op-ed takes aim at bush - 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 05-02-2003, 12:08 PM   #1
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 08:17 PM
op-ed takes aim at bush

Ok, Slate is a liberal news organization owned by MSN. I give you that. But this seems to sum up how I feel right now.

Impatient Justice
Congratulations. We've just won the wrong war.
By William Saletan
Posted Friday, May 2, 2003, at 1:11 AM PT


"In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed," President Bush announced Thursday night. "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001." In the wake of that dark day, Bush recalled, "I pledged that the terrorists would not escape the patient justice of the United States." Saddam Hussein's defeat caps "19 months that changed the world," Bush concluded. "The war on terror is not over … but we have seen the turning of the tide."

In Bush's telling of the story, it all fits together. The war on terror gives meaning to the battle of Iraq. And the battle of Iraq demonstrates tangible success in the war on terror.

Except it doesn't. The two stories—Iraq and al-Qaida, the battle and the war—have never really meshed. Bush keeps saying they're the same thing. But saying doesn't make it so.

Remember Saddam's weapons of mass destruction—the ones whose concealment justified the invasion of Iraq? A week ago, the Washington Post reported that 38 days after entering Iraq, the United States had "yet to find weapons of mass destruction at any of the locations that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell cited in his key presentation to the U.N. Security Council in February." We hadn't even "produced Iraqi scientists with evidence about them." The only thing Bush said we had learned from interrogating Saddam's scientists was that "perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some."

What about Saddam's links to terror? Bush repeated Thursday that the Iraq war had "removed an ally of al-Qaida." Really? According to the Post, U.S. officials "have not turned up anything to support Powell's claim to the Security Council that 'nearly two dozen' al Qaeda terrorists lived in and operated from Baghdad." A Los Angeles Times investigation of the al-Qaida affiliate touted by Powell found "no strong evidence of connections to Baghdad" and concluded that the group lacked "the capability to muster a serious threat beyond its mountain borders." Saddam didn't even "control the region where the [group's] camps were located."

What does Bush have to say about the absence of evidence on these two points? "This much is certain," he observed in his victory address. "No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more."

Well, that's true. No terrorist network will get weapons from Pat Moynihan, either. That doesn't make his death essential to the war on terror.

Saddam was a tyrant, butcher, and serial aggressor. He jerked around the U.N. Security Council for 12 years, and the council did nothing about it. Even if all his biological and chemical weapons were destroyed years ago, his refusal to prove it—as he had pledged to do—by turning over records and personnel defied any hope of enforcing nonproliferation rules for gross offenders. Something had to be done, and Bush did it.

But don't tell us this was a triumph in the war on terror, Mr. President. Don't tell us the defeat of a secular dictator has turned the tide against a gang of religious fanatics. And don't talk about patience. You inserted a battle that could have waited into a war that couldn't, precisely because you lacked—or thought we lacked—patience for the slow, diffuse, half-invisible struggle against the people who hit us on Sept. 11. You wanted a quick, clear victory, and you got it. But don't flatter yourself. You haven't changed the world in 19 months. You've only changed the subject.


Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2082419/
__________________

__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 12:50 PM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 08:17 PM
__________________

__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 12:58 PM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:17 PM
Some people are never satsified......
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 01:17 PM   #4
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,651
Local Time: 07:17 PM
Yeah watching his speech last night made me sick that he could sit up there with a straight face and tell us these lies.

I hope none of us are satisfied with lies.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 05-02-2003, 01:38 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:17 PM
The piece can be reduced to one thought - the author has not seen sufficient evidence to link Saddam to terrorists. The rest is hyperbole.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 02:14 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 08:17 PM
I don't think any of us have been given sufficient evidence whatsoever to link Saddam to Al Quaeda. Nor have we seen the WMD's yet. Bush should put up or shut up, imho.
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 02:32 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 01:17 AM
I'm not convinced that there's a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, either. Bush is assuming something he's supposed to prove. Philosophers call this "begging the question". They even had a pro-war rally at Ground Zero. I'm glad Saddam is out of power, but I'm not convinced of this link.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 03:40 PM   #8
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 08:17 PM
don't get me started on the pro-war rally at Ground Zero. that made me feel sick to my stomach.
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 06:57 PM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:17 AM
What makes me sick to my stomach are those that fail to recognize the amazing job are soldiers have done and do not support are troops.

Its a fact that even Saddam's regime acknowledged that they had 10,000 liters of Anthrax and 30,000 Bio/Chemical capable shells as of November 1998 when the UN inspectors had to leave.

In between 1998 and 2002, Iraq claimed it destroyed this material. If that was indeed the case, its incumbent on Iraq to show the evidence of the destruction. Iraq's failure to account for these WMD's that they had in November of 1998 is all that is needed for there to be justification for a military strike under the UN resolutions.

It is never incumbent upon any member of the United Nations to prove that Iraq had WMD. It was incumbent upon Iraq to prove that they did not have WMD. It was never the Job of UN inspectors, George Bush, or anyone else, to prove that Iraq had disarmed! It was their job to verify that Iraq had disarmed itself! This was one of the terms fo the UN Ceacefire agreement for the 1991 Gulf War.

All Bush is required to do now, is ensure that any future Iraqi government is not in posession of WMD. If the Iraqi's did dump much of this stuff into the Tigris/Euphrates river, it may take some time to prove this was indeed the case. Iraq is a large country, the WMD could be buried anywhere. It will take years to search hundreds of thousands of square miles of land.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 07:31 PM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:17 PM
I do not think what this author said is a slam on the soldiers.

The problem is, Iraq, has never been linked to ANY terrorist activities against the US other than the assassination attempt on G. Bush.

I could accept a link between Iraq and Al-qaeda if the president presented the fact that our entire policy in the Middle East, and the stationing of soldiers because of Saddam in Saudi Arabia, led to 9/11. That to me is the compelling case. If we did not have to contain Saddam, 9/11 would not have happened.

This said, I think the WAR on Terror is much more successful than people give it credit. I think the WAR on Iraq, was the right thing to do, even though I do not think the two WARS are linked in the manner the President would have us believe.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 07:33 PM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I do not think what this author said is a slam on the soldiers.

The problem is, Iraq, has never been linked to ANY terrorist activities against the US other than the assassination attempt on G. Bush.
Other than the money sent to Palestinian families.


I guess we will have to figure out what those camps were in Northern Iraq.....
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 08:49 PM   #12
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sharky
don't get me started on the pro-war rally at Ground Zero. that made me feel sick to my stomach.
Me too. I think Ground Zero belongs to all of us. I don't like the idea of using it for any kind of political stuff, either liberal or conservative. It should be a designated U.S. monument or whatever.
Sting, I didn't mean any disrespect to the soldiers. I think they did a great job. They went in and did what they believed in. I'm not going to criticize that. I've criticized some of the politicos, not the troops. That's not the same thing at all.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 09:28 PM   #13
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 08:17 PM
exactly verte. I'm proud of our soldiers, they did and continue to do a great job. I just think they have been used as pawns to make some politicians look good. And i don't think that's right.
__________________

__________________
sharky 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 08:17 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