Iraq & terrorism
Mr. Valdez points out the suffering going on in Iraq, and the cost in lost lives. It would seem he thinks it would’ve been better to have ignored the growing threats and left Hussein in power. Then everything would be peachy-keen.
All the Iraqi citizens would be living their lives with no war and no suffering. Hmm, I believe that’s exactly what Europe did while Hitler invaded country after country before waking up. You know what Ernest?
I believe you should thank your stars we entered WWII while we did, otherwise you and I would be speaking German or Japanese.
You should also thank your stars President Bush decided to do something about this global terrorism problem instead of ignoring it for 8 years like Clinton did. Instead of worrying about what your children and grandchildren will have to do without, please pull your head out of the sand. This terrorism problem didn’t begin with 9/11. It has existed and grown for DECADES!
This letter has not been edited.
You're not speaking German or Japanese, Brayer, but what you're speaking is even less intelligible.
And Bush "did something about the global terrorism problem" ...by attacking Iraq??? Was Osama also in Saddam's spider hole & the army couldn't find him?
And having Saddam stay in power would be like watching Hitler invade Poland & Czechoslovakia? Somehow that analogy just eludes me.
Braying McBrayer exemplifies the confused, hysterical gibberish of the far right - even makes Keith look as though he has an ounce of common sense!
Posted by drew on August 8, 2007 02:15 PMAre you sure you want to go that far drew?
Posted by Larry on August 8, 2007 02:53 PMWell, Larry - now that you mention it - maybe I should say it makes KW look like he has an ounce of common sense. Keith is beyond redemption.
Posted by drew on August 8, 2007 04:07 PMYou state: "You should also thank your stars President Bush decided to do something about this global terrorism problem." Unfortunately what our criminal in chief has done is help the terrorists recruit the next three generations of terrorists and swelled the number of America haters by a factor of at least 1000%, as clearly indicated in non-partisan intelligence studies. I guess you have to actually posses some intelligence to understand this crucial point.
Posted by J on August 8, 2007 04:56 PMAmazing...there are hold-outs still trotting out the Hussein=Hitler story line to justify the Iraq debacle.
Reminds me of the fabled Japanese soldiers still defending tiny islands in the S.Pacific in 1948. Impressive w/r/t tenacity, but poignantly out of touch with reality. Is this all that's left of conservatives?
Posted by on August 8, 2007 05:04 PMComeon guys, even John Burns of the NY Times says "there's no doubt" things are better in Iraq since the troop surge and that a withdrawal would make life "very much worse" there.
...even John Burns of the NY Times says "there's no doubt" things are better in Iraq since the troop surge and that a withdrawal would make life "very much worse" there...
Precisely. And furthermore, several talk radio hosts have recently described Bush as generally optimistic about life. Should these two facts settle this matter for good? Please.
Posted by on August 8, 2007 06:21 PMHmm, and I thought Saddam did invade a neighboring country and gassed his own people, just like Hitler did. May be drew wasn’t even born back then, whet Kuwait was invaded. Scumbag liberals do tend to stand up for dictators like Castro, so no big surprise here.
Posted by Uno on August 8, 2007 07:57 PMStephen,good post,you got all the un-educated liberals with there panties in a bind.
Posted by bart on August 8, 2007 08:02 PMLet's see, Bush paid so much attention to terrorism that he allowed 9/11 to happen under his watch.. That's right!! Just a reminder of how much attention he paid that the worst terrorist attack on US soil in history was under Bush's watch....
Posted by Mike D. on August 8, 2007 08:41 PMLet's see, Bush paid so much attention to terrorism that he allowed 9/11 to happen under his watch.. That's right!! Just a reminder of how much attention he paid that the worst terrorist attack on US soil in history was under Bush's watch....
Posted by Mike D. on August 8, 2007 08:41 PMmikey,again you are making a fool of yourself.
Documented fact,bin laden started the plans in 96',while he kept on attacting Americans.clinton did nothing except depeating our military and intelligence. Fact.
