn’t do the same because of the oil. And instead of running around saying freedom, freedom, Bush should have explained the consequences to the global economy if we left an unstable Iraq. Admitting that oil is of critical importance is not a crime. It’s just acknowledging a fact.
BTW, the Arab oil embargo of 1973, which did such damage to the U.S. economy, was initiated by our “friend and ally,” Saudi Arabia–not by Saddam’s Iraq.
We didn’t invade because of oil. But we have stayed because of it.
62 Chekote // Oct 4, 2009 at 9:09 am
Saddam’s ability to “terrorize the region” had evaporated after the Gulf War of 1991. It was only paranoia on the part of the Bushies that caused them to believe otherwise.
After 9/11, we were all paranoid. At least I was. Bush decided that he wasn’t going to take any chances that another attack (which just about everyone predicted would happen in a year or two) happened on his watch. Every intelligence organization in the world BELIEVED Saddam had WMDs. Also, the policy of regime change in Iraq was adopted under Clinton. The main problem is that we need a surge right off the bat.
63 anniemargret // Oct 4, 2009 at 11:42 am
Chekote: it was not a ‘catastrophic intelligence mistake” as it was a deliberate decision to keep precise intelligence that Saddam had no WMDs from the Congress and America:
http://mobile.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/index.html
“Belief” is not fact, Chekote!
It was said at the time that Saddam was at least 10 years away from nuclear capability, and at the time of our invasion, he was boxed in, tight as a drum, with the economic sanctions seriously deteriorating his country.
Bush and Cheney cherry-picked intelligence because the decision to invade Iraq came long before the events of 9/11. They used 9/11 to instill fear for support of the war, as was evidenced by people within the administration, Paul O’Neill, Richard Clarke, and Valerie/Joe Wilson and the yellow cake scenario. The Downing Street memo also validated the above
Saddam was more afraid of an attack by Iran than he was the USA, and used the WMD threat to keep a bogus fear on the table. Were we all ‘paranoid’ after 9/11? Yes, I coudn’t sleep for months; I had two family members who were in close vicinity that day. I was one of the thousands here in the US and abroad who protested this war, as we had read enough to know that they had other (strategic? Israel? Oil?) reasons for the war, and not drummed up nuke attack by Saddam on US cities. That nearly four years later, people in the US were still believing it, shows the power of the word.
Bush diverted funds from Afghanistan to Iraq and it is still why 8 years later, we are still struggling in Afghanistan. I am not a military analyst, so I don’t know if it is wiser to put more troops there or not – good cases are made by both sides of that argument. I do know I do not want my President and VP fear-mongering and lying for a case of war.
Thousands of young men and women are languishing in hospital beds as we speak, with no arms or legs, or their brains gone, or suffering from mental disorders because of war. If we are going to invade, let’s get the facts straight.
The truth is that after 9/11, if the President had said let’s bomb Finland we probably all would be cheering it on. We were all scared, angry, and frustrated, and ready to take revenge. OBL is still on the lam. That says it all.
This is not a ‘liberal or Democratic” position. This should be an American pov, which we should all take seriously.
64 sinz54 // Oct 5, 2009 at 11:42 am
chekote:
I agree that the intel evidence favored WMDs.
What I’m arguing for are two issues of POLICY:
The decision to invade and conquer an enemy nation–and then restructure its society–has to be done for better reasons than intel reports. There needs to have been some much bigger casus belli than that.
And anyone who tells you that we can invade and conquer an enemy nation, decapitate its top leadership, and then just leave, leaving behind an intact nation that will now be peaceful and free, is nuts. Ask the British how long they stayed in India.
Let’s remember that during the Cold War, the U.S. had abandoned the notion of pre-emptive war in favor of riding out a Soviet attack, while initiating retaliation at some point along the way. Even though it was understood that even a limited Soviet attack on U.S. military bases would inflict considerable collateral damage. We were prepared to absorb that.
Let’s also remember that pre-emptive strikes have a mixed track record. President Clinton’s five-day bombing of Iraq (Operation Desert Fox) achieved little militarily.
Finally, while President Clinton did sign the Iraq Liberation Act, that Act called for the U.S. to give aid to the opposition forces inside Iraq who were opposing the Saddam regime. It said nothing about war.
65 sinz54 // Oct 5, 2009 at 11:50 am
anniemargaret:
I agree with much of what you say.
And I will also add:
Can we also agree, liberal and conservative, that our young men and women in uniform gave their very best, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whatever Bush decided, whatever Obama decides, let’s honor these brave men and women.
I’m glad to see that most (though not all) of the Left abandoned the “baby-killer” routine they used against troops during the Vietnam War. By and large, soldiers aren’t warmongers.
66 balconesfault // Oct 5, 2009 at 12:37 pm
President Clinton’s five-day bombing of Iraq (Operation Desert Fox) achieved little militarily.
Militarily, perhaps. But it seems that Desert Fox did convince Saddam that trying to maintain an active WMD program was more a liability than anything.
