Iraq has made us less safe, end of story - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-27-2006, 03:02 PM   #31
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Of course it is red meat - it is a response to writers and posters like yourself that apparently do not understand that the global jihad against Americans was already underway.

BTW - isn't it about time the NY Times stops publishing classified material. I am pretty sure there is a law or two about printing such documents.


no freaking way.

i have said, repeatedly, that i do not underestimate the lethality of the individual jihadist.

where we disagree is how we propose to battle said jihadists.

wake up: we are less safe because of Bush. and what, pray tell, did Bush do in his 8 months in office? nothing. nada. and his response to 9-11 has been the biggest American foreign policy since Vietnam.

as for the classified material ... please. no laws were broken. there is nothing in here no one already knew.

Dana Priest of the Washington Post spoke about this on Meet the Press, July 2, 2006 (she broke the story of the secret CIA torture chambers in Eastern Europe):

[q]MS. PRIEST: Every time there’s a national security story they don’t want published, they say it will damage national security. But they—for one thing, they’ve never given us any proof. They say it will stop cooperation, but the fact is that the countries of the world understand that they have to cooperate on counterterrorism. And just like the banks that did not pull out of the system, other countries continue to cooperate, because it’s a common problem.

MS. MITCHELL: But, Dana...

MR. HARWOOD: Have you heard...(unintelligible)...are pulling out from this system? I don’t think so.

MS. MITCHELL: Dana, let me point out that The Washington Post, your newspaper, was behind the others but also did publish this story. And a story you wrote last year disclosing the secret CIA prisons won the Pulitzer Prize, but it also led to William Bennett, sitting here, saying that three reporters who won the Pulitzer Prize—you for that story and Jim Risen and others for another story—were, “not worthy of an award but rather worthy of jail.” Dana, how do you plead?

MS. PRIEST: Well, it’s not a crime to publish classified information. And this is one of the things Mr. Bennett keeps telling people that it is. But, in fact, there are some narrow categories of information you can’t publish, certain signals, communications, intelligence, the names of covert operatives and nuclear secrets.

Now why isn’t it a crime? I mean, some people would like to make casino gambling a crime, but it is not a crime. Why isn’t it not a crime? Because the framers of the Constitution wanted to protect the press so that they could perform a basic role in government oversight, and you can’t do that. Look at the criticism that the press got after Iraq that we did not do our job on WMD. And that was all in a classified arena. To do a better job—and I believe that we should’ve done a better job—we would’ve again, found ourselves in the arena of...

MS. MITCHELL: But, we’ve now had a steady drum beat from the White House all week about this, as you’ve pointed out. Here’s what the president and the vice president have been saying on the stump at campaign events.

(Videotape, Wednesday):

PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: Last week, the details of this program appeared in the press. There can be no excuse for anyone entrusted with vital intelligence to leak it, and no excuse for any newspaper to print it.

(End videotape)

(Videotape, Monday):

VICE PRES. DICK CHENEY: The leaks to The New York Times and the publishing of those leaks is very damaging.

What is doubly disturbing for me is that not only have they gone forward with these stories, but they’ve been rewarded for it—for example, in the case of the terrorist surveillance program—by being awarded the Pulitzer Prize for outstanding journalist. I think that is a disgrace.

(End videotape)

MS. MITCHELL: John, is this policy of trying to use the press as a whipping boy going to work to excite the conservative base and to turn voters out in the midterm elections?

MR. HARWOOD: Well, Republicans certainly think so. They—if you’re a Republican in the White House or in Congress, would you rather talk about immigration, gas prices, the estate tax, all the things that you can’t get done right now, or would you rather go after The New York Times, the Supreme Court on the Guantanamo ruling—we’ll talk about that later—and make hay and say “They’re tying our hands in the war on terrorism”? It’s obvious they’d rather do the latter, and they love this discussion. They’re going to love it even more if Congress takes up legislation on Guantanamo.

MS. MITCHELL: This is, this is clearly not something new. Let me show you a tape from 1992.