These guys were operating in our country in the 90's un-detected because clinton screwed up our intelligence,because during the clinton adm. there was no intelligence.clinton refused to take this guy 13 times.Fact.clinton had the liberal media block stories about american people getting killed by Al Qaeda.fact.Your are a "child left behind."
mikey,again you are making a fool of yourself.
Documented fact,bin laden started the plans in 96',while he kept on attacting Americans.clinton did nothing except depeating our military and intelligence. Fact.
These guys were operating in our country in the 90's un-detected because clinton screwed up our intelligence,because during the clinton adm. there was no intelligence.clinton refused to take this guy 13 times.Fact.clinton had the liberal media block stories about american people getting killed by Al Qaeda.fact.Your are a "child left behind."
In defense of Saddam Hussein - which is a tough pill for me to swallow, as he was a cruel, vicious, and perhaps even genocidal (where the Kurds were concerned) despot: are you aware that he asked the US about war with Kuwait because the Kuwaitis WERE slant-drilling into Iraqi oil fields, and was told by the US State Dept that it was a 'border war & the US would not interfere' - that is until Maggie Thatcher pointed out to Daddy Bush that the UK (our ally) was heavily into Kuwaiti oil? And that while the US was 'protecting' Kuwait on the southern Iraq border, it chose to ignore the Turkish (another ally) invasion of Iraq to the north? In addition - for those of you who missed it the first 1000 or so times it was published by countless sources (including the US government) - IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 - and had no WMD. Hussein the tyrant managed to keep a country created of warring factions by the Brits from devolving into the civil war that the US invasion freed up to occur (W is so dumb he thought he could foist a 'pet' Iraqi on the voters there)- and, until the invasion, Al Qaeda didn't have a toehold there (let alone the presence that is there today) because despots don't share their power! Do you really believe that Bush the first didn't take all that into consideration in 1991, when he CHOSE not to take out Hussein? Please convince me that W knows more about international issues than his father - I 'd love to see the arguments for that!
Terrorism is clearly a worldwide threat - and the US had the support & will of the most of the world after 9/.11 - until our cowboy in chief decided to go after Hussein instead of going after terrorists. Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden is alive & thumbing his nose at us. If Bush just had to go after a middle eastern country (easier to go after a country than going after guerillas who are are mobile & can find hiding places), he should have chosen Saudi Arabia: home of 15 of the 19 terrorist, birthplace of bin Laden (a Saudi prince) & the jihadist Wahhabi sect - not mention funding for many terrorist organizations. Instead, the US is getting ready to send Saudi Arabia US weapons (whose hands will those end up in?) - why am I confused about how that is supposed to make us secure?
Posted by Mary on August 9, 2007 06:36 AMUno,
A tin pot dictator walked into another tin-pot dictatorship to steal their oil...in 1991 - so what's your point? That threatened world stability and democracy? No, it threatened oil prices which is why Bush I went in & then left (you think maybe Junior could've got a clue from that?).
And then you give the old, tired bleat that he "gassed his own people, just like Hitler did." Funny that at the time Reagan, Rummy & the other criminals who supplied Saddam with money, weapons & poison gas never even raised a peep - because Saddam was their pal, remember?
And now 20 years later you righties are sobbing about how he "gassed his own people!" as an excuse for Bush's ridiculous war. Remember Rummy & his pal, Saddam, Uno (there are photos of then palling it up together)- or are you, as usual, just being disingenuous - or maybe you "weren't even born back then?"
Scumbag wingnuts tend to stand up for dumbass morons like the present occupier of the White House, so no surprises there.
