I think that the people that say that are full of shit.
Sorry. But it is their ignorance of the facts that got us into this mess in the first place. And I think that they are, quite simply, sore losers who can't admit when they are wrong.
When it comes to any discussion of facts, many of the posts left on this blog and the conversations I have with conservatives make me fall out of my chair with laughter. Why? Because their defense of the criminals that are running our country contains the exact same rhetoric that liberals use to defend rapists and murders. "He didn't mean it that way" or "He's getting a bum rap" or "It's just an opinion" are the excuses that are thrown out constantly in light of the obvious crimes committed by this administration. Hey, neocons! How does it feel to sound just like those "lily-livered liberals" being soft on crime and all?" Hee Hee...
Essentially, their biased interpretation of any fact presented to them is what really renders any sort of information questionable. And that's really their goal, isn't it? If we, as a nation are constantly questioning information, then how do we know where the truth really lies? And, in our attention deficit disorder country, will people take the time to find out if President Bush did indeed break the law when he authorized the NSA to wiretap phones?
I am constantly astounded by conservatives' perceptions of facts in our world. I continually ask myself how much farther can Bush Co go and still have the support of 30 percent of this country? I think Bush Co asks themselves the same question everyday and pushes the envelope little bit further.
So this week I decided to stick to some facts and then let all of you interpret them in the comments section below. For those of you that don't feel like contributing, that's cool. Sit back and marvel at the unreality you will see unspool before your eyes. And speaking of unreality, next week, in Part Two of Just the Facts, I will give my interpretation of facts as seen through the eyes of two conservatives, something I thought would be quite enjoyable for all of you folks. Don't forget to bring the kids!
Alright, so, these are facts as presented to us by the powers that be. They may not be entirely accurate, conspiracy theories aside, but I figured for the purpose of this column we should just stick to the hard information we are given every day. Remember, my point in doing this exercise is that, in my opinion (whoops!, sorry), there are no such things as facts any more in this country. Spin is the word of the day and anyone can interpret anything and make it their own, regardless of reality. Let's see if you feel the same way.
Fact #1In yesterday's press conference President Bush said the following four things:
1. The United States attacked Iraq because we believed they had WMDs.
2. It turns out they didn't.
3. Iraq was not responsible for 9-11.
4. If we leave Iraq, terrorists will gain control of all of the oil.
Fact #2
Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al Zawahari, as the heads of Al Qaida, are responsible for the 9-11 attacks. They are both still at large, hiding somewhere in the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Fact #3
American companies are making money in Iraq.
Fact #4Roughly 2400 US Soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq. More have died outside of Iraq as the Armed Forces do not list deaths outside of Iraq, from wounds received in Iraq, as casualties.
Fact #5
Tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens have lost their lives in this ongoing conflict. Many of them have been children.
OK. So there they are. The facts in all their glory. What does it all mean?
You decide. Leave your interpretations by clicking on the word "Comments" below.
22 comments:
Fact #1
1. "Because we WANTED to believe they had WMDs" would be more accurate and the meaning of we is the Bush administration.
2. Fact
3. Fact, but not owned up to consistently, or even until recently, by this administration
4. Huh? total opinion. Depending on how you define terrorist, there aren't any in Iraq. There are a bunch of fractured groups that are pissed about many things (the other religions, Hussein's regime, the US presence, etc.) and are using the weapons they have to make political changes. Having ICBMs, nuclear subs, depleted uranium and super sonic bombers aren't the checkmarks of being a non-terrorist.
Fact #2
How can we know where they are? We haven't captured them or disposed of them in any other way. This is most likely more fact than opinion, but it's being stated as a fact with no opinion wiggle room.
Fact #3
Fact
Fact #4
Fact and fact
Fact #5
Fact, but the number is much likely much higher.
Fact #1
These are Bush's comments? I'm not sure what to comment on. If he said them, he said them.
1. Well... Like Adam, I think they wanted to believe they had WMDs. So I'm going to say not a fact.
2. Fact
3. Well no one ever said Iraq was responsible for 911!
4. Oh who knows what'll happen? I'm fine with riding my bike.
Fact #2
Saying where they are is total guesswork. I don't care what you have read or where. You don't know for sure. You are just a guy in Minnesota reading blogs and following many news sources closely. If you tossed in a "supposedly" I'd be okay with saying where they are. But seriously, if they've evaded capture for this long, don't you think they are probably pretty good at evasion and at fooling people as to their whereabouts?
Fact #3
Well duh. American companies make money everywhere. That's what they do!
Fact #4
I don't know. The numbers are sickening. I'm sure people have been counting, so that number is probably correct.