(Videotape, October 22, 1992):

PRES. GEORGE BUSH: Here’s my favorite bumper sticker of all, “Annoy the media, re-elect Bush.”

(End videotape)


MS. MITCHELL: And the Democrats, of course, also do this. This is how the Boston Globe covered a Howard Dean-for-president campaign rally back in 2004. “Dean ... told a crowd of supporters [that his campaign] was ‘a struggle between us and the Washington politicians and the established press.’” Bill Safire, what does this remind you of?

MR. SAFIRE: It reminds me of a piece that I did back in the Carter administration where I wrote that Billy Carter, the president’s brother, was overheard talking many times with the Libyan Embassy, and the White House got very excited about that. Why? Because they said the Libyans didn’t know that we had a tap on their embassy. Now, that struck everybody in Washington as totally foolish because for the last 50 years, every single embassy in this town is bugged. Now here’s the president saying, “Who knew that—the details of this program?”

MS. MITCHELL: Let me refresh all of our memories about something else that happened. Take a look at this piece of film.

(Videotape, September 16, 1970):

VICE PRES. SPIRO AGNEW: In the United States today we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism.

(End videotape)

MS. MITCHELL: OK. Now whose alliterative phrase was “nattering nabobs of negativism,” Mr. Safire?

MR. SAFIRE: Well, Mr. Agnew was kind enough to credit me with that afterwards because I’m an alliteration nut.

MS. MITCHELL: This was when you were the speechwriter in the White House.

MR. SAFIRE: Right. And I was on loan to Agnew for that speech. I didn’t write the Des Moines speech, Pat Buchanan did that, where he really zapped the press. And again, the Nixon administration in that case got a leg up. And people said, “Hey, yeah, we’re angry at not just Nixon. We’re angry at the Congress and we’re angry at the media.”

MR. BENNETT: Can—may I—can I, can I...

MS. PRIEST: Still, the point is the tension between the media and the government is long-standing. And that’s to be expected. And in fact, all these—many of the people getting up to lambaste the media now are also people that we talk to with our stories, to vet our stories, to say, “What is it in this story that you’re most concerned about?”

MS. MITCHELL: You mean, to hold things back?

MS. PRIEST: To hold things back. In the prison story, we talked with the administration. No one in the administration asked us not to publish the story. In fact, people said, “We know you have your job to do, but please don’t publish the names of the countries where the prisons are located.” So there is a reasoned dialogue that often goes on between the media and the government behind, behind all this.[/q]


(and i'd link, but my compter is being screwy)
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-27-2006, 03:03 PM   #32
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
So WHERE should we fight terrorism?
At home or abroad?


and the "Strawman/False Choice" Award of the Year goes to ...
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-27-2006, 05:01 PM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 01:03 PM


Does Bush upload videos there? Now THAT I would love to see.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 09-27-2006, 05:29 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen


Does Bush upload videos there? Now THAT I would love to see.
I would like to see the youtube video of Nancy Pelosi saying this:

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

That would be so cool It is amazing she is saying this 4 YEARS before Bush deceived her and the rest of us into going to war.

Man, that would be great to see.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-27-2006, 05:41 PM   #35
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


I would like to see the youtube video of Nancy Pelosi saying this:

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

That would be so cool It is amazing she is saying this 4 YEARS before Bush deceived her and the rest of us into going to war.

Man, that would be great to see.


where does she say, "and this situation can ONLY be remedied through a unilateral invasion!"

where?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-27-2006, 06:13 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




where does she say, "and this situation can ONLY be remedied through a unilateral invasion!"

where?
No, I think Hillary took up that mantle -

"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
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-27-2006, 06:16 PM   #37
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


No, I think Hillary took up that mantle -

"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


you said Pelosi. Hilary still supports the war (and gets hell from the Left, and no credit from the Right), she just doesn't support how the war has been conducted. does anyone? do you? do you really feel as if the war and post-war have been waged competently by competent, serious men?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-27-2006, 06:32 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




you said Pelosi. Hilary still supports the war (and gets hell from the Left, and no credit from the Right), she just doesn't support how the war has been conducted. does anyone? do you? do you really feel as if the war and post-war have been waged competently by competent, serious men?
The initial mission – taking out Saddam and his ruling party – was indeed a success. I do believe that mistakes were made in the occupation – and that is obvious. However, it doesn’t mean the entire war was a mistake.