Posted by drew on August 9, 2007 09:38 AMJust think if al gore first got in and then kerry.nothing would of been done to stop another 9/11.Saddam would have his WMD'S,ples over 50 billion dollars from the food for oil scandel.Alot more Iraq's would of been killed .Libyia would still have WMD'S.American tax dollars would still being used to finance N.Korea's nuclear weapon's program.Our airlines would be out of business because it wouldn't be safe to drive.Our economy instead of being the best ever would be in the dumper.There would be wide spread corporate fraud and gas prices through the roof.Plus massive unemployment.Boy it's bad under the Bush adm.Thank God for George Bush.
Posted by bart on August 9, 2007 09:55 AMdrew:
"And now 20 years later you righties are sobbing about how he "gassed his own people!" as an excuse for Bush's ridiculous war"
What's being illustrated drew is several reasons why we couldn't just trust that Saddam wasn't hidding WMD's.
He was in violation of 17 UN resolutions, blocking inspections, and he even admitted he had WMD's to protect him from Iran (again, inviolation of UN res's) but he claimed "I got rid of them."
But for some strange (as in mentally deranged) reason, you can admit to the umpteen reasons he can't be trusted yet still whine about the invasion as if we should have just trusted him.
Where do you get these crazy ideas?
Oh, nevermind.
Posted by KW on August 9, 2007 10:24 AMKW,
Interesting that you should bring up something from the New York Times, AFTER the RMN printed a story - with pictures - on how mizerably devastated and deteriorated - and continuing to deteriorate and get worse - the electrical and water supply of Iraq really is.
Is this supposed to "trump the trick"?
Or are we just supposed to swallow the Republican propaganda whole, regardless of contrary facts?
They do say, "A picture is worth a thousand words." How many thousand are you going to offer to rebut the tangle of hoses, etc., that were set up to try to supply even basic water necessity to the apartment house pictured?
Oh! But, I forgot! The Bush Party line is that things are going just swell over there. And be damned to contrary evidence. And you are, after all, an outstanding spokesman for anything and everything pro-Bush.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 9, 2007 10:49 AMNo, KW, tone of the stock arguments from the right - to justify THIS war - is that "he gassed his own people, just like Hitler did." Don't know how many times I've heard that argument.
And the letter-writer claims that Bush invaded Iraq to "do something about this global terrorism problem." of course, you don't address that.
And of course I don't believe that Saddam could be trusted. But-for the thousandth time, KW - why did we attack a country that was contained by NATO and powerless - when we had just been attacked by (mainly) Saudi terrorists who belonged to an organization hiding out in Afghanistan & Pakistan? And then why didn't we finish the job in Afghanistan? Because Bush was obsessed with Iraq.
Why do I always have to cover the same ground with you KW? Could it be that you just ignore evidence that deflates your argument?
Posted by drew on August 9, 2007 10:56 AMAnd incidentally, KW, there are several countries who are chronically in "violation of UN resolutions" - including Sudan, Iran and N. Korea. And that weird little dwarf in N. Korea boasts about his weapons too- and has even fired some of them over Japan. According to your logic we should get ready to invade. Not so?
Posted by drew on August 9, 2007 11:01 AMIraq was contained by NATO??? That would be funny if not so idiotic.
These other countries you list in violation of UN resoltutions, can you list the violations? I'm not asking if you can do a quick google, I want to know if you have knowledge or just repeating talking points from your other blog site.
Were any of these countries considered a threat to the US at the time we invaded Iraq? The answer is obviously... No.
Iran is becoming one and will be dealt with.
NK as agreed to halt nuclear programs
The Saudis aren't a threat to us.
Now was there a point to your statement or are these just more talking points?
Do you understand that after 9/11, trusting that Saddam was safe could have been suicidal? I'm not asking for your hindsight or "I told you so's." Do you understand Saddam was the BIGGEST threat at the time?
I for one am damn glad we went in to overtake rather than just hope Saddam would play nice, as you suggest we should've done.
Now if these are the points you're tired of having to "cover the same ground" about, try using something that resembles a fact. Gives us at least an indication that you have some understanding of everything that came into play before invading Iraq rather than just repeating the same old, archaic, monotonous phrases you parrot from moveon and daily kos.