Fact #5
This number is also sickening. I assume is it correct or probably not high enough.
To respond to the above interpretations....
For Fact #1, I am simply saying that Bush said those things not that they are total facts.
For Fact #2, these are the facts as we know them. Again, they may not be true and given all the theories, who knows?
There are more key facts that are pertinent to #2.
Fact 2a): Pakistan and the United States funded the Taliban during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and the CIA give hundreds of millions of dollars to Muslim fundamentalists in the Asian republics of the Soviet Union during the Reagan administration, including Chechnya (where much of the terrorism in modern Russia originates).
Fact 2b): Pervez Musharraf (president of Pakistan) staged a coup several years ago and overthrew the democratically elected government of Pakistan. He staged sham elections a couple of years and, miracle of miracles, he won!
Fact 2c): Pakistan is the source of much of the nuclear proliferation that has occurred in the past 10 years, providing technology and materiel to North Korea and Libya (but not, notably, Iraq). The US has demanded that Pakistan turn over A. Q. Khan, the man responsible for the proliferation, but Pakistan has said no. And George Bush said, "Okay, sure. Anything you say."
Fact 2d): Pakistan is to this day a haven for Muslim terrorists who have been bombing Indian cities over the status of Kashmir.
Fact 2e): Most residents in Kandehar province in Afghanistan believe that the US is supporting the Taliban because the US gives Pakistan billions in aid and the Taliban is constantly invading Afghanistan from bases in Pakistan.
"Fact" 2f): Pakistan is our "ally" in the war against terrorism.
The problem with Republican foreign policy over the past 60 years is that they will cut deals with people who we know are outright evil.
The crime for which Saddam is now on trial -- he used poison gas on Kurdish citizens of Iraq -- occurred during the Reagan administration. After this crime against humanity Democrats in the Senate passed a bill cutting off aid to Iraq. Reagan vetoed the bill.
Also during the Reagan administration Oliver North arranged the sale of weapons to the Iranians -- who had taken 50-some Americans hostage in the American embassy in Teheran during the Carter administration. The profits from the sale were used to finance right-wing death squads in Central America, the same guys who murdered American nuns who were helping the indigent.
You would think Republicans would learn a lesson from this. But no: we're selling weapons to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia -- the country where all but one or two of the 9/11 terrorists came from.
Another example: we invaded Iraq in large part based on the information provided by Iraqi expatriots like Ahmed Chalabi. Before the war it was well-known that Chalabi was wanted in Jordan for bank fraud (he absconded with $70 million).
Chalabi provided Cheney with "intelligence" about Saddam's WMDs, most notably from a source named "Curveball." Turns out Curveball was lying, and the Germans knew this before the war, and told the CIA. But the president didn't bother to mention that in his speeches before we invaded.
Even more embarrassing, it turns out that Chalabi was working for the Iranians. Not long after the invasion of Iraq the Bush administration found out. They accused him of espionage and murder and raided his offices. He escaped to Iran. But months later he was back in Iraq and held the position of oil minister!
More recently, the Bush administration cut a deal with several warlords in Somalia, the same warlords who killed American troops in the infamous Blackhawk Down tragedy. Not long after this alliance was made public, the Muslim factions in Somalia joined forces and beat down the warlords that Bush was supporting. An unsteady peace has been holding since.
This is why I don't believe anything the Bush administration says. They will cut deals with anyone, no matter how evil and vile. They haven't learned anything in the last 25 years, and they're repeating exactly the same stupid mistakes they have been making since Don Rumsfeld shook Saddam's hand back in the eighties.
Many Americans ask, "Why do they hate us?" This is why. When it comes to those countries, we are back-stabbing, double-dealing, evil scumbags. That's why they don't believe a word when we say we believe in justice and democracy.
We said we were bringing democracy to Iraq. Yet when the Palestinians held free and democratic elections -- and they were judged to be fair by everyone -- we refused to acknowledge the results of the election and cut all aid to the Palestinians.
Now, I don't support sending aid to Hamas. They're a bunch of terrorists. But this stupid fiction that democracy will set the Middle East free and everything will be wonderful is blatantly false. If you invade a country and kill innocent civilians, the people will hate you no matter how lofty you say your goals are. If the majority of voters in those countries are idiots and vote for terrorists, they'll elect rotten terrorist governments.
This is the inherent conundrum with democracy: majority rule does not guarantee reason, or even justice. Democracies can be just as tyranical and evil as dictatorships. Hitler was elected democratically, fair and square, just like Hamas. And that's not a claim that George Bush can make.
The number of deaths in Fact #4 is outdated. I believe the current count is upwards of 2600.