I’m glad to see that most (though not all) of the Left abandoned the “baby-killer” routine they used against troops during the Vietnam War. By and large, soldiers aren’t warmongers.
The peace movement in the 60’s was extremely immature, fueled as much by teenagers fearful of being sent over to Vietnam as by true pacifism. The peace movement of today still has pockets of immaturity, but in the absence of the draft it is less dominated by adolescents whose main ideology is “save my ass”.
That said, it is sublime ignorance to contend that we can send a bunch of teens and twenty-somethings armed to the gills, have them live day in and day out in high stress situations where they regularly see their friends maimed or killed … and expect every one of them to be moral actors in every situation. Add the Army expanding recruiting to people who couldn’t pass normal standards, even to gang members, in order to meet quota for an overburdened military (a problem that could have been largely allievated by all the College Republicans enlisting, but that’s another story) and you create a situation where atrocities are going to occur.
And that is what clearly our brass are struggling with in the aftermath of the Bush years – when does a counterinsurgency strategy become counterproductive. What’s the balance between providing security for a country, and being viewed as oppressors?
67 EscapeVelocity // Oct 5, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Giving the Iraqi people a chance at self-government is nice. But it was not the original reason for war. Just like ending the Holocaust of the Jews wasn’t the original reason the U.S. entered World War II. It was a nice side effect though. — sinz
Giving the Negroes freedom was a nice side effect of the Civil War but not the original casis belli. Just like ending the Holocaust of the Jews wasnt the original reason the US entered WW2.
QED
68 EscapeVelocity // Oct 5, 2009 at 1:18 pm
The peace movement in the 60’s was extremely immature, fueled as much by teenagers fearful of being sent over to Vietnam as by true pacifism. The peace movement of today still has pockets of immaturity, but in the absence of the draft it is less dominated by adolescents whose main ideology is “save my ass”. — balconesfault
The “Peace Movement” was filled with Communists and Soviet backed Front Groups leading the way. If an organization has the word “Peace” in it, you can be 98 percent certain that its a far Left Communist group, engaged in undermining the West as its primary goal.
69 balconesfault // Oct 5, 2009 at 2:23 pm
If an organization has the word “Peace” in it, you can be 98 percent certain that its a far Left Communist group, engaged in undermining the West as its primary goal.
http://www.princeofpeace-hoover.org/
http://www.princeofpeacesc.org/
http://www.popplano.org/
http://www.popcatholicchurch.org/
http://www.princeofpeacecatholic.org/
http://www.princeofpeacelv.org/
http://www.catholic-forum.com/churches/040cpop/
http://www.princeofpeace.info/
http://www.houstonpopcc.org/
http://www.popcc.org/
http://princeofpeaceormond-org.ecatholicchurches.com/
70 balconesfault // Oct 5, 2009 at 2:27 pm
If an organization has the word “Peace” in it, you can be 98 percent certain that its a far Left Communist group, engaged in undermining the West as its primary goal.
Well, Jesus most certainly was a radical leftist – though I’d like to see why you consider him a Communist.
http://www.princeofpeaceormond.org
http://www.popcc.org
http://www.houstonpopcc.org
http://www.princeofpeace.info
http://www.catholic-forum.com/churches/040cpop
http://www.princeofpeacelv.org
http://www.princeofpeacecatholic.org
http://www.popcatholicchurch.org
http://www.popplano.org
http://www.princeofpeacesc.org
http://www.princeofpeace-hoover.org
71 balconesfault // Oct 5, 2009 at 2:31 pm
If an organization has the word “Peace” in it, you can be 98 percent certain that its a far Left Communist group, engaged in undermining the West as its primary goal.
You mean them?
or them …
or them …
or them …
or them …
or them …
or them …
or them …
or them …
or them …
or them …
Now I see why escape sees enemies of Christianity everywhere …
72 balconesfault // Oct 5, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Weird … site is suddenly rejecting hyperlinks. Anyone else finding this?
http://www.princeofpeace-hoover.org
73 balconesfault // Oct 5, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Dang those embeds?
What I MEANT was:
or this…?
or this…?
or this…?
or this…?
or this…?
or this…?
or this…
74 balconesfault // Oct 5, 2009 at 2:37 pm
ok – I give up … it dumped them on me AFTER it had shown them not here.
I’m done!
75 midcon // Oct 5, 2009 at 5:20 pm
chekote, While I can;t talk about every intelligence organization in the world, I can tell you that there was no universal consensus withinthe U.S. intelligence community that he had WMDs. While there were indications and evidence that he was or at one time was pursuing nuclear, chemical, and perhaps biological WMDs, there was no primae facie evidence that he had been successful or would have been successful. The evidence I am more familiar with was related to the nuclear threat.
There were some indications that Hussain acquired yellowcake and had aluminum tubes that were essential to the enrichment process using gas centrifuge for the enrichment process. The U.S. investigated the yellow cake angle and determined there was no real evidence it had occurred. Additionally, the U.S. determined that the suspect aluminum tubes were used for 81mm rockets and further were told by scientists that tubes were not suitable for use in the enrichment process.