Posted by KW on August 9, 2007 11:20 AMNow, now, KW!
Pots and kettles. Pots and kettles. Mustn't pick on others when one is doing nothing more than repeating the same old, archaic, monotonous phrases YOU parrot from the propaganda blurbs about how smashingly well things are going in Iraq, and how the "surge" is such a huge success; or how successful our efforts are/have-been in bringing "peace and democracy, welcomed with open arms and flowers" to the region.
Oh! But I forgot! That propaganda nonsense is all there is to parrot, when it comes right down to reality. And, we can't let reality stop us from "staying the course", to "win". Now, can we?
At least not until this lame duck waddles off into well deserved obscurity, that is anyway.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 9, 2007 12:45 PMHow surprising, KW - your ignorance is showing again. Saddam was contained in central Iraq by no-fly zones - enforced by the US & its NATO allies in both the north & south of the country. In addition, UN sanctions considerably weakened the country.
I'm sure if you google it, you can find the numerous UN resolutions that have been violated by Iran, N.Korea & Sudan- you want me to do your leg work for you too?
"Were any of these countries considered a threat to the US at the time we invaded Iraq? The answer is obviously... No." Nice try, KW - I remember Kim Jung Il saying that he had nuclear weapons & threatening to use them. Great selective memory you have.
"Iran will be dealt with" - what-we can't put an end to a civil war between 2 factions in Iraq & now you think we're going to take care of Iran? Are you & your buddies down at the Elks Lodge going to sign up for the invasion of Teheran, KW?
"Do you understand Saddam was the BIGGEST threat at the time?" No, KW, Al Qaeda - you know, the guys who just attacked us on 911 - were the "biggest threat at the time." What's so hard to understand about that?
You know KW, if you were a few pounds lighter & made out of wood, I'd swear you were Cheney's ventriloquist's dummy. However if I ever run into someone small, with green feathers, I'll know it's you - Bush's parrot.
Posted by drew on August 9, 2007 01:05 PMdrew - I figured you just threw the "other UN violations" out there without knoowing what you were talking about.
Instead of addressing my question you duck and run under the cover of "you want me to do your leg work for you too?"
You spout NATO contained because of a no fly zone that Saddam was also in violation of. You really should do some research before repeating the talking points drew.
But don't worry drew. We thank you for your participation in the "who can spout the most idiotic talking points" contest.
And your lack of understanding on Iraq, al Qaeda and the war on terrorism is duly noted.
Squaawk, Sqwaawk!
What was that?- KW, Bush's little talking green parrot - dodging questions again.
Squaawk!
So -I guess you're saying, KW, that Iran, N Korea & Sudan never violated UN resolutions? ...oops, sorry, parrots don't assimilate info - they just repeat the phrases their master says the most. Forget it - have some cuttlebone -good parrot!
Posted by drew on August 9, 2007 03:11 PMNow now, KW never said those countries were not in violations, they just weren't as big of a threat as Iraq was.
Posted by Larry on August 9, 2007 03:14 PMdrew
"So -I guess you're saying, KW, that Iran, N Korea & Sudan never violated UN resolutions?"
Nice spin drew but NO. I asked you if you knew, without having to google for it, what the violations were or if you were just parroting from your far left blog sites.
You chose not to answer and offered the lame excuse of homework so that tells me you were just parroting again.
I know what they are and even told you these countries are of no threat, with the exception of Iran. Somehow you figure you can spin that into your inane statement above and know one would notice.
Try reading my post rather than scanning for points to attack. Or is that all you know how to do. If so, try getting it right at least.
You're pathetic.
Posted by KW on August 9, 2007 04:04 PMdrew,you have to get some mental help,I can't believe somebody could be so stupid and then boost about it.
Posted by bart on August 10, 2007 09:05 AMYou got me - I'm always "boosting" about being stupid, o intellectual one.
Posted by drew on August 10, 2007 02:10 PM