Hear, hear on your point on the Palestinians. Bush and his administration claims to support democracy in the Middle East, as long as he likes the government that is elected. We look like hypocrites and liars when Hamas wins the election and we cut off add.
His requirement in Iraq is a government that is elected that we agree with. If Islamists win in a future election, Bush/neocons will find a way to weasle out of supporting their democratically elected government. Then our military may be called on to fight an elected Iraq government and we will be in an even worse situation. Sanctions and isolationism were working for Hussein, our war has put us in a worse position.
Agree with your point on why they hate us. We continue to say we support freedom, while propping up tyrannical governments (Saudi Arabia, Egypt) and refusing to assist democratically elected governments (Hamas).
What the? Has this blog been taken over by liberals?!!?
Both of you make good points but to give any weight to terrorist organizations as "democratic" is ludicrous. But what you have done is clearly define both sides'approaches quite well.
Bush Co wants to continue on with business as usual...propping up dictators and foreign regimes that the corporations of this country are in business with. Wealth and power are the central goal with the folks that are currently running the show and their desire for more of this has put the American people in more jepoardy now then we were before 9/11. Sure, they talk a good game. And on the surface they appear to be protecting us but it is all a sham. They really don't want to find bin Laden and the only way they give a wit about our nation's security is if corporations can make money off of it.
Then you have the other side, which I assume both Adam and BLK are on, which basically wants us to be nice a group of people who want to a)Exterminate all Jews and b)Exterminate us. Let me perfectly clear about this: these people want to destroy us and they don't care how many of their own they lose in the process. They are psychotics. There is no reasoning with them. If we are nice to them, their goal will always remain our destruction. Israel has no choice. They have to do what they are doing. In fact, if you ask me, they are being too nice right now.
So, that being said, what is the solution? Bush Co has it wrong and the other side has it wrong so where is the answer?
I think it starts with a sacrafice on our part as Americans to work towards becoming self sufficient. We need to get the point where we don't have to rely on these fucksticks for anything...oil, resources....anything. That is going to take sacrafices at home. People are going to have to give up their gas guzzling cars and actually walk to work. Heavens, they might even lose weight in the process!
We also need to really put some thought as to how we are going to combat terrorism. To me, it seems more of an issue of law enforcement and less of a military issue. We need to train a large group of people who can analyze intelligence and be super detectives. Maybe Mi-5 could run it. After all, they thawarted the latest potential terrorist attack using simple detective work and (surprise surprise) no illegall wiretaps!!
And as far as a near term, specific solution goes....how about 20,000 troops swarming the region where bin Laden and al Zawahari are supposedly hiding? Folks, you know they are making plans to hit us again and hard. And we hand the keys over to NATO?
Wow. I am really at a loss here.
Hamas is a democratically-elected govnerment. It's also a terrorist organization.
As for Israel, I disagree with you respectfully, but powerfully. Their continuing beligerance and refusal to negotiate return of Arab lands to Arabs, while pursuing through Settlers a greater Israel, will continue to sour their relations with their Arab neighbors. Syria would stop support Hezbollah and so would Iran if lands were returned to Lebanon, but most importantly, Arab lands used to create a Palenstinian state. Barak almost did it in the 90s. It's too bad that Sharon's barrier, etc. were supported by the Bush administration.
I agree with our European allies. The time for feeling guilty about the holocaust and then indulging every abuse the Israelis concoct is over. I used to respect Israel as the tough underdog state in the Middle East that was going to survive and protect its citizens no matter the odds. Now, they're just bullies who've continued to make their relations worse and worse with their neighbors. Eventually, time will be on the Arabs side. Better for Israel to make peace now by granting a Palestinian state and getting the world back behind it to eliminate any groups that still want to erase Israel from the map once the Palestinian homeland issue is resolved.
If anyone could explain what the US and Israel have gotten by refusing to even talk directly to their enemeies (Syria, Iran, North Korea, etc), I would be much obliged. It seems witholding the reward of speaking directly to our government has only meant we don't talk or make any movement on having peaceful relations. Look at where talking to China in the 70s has gotten us today. Economic cooperation is a hell of a tool for peace.
As far as how we fight the war on terror; maybe a super-police force is a good option back by special forces troops, other light units, airstrikes, cruise missiles, etc.
It's hard for us to know due to the hundreds of billions of dollars, and extra $1 billion spent each month, fighting in Iraq. Quagmire only begins to describe the mess we've found ourselves in at Iraq. Until that ends, we won't have the resources or troops to actually fight a "war" on terror.
We started off correctly by removing the Taliban from Afghanistan, but then induldged the neocons wet dream by attack Iraq to "bring democracy to the Middle East". You only need to look at how the Taliban is resurging in power to understand how really little the Bush administration cares about fighting the so-called "war" on terror.