Yes, there are extremely competent and serious men making difficult decisions every day regarding Iraq. Our military is already adapting to a quickly changing battlefield.

Our biggest obstacle in Iraq isn’t the Iraqi insurgents or the imported terrorists. Our biggest obstacles are the defeatists here in America. I cannot believe there are politicians who are openly asking American men and women to die for a mistake. They say “the war was a mistake” in the very same sentence that they say “but we must keep the troops in Iraq.” What a horrible way to try and win a war.

Both parties agreed that we should go knock out Saddam. Mission accomplished. Now both parties need to agree on how to win the peace - and then stick to it until the end.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-27-2006, 07:32 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:03 AM
This is a quote from Tom Barnett - a Democrat and brilliant strategist

September 27, 2006
How low do we go?

EDITORIAL: "No longer a secret: Iraq war breeds terror threat," USA Today 27 September 2006, p. 12A.

Quoting the NIE report, "The Iraq conflict has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."

You want to know what this estimate would say if Saddam was still in power?

It would read, "The Afghan conflict has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."

You want to know what this estimate would say if the Taliban were still in power?

It would read, "America's support for the Musharref regime in Pakistan has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.

And if Musharref was gone?

It would read, "America's military assistance to Israel in its conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."

And if Israel was gone?

It would read, "America's emergency support to the Mubarek regime has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."

And if the Muslim Brotherhood controlled Egypt?

It would read, "America's rescue of the House of Saud has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."

And if the Salafi jihadists got control of Saudi Arabia?

It would read, "America's support to Iran in the emerging conflict with the Salafi jihadist front of Arab states has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."

Is there anyone out there naive enough to believe the Salafi jihadist movement has ever been without a 'cause celebre'?

How low would we need to go to avoid pissing off the Salafi jihadists? To stop their women-hating, bloodthirsty reign of terror desired to enslave as much of the world as possible?

I'm with Hitchens on this one. Let's give 'em a 'cause celebre' every day of the week.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-27-2006, 07:49 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:03 PM
Re: Iraq has made us less safe, end of story

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
the Iraq War has endangered the US (and everyone else):


[/q]
Its a bit curious to see you bringing up the NIE report when you totally ignore what the NIE said about Iraq in 2002.

In any event, the report only estimates that the Jihad movement has spread and admits it cannot show with precision that this is indeed the case.

It goes on to say that "Should Jihadist leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."

That shows that Democratic party plans to abandon Iraq are indeed a step in the direction that would help the Jihad movement as opposed to hindering it.


The report does NOT say that invading Iraq and removing Saddam from power has made the United States "less safe". It says the that the Jihad movement has spread and Iraq is one of the underlining factors, but it cannot measure that this is the case with precision.

But Afghanistan, is just as much a rallying point for extremist Muslims as Iraq is, and if the United States were not in Iraq at the moment, you can be sure that these extremist elements would be focused on Afghanistan just as they did in the 1980s when the Soviet Union was there.

The United States and its allies had important and necessary reasons for invading Afghanistan and Iraq and removing their regimes. Saddam's actions in 1990-1991 caused the single largest deployment of US troops at any time since World War II! No other leader in the region had invaded and attacked four different countries or used WMD as many times as Saddam had. Leaving an un-contained, un-verifiably disarmed Saddam in power would have been a disasterous mistake. Al Quada and the insurgents in Iraq are currently in no position to invade Kuwait or Saudi Arabia as Saddam was, or to cut of the planets energy supply from these vital area's. Saddam and the Taliban were both threats that had to be removed despite the obvious recruitment advertisment it would give the extremist elements in the region.