Without belaboring the point, the emporer had no clothes when it came to the WMD issue. Unfortunately, no one stood up and told the emporer that he was naked.
76 anniemargret // Oct 5, 2009 at 5:44 pm
sinz: absolutely agree about the left during Vietnam. The ‘babykillers’ rhetoric was not as widespread as it was commonly thought and was limited to the extreme radicals . Most of the country toward the end of the latter years of that war were against it, particularly after the draft was implemented.
However, no matter who said it and how, it was despicable. And no, today’s liberals are not the radicals of the 60s, no matter how hard ‘escape’ tries to make it so. That was a deplorable time, all around. There were then, as now, many liberals who were appalled at the rhetoric.
No man or woman in uniform who are ready and willing to die for this country should be smeared in any way, shape or form. And we all have to remember that political sentiment disappears on the battlefield. There are Republicans and Democrats and Independents risking their lives now in Iraq and Afghanistan. We honor them all -each of them, no matter where their political loyalities may lie. They die for country, not political parties.
And that is why I am so adamantly opposed to unnecessary war. Because there are soldiers, families and innocents that pay the ultimate price. The politicians who design and create the wars almost always never have to face that price. So we must hold them to absolute truths and be accountable. I voted for President Obama, but if I thought he was lying to me about why we are going to war, I would feel the same. My sentiments about war end at the political door.
I lost my boyfriend of 22 y/o in the jungle of Vietnam . He came back in a closed casket. He was one of the 58,000 that sacrified their lives in that war. I hold his memory dear and for his memory and all the others, I demand that our elected officials and military don’t send them into harm’s way unnecessarily. We can agree on that hopefully .
Thanks.
77 sinz54 // Oct 5, 2009 at 6:31 pm
midcon:
That’s the problem.
It’s highly unlikely we’re ever going to get prima facie evidence on enemy super-weapons. The USSR wasn’t kind enough to let CIA agents peek inside their ICBM silos or nuclear weapon labs either. What we had were surveillance photos, electronic “chatter,” and some information from defectors.
You may recall that in the 1970s, there was a HUGE split in the intel community as to how to interpret the data we had on the USSR’s military potential. The CIA commissioned two analyses: The first, “Team A,” done by their mainstream analysts; and the second, “Team B,” done by a more hawkish group of analysts.
These teams were looking at the exact same raw intel data. But each team viewed it through the prism of their own background and judgment calls. And they came to remarkably different conclusions.
“Team A” concluded that the USSR was constrained by its economic stagnation. “Team B” concluded flatly that the USSR was striving for, and getting closer to, world dominion–and the U.S. needed massive rearmament to head that off. (Reagan won the 1980 election, and acted on the recommendations of “Team B.” In fact, he hired most of them for his Administration.)
And that’s a similar situation we had with Saddam as well. I heard George Tenet’s talk in 2004 on the intel they had. It consisted of knowing what the U.N. inspectors had found as late as 1998 before Saddam kicked them out, combined with extrapolations as to how much more Saddam’s scientists could have accomplished by 2003 if his WMD program had continued at the same rate.
In the end, as with “Team A/Team B,” how you viewed the intel on Saddam depended on how you viewed Saddam: As a regional jerk who had been thoroughly clobbered in the Gulf War, or as the worst terrorist menace America had ever faced.
What most Americans were unaware of, is that a number of Bushies had bought into the second theory–that Saddam was an even bigger terrorist threat to America than al-Qaeda. They got this theory, not from the CIA or FBI, but from one of their own favorite analysts: Dr. Laurie Mylroie, who maintained that the whole concept of al-Qaeda was vastly exaggerated, if not a total fiction; the real terrorist threat to America was Saddam. When 9-11 happened, she blamed it on Saddam, not al-Qaeda. And the Bushies were listening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Mylroie
78 midcon // Oct 5, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Actually, sinz, we have prima facie evidence of many nations nuclear weapons. We get this evidence from highly reliable national intelligence systemsthat tell us when there are events that identify a nuclear test, along with other evidence. We’ve had that capability for years. Additionally, we collect other intelligence and evidence, such as that from nuclear accidents that either are empirically proven or are admitted. We know what we know and are well versed in analyzing the evidence. Again I caution you that I speak semi-knowledgeably on nuclear detection, not on chemical and biological.
Your Team A/Team B example is not whether they had the military potential but whether they intended to use it. We knew what their capabilities were. What we did not know is whether they would dare employ those capabilities and whether that employment would be via a first strike.
Folks like Mylorie were focused on intent rather than capability. There are many that wish us harm. When the intent without capability is different than intent with capability. Mylorie’s argument was simply that Hussain was a significant threat because he sponsored terrorism (intent plus capability). The capabilty in this case was not WMD. Rather it was money. Saddam if he was sponsoring terrorism had the money to sponsor it. But, then if that’s all it takes, I would have said there are a lot of threats out there who have both the intent and the capability. Mylorie doesn’t enter into the WMD debate (for which there should be no debate .
You must log in to post a comment.