Also, to say that Arabs, Muslims, etc. are psychotics is not intellectually honest. They have different views than we do and are using the weapons they have to make political changes.
I don't agree with their viewpoint, methods, etc.
But they're not psychotics.
They're not evil and they're not the devil.
They're using the same tactics that the IRA has been using to remove the Brits from Northern Ireland and the same ones I would use if Canada decided to annex Minnesota (and could back it up militarily).
Actually, maybe Minnesota should be its own country. We'd have fewer neocon presidents. Most of our presidents might even be able to form a sentence with repetition to bulk up their word count. ;)
without repetition, I meant
Crabby and PL are not responding...this topic seems to be near and dear to their heart, I would like to see their input.
I think everything that has been said so far is interesting...been saying some of these things for almost 5 years now.
There is an interesting current in this country regarding what can be done with "facts." I see a fair number of people/groups that are interested in creating a sort of relativistic atmosphere where all "truths" are equal. I think this is a philosophic dead end that leads to a great deal of confusion. This is the problem with the tremendous bias that is introduced in the news that is provided in this country coupled with the desire to only hear 2 - 3 sentences on a given topic. Lack of information, lack of caring about information, general disinterest in anything that is not violent or sexy leads to the formulation of "truths" that are not really rooted in complete sets of facts. When these "truths" are presented, they are plausible because they have a grain of truth to them...just not the whole truth. Unfortunately, in a complex world, the devil is in the details, details that can be conveniently omitted because A.) there is no interest, B.) the attention span of most people is limited, C.) omission serves political ends.
There can be no argument about the "facts" that Markadelphia has provided with the exception of those noted about Bin Laden's location. There can be room for argument about how those facts are interpreted and justified. We continue to cut Pakistan a break because nobody wants India and Pakistan to turn their country into a nuclear wasteland, the economic and environmental consequences would send the world into the next stone age (that is an exageration, but you get the idea).
I have one final thought that ties into what someone above said. I had dinner with the Dean of UW-Baraboo the other night and we got to talking about his fund-raising obligations. He found it tragic that he had to lobby and do a hell of a lot of fundraising for 100,000 dollars to continue to provide quality education to his students while in Iraq and abroad we are popping off missiles that cost that much or more on a regular basis to of all things...kill other people. I couldn't agree more. Death sells, wars make solid bases for politicians. We haven't come a long way baby...seems we can't learn from the past.
A humble conservative's point of view....
I was waiting to see what Markadelphia's ultimate point was before I chimed in. I wasn't sure what, if anything, he was trying to convey. Regarding the list of facts, I would agree that all things listed are factual. Re: #1 in particular, though, I wish to remind the court that I've never supported the "official" positions for invading Iraq, so to the degree that these facts were to be held against this conservative's position I pre-emptively object.
Re: some of the responses posted thus far....
I actually happen to agree with a lot of points made by blk and adam (although I think they clearly stray far from the premise of the original posting, which was to deal exlusively with "fact"). Where I suspect we differ is in the relative importance of concluding "why they hate us", the Palestinian election, and the act of choosing sides in certain regional conflicts.
I'm certain that it would be folly to set or modify foreign policy based on whether or not it makes people hate us. As such, the knowledge that "they hate us" because of our foreign policy boners proves useful in understanding why an otherwise sane individual blows himself up to kill others, but does little to sway my opinion of what our nation can best do to thrive.
Nowhere in the "Superpower" by-laws does it state that we need to embrace each and every democratically elected offical. The Palestinian people (speaking of bonehead moves) elected representatives that reject many basic tenets of civilized behavior. They made their bed, now they have to lay in it. Withholding our support for their elected officials is hardly surprising and certainly isn't hypocritical, given that we are not obligated to respect any elected official (not even our own, according to some).
Lastly, the list of foreign policy gaffes over the past 60 years (conveniently listing only those committed by Republican Presidents) is an excellent illustration of how things can go very wrong in a very complicated world. To be fair, however, you should probably give a nod to the context in which the deals were made, as well as the fact that in many foreign policy situations there isn't a clear-cut right and wrong choice. I've never been President, and I certainly don't expect to be, but even from the cheap seats it sure looks like the choices at hand are oftentimes "bad" and "less bad". Certainly from the cheap seats, as many on this blog adeptly illustrate, it's quite easy to reflect back on such a situation and condemn.
Fact #5 doesn't move me any more than the "why they hate us" argument does. I think it's a cheap tool used to score an easy win in the court of public opinion, making it just as pathetic as the Republicans' "we're over there to free Iraqis" argument.