The United States today and through out its history has often faced a multitude of simultaneous threats and it does not have the luxury of simply ignoring all of them so it can just focus in on one threat. Its as absurd as those who only wanted to go to war with Japan and not Germany back in World War II.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-27-2006, 08:18 PM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
this does beg the question: what do we do next?

and there needs to be more than schadenfreude on the parts of Democrats, and all those around the world who opposed iraq from the beginning.

though, given all the dick swinging and flag waving and flight suit stuffing that went on in 2003 by the administration, at least a little Schadenfreude is understandable.

but what do we do?

i'm thinking the three state solution might be the only way out.
The solution is to continue to build on the progress that has already been made. Its going to take another 4 and half years before the Iraqi military will be ready to independently stand on its own without the support of coalition troops. Once that is accomplished though, coalition troops will be able to start coming home in large numbers. The main security problems the country has continue to be in the 4 Sunni dominated provinces while the other 14 are remain relatively calm.

The first elected Iraqi government has only been in place since June 2006, to short of a time for many of the wild expectations people have placed on it. Nation Building is a process that takes years and will involve success and accomplishments as well as setbacks. Keeping the leaders of the various regions together and talking and working to unify the country will yield better results in the long run than dividing them.

The Sunni insurgents and other extremist in the country are not going to stop fighting if the coalition leaves or someone attempts to split the country into three parts. Thats a recipe for increased warfare perhaps on scale of what was seen in Bosnia.

Many people in the Foreign Policy community tried to bring about a 3 state solution in Bosnia and it failed. Ultimately what succeeded in bringing the conflict to an end unfortunately was the immense slaughter after only 3 years in which nearly 10% of the population was wiped out and then the sudden entry of the United States and NATO into the conflict in 1995. Keeping Bosnia together, rather than carving it up proved to be the solution. Muslims, Croats and Serbs filled Kosovo Stadium in Sarajevo 9 years ago this month for U2 POPMART. Only two years earlier these three ethnic groups were involved in one of the bloodiest Civil Wars anyone had ever seen in history.

Division of Iraq is not a longterm solution. Iraqi's will be less likely to engage in war and be able to better resist the unwanted influence of neighbors if they remain united. Dividing Iraq will not end the Sunni insurgents quest to re-conquer the country and will not remove Al Quada from the country.

Building the Iraqi military, continuing the political process that has been started, and funding reconstruction and economic efforts through out the country is the solution, but its going to take years to succeed. Division and withdrawal of the coalition will only push the country toward a real Civil War with casaulty levels similar to the war in Bosnia, about 40 times greater than what is being seen in Iraq at the moment.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-27-2006, 08:47 PM   #42
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 07:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
This is a quote from Tom Barnett - a Democrat and brilliant strategist
I understand the logic here, but if you take it to its fullest extreme, then why not go ahead and invade Pakistan, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia while we're at it, because what the hell, either way they'll frame it as a "cause celebre" (I think he really means "casus belli") anyhow. There are only so many fronts we can effectively fight on at once, and that requires long-term judicious foresight about which trouble spots warrant (military) priority.

As for people who sincerely believe invading Iraq was the wrong "cause celebre" venture to prioritize, but feel we're morally obligated to stay and prevent the country from descending into chaos nonetheless, what would you prefer them to say? Is protecting Iraq from the insurgents' agenda not a worthy cause?
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 09-27-2006, 08:54 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

Is protecting Iraq from the insurgents' agenda not a worthy cause?
It absolutely is - and the war should probably be "re-packaged" in this light.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-27-2006, 09:12 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 07:03 PM
If you don't think the world is in a tailspin at the moment, you must be in a coma. Where you can aim the direct blame for that, not sure.
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 09-27-2006, 10:46 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:03 PM
Quote:
another simplistic Democratic claim of causation between Iraq and al Qaeda terrorism (but, naturally, never a concession of connection between Iraq and al Qaeda terrorism).
Right on brother.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com