To Adam's points,
You are delusional if you think that Syria and Iran will withdraw their support from Hezbollah if lands are returned. Those people, along with most of the nations in the Middle East, are run by scumbags who go back on deals constantly. Simply put, you can't trust them. They are liars and crooks and it is not suprising to me that our current administration is in business with them.
You mention Barak....Arafat re-negged on that deal so the fault is with the Palestinians. I know plenty of people that live over there...one who served in the Israeli military...and the Palestinians are not the oppressed group the world paints them to be. Many of the problems they endure are self-created. I couldn't agree more with PL...they made their bed and now they have to lie in it.
Israel has no choice but to continue to do what they are doing. In fact, I think they are being too nice. I mean, Adam, c'mon, what would you do if you had 1 billion people trying to destroy you? Make Nice? There is no talking with these people and the only thing they understand is force. Israel is the democracy that we should be nurturing not those other shams of democracy.
Now, that being said, you later points are dead on right. We made huge errors in Afghanistan and by going into Iraq in the first place. Force is fine but it must be used smartly. Not stupidly and definetly not to line the pockets of the military industrial complex. We have a country to protect and we are not doing it now.
Markadelphia, I think we'll just have to disagree about Syria, the Palestinians, etc. I don't see things as that black and white. They want the same things the Israelis and Americans want, security. They don't have that now and they're fighting for it in the only way they can. I can't put labels on them like crooks and liars (we do that too) because it's more complex than that. I totally agree that the Palestinians were offered most of what they wanted by Barak and turned it down. That still doesn't excuse the Israelis settlement policy or refusal to give the Palestinians a state. Much of the tension in the Middle East would be solved if the Palestinian issue were resolved. The Arabs may come up with another reason to want to fight with Israel, but I think that time and the efforts at peace made by Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia with Israel show that a united front to push the "jews into the sea" is not as likely now as it was 50 years ago. What reason does Israel have to not create a state for Palestinians? If they don't do it now, they will by default in 50 years when they are the Apartheid South Africa of the Middle East. Jews are becoming the minority in their own country and they'd do well to make peace with their Arab neighbors now rather than at the point of a gun in 50 years.
You oversimplfy things by saying all they understand is force. Is that all the Native Americans understood? That can more easily be said for governments with dominant power like the US, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the Soviet Union, Colonial Britain, etc. Those with power are threatened by naked force. The rest realize they need another way to fight and find it.
PL does make a good point about democracies that elect Hamas as their government and they have to deal with consequences of their decision. The difference I see is that we purport to want democracy in the Middle East and it makes it tough for Arabs to swallow when we object to democracy of the wrong kind. We should be more forthright and say we want the kind of democracy that we have. Our spin campaign gets holes poked in it as soon as the Palestinians democratically elected Hamas. Many of our problems would be diminished if we were more vocally honest about what we wanted out of our foreign policy. Right now we're trying to have it all ways, good PR and the end result of our foreign policy. And the world is seeing the lies in our stated and actual goals.
I may be a liberal, but I really do believe we'd be get much more out of dialogue than violence. I'm a veteran and realize that force has it's time and place, but has been often said too often of US foreign policy, violence should be the last resort and diplomacy the first. We're not doing that and are fucking up in a major way in the post-Cold War era. My fear is that the US is returning to the isolationist ways of before both world wars. We're far removed from the rest of the world, rich and powerful. Our position lends well to arrogance and that's not the country I thought I lived in.
I agree totally about protecting the country in a sensible way. The world has changed radically in the last 15 years and we should be focused on law enforcement, counter insurgency, intelligence, special ops, etc. The world power structure is more like pre-WWI now and we should be focused on global stability through identifying and neutralizing threats through diplomacy; violence only when necessary.
The above really has nothing to do with your 5 facts. Sorry.
Word on the street is that I have somewhat of a fan club out there. Hello to my fans.
John, a few blog entries ago I mentioned that I wouldn’t be posting on the blog much for a while, mostly because I get labeled intolerant (not only on the blog, in person as well) simply because I vote Republican. The fact (heehee) that I am on record on this blog saying that I don’t care if 2 gay people want to get married and the fact (heehee) that Mark was there at a party where I spent a good amount of time informing some midget-minded morons that gays getting married is no big deal doesn’t seem to matter one lick – since I vote Republican and since Republicans are labeled intolerant, that means I’m an intolerant person. You slack-jawed faggots doing the labeling better be careful because pretty soon I may start acting intolerant (Did any of you get offended when I said faggots? If so, quit being so uptight, go talk about it to your friends. Just kidding, you have no friends). Sometimes I just get to the point where arguing on the internet about politics is like running a race in the Special Olympics – even if you win you’re still retarded. Besides, when the blog post starts out saying that myself and PL are "full of shit" you can bet that my desire to respond is about as great as my desire for a 5 finger prostate exam.
Then he calls conservatives/Republicans/me/PL "sore losers"...what exactly we "lost" is still a mystery to me, since Republicans control everything right now.
Oh yeah, speaking of interpretations, I got a kick out of Mark’s interpretation of the Lieberman/Lamont primary...and I quote...
"the people saw that he was blindly supporting a failed policy. They didn't agree with said policy so they voted him out" and "This was the first example of a mood that I think is indicative of the whole country."
So an anti-war candidate barely winning a PRIMARY (where only Democrats voted) 52-48 in one of the bluest states in the nation is an example of a "mood that is sweeping the entire nation"? Sorry, I need a wider margin than that in a swing state to convince me that that is "proof" of something that is "sweeping the nation".
Oh yeah...I also enjoyed the line "What the? Has this blog been taken over by liberals?!!?". I wasn’t aware that conservatives ever took it over to begin with. Freudian slip I presume.
The "facts" presented in the original post are pretty weak IMO.
After a year and a half of Mark calling GWB a liar, now we read that GWB’s words are factual. Hitler never attacked us either.
Bin Laden and Zawahari are the leaders of Al Queda who are still at large? Wow, did you all know that there are tomatoes in Spaghetti sauce? Did you all know that fire is hot?
Anonymous already beat me to the punch on #3. DUUUH! Companies exist to make money. I’d hardly expect companies to send workers into a war zone out of the goodness of their heart.
If anyone out there bases the success/failure of military campaigns on casualty numbers, history will not be kind to you. I wonder what you all would have said about our chances of winning WWII based on our casualty numbers early on in that campaign.
BLK’s post does provide insight as to why they hate us but it does little to explain to me why they hate all kinds of other people including the Germans who opposed the war in Iraq...did you all see the news recently???? From just a couple weeks ago...
Train bombing plot surprises Germany By DAVID RISING, Associated Press Writer
BERLIN - A Lebanese student suspected of planting a train bomb that failed to explode had contacts in Hamburg, authorities said Tuesday.
(Key sentence)>>>>The planned attack here stunned Germans who thought the country's vehement opposition to the Iraq war would insulate it from becoming a terror target almost five years after the attacks on Washington and New York.
The main suspect, identified by authorities as 21-year-old Youssef Mohamad el Hajdib, was arrested Saturday in Kiel, about 30 miles north of Hamburg, on suspicion of placing one of two suitcase bombs in German trains on July 31.
On Tuesday, federal prosecutors said they had identified a second key suspect, while police searched his Cologne apartment as well as addresses in Kiel and Oberhausen. (OH MY!!!DID THEY GET A WARRANT TO SEARCH HIS PLACE?!?! That society must be in the end times too!!! Lol lol)
The Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper cited investigators as saying the men were suspected of having contact with the radical Islamic movement Hizb-ut-Tahrir.
Law enforcement? I don’t want a president who will treat these terror incidents as a matter of law enforcement while failing to realize that this is war. The War on Terror seems as easy to some as arresting Bin Laden and putting him on trial. Didn’t any of you notice that Clinton catching the first world trade center bombers did noting to stop future attacks? I too noticed what PL said about the 1990’s conveniently being left out of one of the above posts. Here, I’ll sum up the 1990’s for you all...
In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds. Clinton did nothing. In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered. Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: "The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat." In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists. Clinton did nothing. In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists. Clinton did nothing. Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil. Clinton lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces. In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane. Clinton did nothing. In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no. On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists. Clinton did nothing. On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury. Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory. On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day. Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by the New York Times as 'by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991.' The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 - when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics. In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists. Clinton did nothing. Yep, it’s all GWB’s fault they hate us.
The USA isn't perfect. The examples you all cite and remember are examples of our failings - however for well over 200 years now the US has had more successes than failings.
...and Mark, you're leaving something out of the Britain foiling of the recent plot - a confession was given by one of the involved parties in Pakistan. You can bet that they tortured the shit out of that fuckstick to get that info out of him (the way it should be).
I don't think you as an individual are intolerant. But you support people that are and that is the problem. You support them because they fulfill some ideal that you erroneously believe you share.
I think you are full of shit only in regards to your accusations about what are "facts" and what are "opinions." Neocon "facts" are what got us into this mess in the first place. An example of this would be Bush's press conference. I simply stated that he SAID those things not that they were all true. I was stating the fact of what he said not the validity of the points. This is going to come into play more in this week's column.
I suggest you go back and read what BLK has written in regards to the facts about who runs the Republican Party and what their goals are. Spend your time writing on here how what has said is NOT true and maybe you will convince me. I don't think you can because you know that he is right and the facts speak for themselves.
And that's how you are a sore loser. Yeah, the Republicans run things (for now) but the truth is what has been lost and you know it. It's only a matter of time before it all comes crashing down for the neocons.
The question is: what is going to replace it? I don't believe the Democrats have the answer. I think a small minority do but they are being gagged by their leadership. No one wants to change things for the better and make an impact because people who try to do that usually end up dead
Yes, I do have ideals, just like the peaceniks who oppose war at any cost. The ideals I have are low taxes, less restrictions on business, property rights, economic freedom, less taxes on investments, among several others. While I’m sure that you all could post paragraph after paragraph about how GWB and co. haven’t done the things on my list, that list won’t convince me to vote democrat one bit. For example, what the Democrats intend to do about Iran is still a dark secret, and, if they have their way, will remain one until 2009. Their only strategy they have at present is to be well-poised for second guessing.
You have your ideals just like I do and ideals are departures from reality. That being said, the political party that just so happens to be close to my ideals is the GOP. The fact of the matter is that in a couple more years I will be able to contribute $5k per year into my IRA instead of only $2k per year thanks to a law that GWB passed. Policies like that gets government restrictions out of my way and gives me the ability to do things on my own.
Oh, so that’s what makes me a sore loser...your "opinion" that you win arguments on this blog. Are you playing that game they played in that movie Big Daddy called "I win"? Know that I have no desire to "convince" you of anything. It would make for an extremely sad existence if I were to try to get all of my friends to vote a certain way. I didn’t deny that the things in blk’s post are not factual but as Pl said, they could use some context.
Allow me to pick out just one "fact" from his post and give it some context. He said "The profits from the sale were used to finance right-wing death squads in Central America".
Yes, we did finance some big time scumbags down there in the 80’s. Keep in mind that the policy towards Guatemala for example began with a democrat, President Truman. Further keep in mind that the policy took place in the larger picture of the Cold War and was designed to fit as such. It was a piece of a puzzle that ultimately was an attempt to deal with a larger enemy, the Soviet Union, who openly had a policy of exporting revolution to other countries and who further stated a goal of world-wide communism. In such a context, the U.S. was sometimes forced to choose between supporting non-ideological dictatorships or allowing a country to fall to communists (the "bad" and "less bad" that PL spoke of). This partly explains our policy with regards to El Salvador and a number of other countries. The lack of U.S. support for such countries would not have ended the human rights abuses committed by their governments – it would have only changed the culprit to a Soviet-supported government. For a textbook example of this, look at Nicaragua. Then President Carter pulled U.S. support for their dictator (Somoza, forget how to spell his first name) in 1979, thereby allowing the Sandanistas, a Marxist-insurgency group that had received support from the Soviet Union since 1965 to take control of the government. While one cannot fault Carter for not wanting to support Somoza, his ouster by the Sandanistas did not end the human rights abuses (e.g., the massacre of 10,000 Miskito Indians by the Sandanistas, among many other examples), it only changed the culprit. To make things worse, once the Sandanistas took over, the Soviets began fomenting even further instability in the region by exporting another Communist insurgency through Nicaragua into El Salvador, resulting in a situation that created more human rights abuses.
A further irony resulting from all of this is that it is a natural consequence of a policy that many of your "sophisticated" leftist brethren supported during the Cold War; a policy variously described as "détente", "peaceful coexistence", or "containment". Regardless of what you call it, this approach to the Soviets, which started with Truman and continued with every president through Jimmy Carter, is one that ultimately put the U.S. in a position where it had to choose between supporting shitty regimes like the one in Guatemala or allowing them to fall to the Soviets. It wasn’t until Reagan that a president actually had a policy of trying to win the Cold War and roll back the gains of the Soviets instead of merely allowing them to exist along side of us. And because of our victory in the Cold War, we are now in a position where we can be much choosier about which governments we support, as hypocritical as the support may be. One would think that a sophisticated, nuanced, liberal mind like yours would be able to see these things instead of viewing it in the black-and-white manner of "Republicans financed central American death squads!!".
So while I can certainly appreciate that the policy was morally wrong on many levels, I can also understand the logic that led to it even if that logic is cold, inhumane, and ultimately immoral. You can condemn the U.S. role in Afghanistan during the 1980’s all you want, as long as you also offer up some condemnation for the Soviet Army’s outright murder of over 1 million Afghan civilians during that war.
And if you all are so concerned about human rights violations, you will forcefully condemn all of them, not just those that have been aided by U.S. policy in the past. Just as many people have died due to inaction in those situations too.
Well, your first two paragraphs just prove my point. If, as you say, GWB hasn't done anything on your list, then why support him? Or people that are running this year with his backing? Answer: stubborn pride.
Again, I must stress that just becuase I am against the current Republican leadership, does not mean that I am pro-Democrat or anti-Republican forever. Democrats don't really have the answer either. The answer lies within our power. We need to start choosing people, on either side, that can make a difference and make the world a better place.
If a Republican would stand up and say that what has been going on is wrong, then he or she has my vote. If they would stand up and say that we need to have a more equal distribution of wealth, they would have my vote. Crab, do you think they will ever say that? And why or why not?
For the record, ANY politician that calls for a "more equal distribution of wealth" will not get my vote, period. That's been tried before, results were disasterous.
GWB has done some of the things I mentioned, like the change in the IRA contribution as well as tax cuts, even Kerry called for a 3% cut in the corporate tax rate on his website last election cycle. I think the limit on 401K contributions has been raised as well. So it's not stubborn pride...since I want the rest to happen, I think that the party that will most likely get those things done will be the GOP. I even think that some things like the decriminalization of pot as well as the legalization of prostitution will be done by a Republican in the future under a "smaller government" agenda (if a real small-government type conservative ever actually gets elected, that is).
I don't know if a Republican would ever say that or if a Democrat would do such a thing on their side either, would probably depend on the particular poll or focus group that the politician is relying on for their position for that time period.
Don't worry your little buns off, I, myself, wouldn't be too worried with a Russ Feingold administration.
A hypothetical Democratic President won't take office until January 2009. Between then and now, the Bush administration will have done everything humanly possible to reduce troop levels in Iraq. Already, large areas of that country have been turned over to Iraqi security forces. Baghdad gets all the media attention because it has the highest level of violence going on right now. But that's the exception, not the rule, and by 2009, I bet there will be few, if any, troops left in Iraq in major combat roles.
I'm sure an antiwar candidate will always be closest to most Democrats' hearts. More important (as you all know) is the political equation. Most Democrats (now)believe that the Iraq war was a mistake - more important, a mistake for which Republicans should pay. I'm sure many Democrats see missteps in Iraq as their ticket back to power. But they have a big problem in trying to use the war for political ends seeing as most of their senators voted for it. In order to capitalize on the war's unpopularity, they need a candidate who was against the war from the beginning (see Feingold). Even if the war is pretty much over by the fall of 2008 the Democrats want to run a campaign that can be summed up as: "We told you so." Feingold can do that; Clinton can't.
It's true that a liberal like Feingold will be less inclined to use American military force in post-Iraq situations than a more conservative Democrat, or a Republican. But the reality is that no administration that takes office in 2009, Republican or Democrat, will have any appetite for another ground war in the Middle East. For the near future, that isn't going to happen, no matter who inhabits the White House.
I think the danger, as your buddy Hannity puts it, posed by a Democrat in power like Feingold may be overstated. Once a Democratic President actually takes power, his number one priority will be preventing terrorist attacks on American soil, for the best of all possible reasons: preserving the "We told you so" line that got them there (in other words, self interest). I'd be willing to bet that the anti-terror tools pioneered by the Bush administration will be used with equal vigor by any Democrat (no matter how liberal) who gets elected in 2008. Anyone on this blog who thinks, for example, that a Democratic President would stop eavesdropping on international conversations among terrorists, and thereby risk being blamed for another September 11 by not doing everything in their power to protect us people out here, is living in a dream world IMO. Actually, I would expect a Democratic administration to be less careful than the Bush administration has been with regards to respecting civil liberties. Here's where I probably differ from BLK a bit - I think that Democrats, more than Republicans, tend to believe that their being in power is so righteous and desirable that it justifies bending the rules where necessary, and they know that, unlike Republicans, they will not be criticized in the press for trying to keep Americans safe.
So in conclusion, I think the practical reality is that instability in the middle east have constrained what a conservative administration will be able to do, while the overriding need to satisfy their rabid liberal voting base constrains what a liberal administration can do. So I'd bet that the gap in practice between the two alternatives we will see in 2008 will be much narrower in practice than one might expect given the nutjobs on both sides that separates the parties as we currently know them with their idiotic rhetoric.
There's only one FACT that I know for sure:
Fact #1: 44 is and will always be a hefty score.
Don't tell me you're talking about them packers on MNF!
Is this the same Harry Dix that enjoyed O'Grady potato chips and powdered donuts as a daily meal?
Sweeeeeet: I got mentioned in a Crabmeister post !!!!!!!!!
Love,
Anonymous
Post a Comment