Sunday, December 14, 2003
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (5)
Congratulations to all those involved in the capture.
One last thought: in dealing with the insurgency within Iraq, it's much better that Saddam was captured in this fashion rather than killed. It goes to a point I made in March with regard to Al Qaeda:
Lee Harris makes a similar point:
Too bad they shaved his beard. Well, this anecdote makes him look cowardly as well.
UPDATE: Time is all over this story. Here's their cover story package -- with lots of detail about the capture. There is a follow-up report on the first day of interrogation. Some intriguing details:
Finally, President Bush gets the final words today, from his address to the nation:
posted by Dan on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM
There was an Iraqi version of "The Simple Life"? Who Knew? I guess the media convergence thing really is getting out of hand...
Nice job, boys.posted by: TommyG on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
Strange, I'm not sure if I should be sad that they didn't just shoot him or happy that he can be put on trial.
Either way its good news for everyone involved in Iraq.
By the way, does anyone know where he will be tried?posted by: sam on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
You're exactly right on your final thought, I believe this is the first 'Big Fish" since Napolean to be taken alive. I cannot imagine the uncomfortability of the heirs of Europe's first dictator.posted by: Art Wellesley on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
Gee, I wonder how Salam Pax is taking the news.
Looks like "Georgie" just might know what he's doing after all, eh Salam?
Oh well, I'm sure he'll find a sympathetic shoulder to cry on at 'The Guardian'.
I would like to see Bush come out and say there will be no international trial of Saddam. That the inability of Modern International Tribunals to truly punish evil men with the death penalty disqualifies them from dealing with Saddam.
What I would really like to see is Saddam get a death penalty conviction from an Iraqi Tribunal, and a death penalty conviction from an American Federal Court for Saddam's attempt on Bush 41.posted by: Trent Telenko on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
Doesn't the bearded Saddam look a bit like Karl Marx?!?
While I have no problem with hanging this piece of filth by his heels in the public square, I would be willing to settle for life imprisonment and use the threat of a capital sentence to get his cooperation in (a) finding out the locations and structures of the Baathist insurgents (in so far as they are organized), (b) whether or not he had WMD programs (or just wanted people to think he had them) and if so what happened to them, and (c) the billions of dollars he looted from the Iraqi people that should be used for their reconstruction.posted by: Thorley Winston on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
Regarding your 41 comment: Very kind of Shakespearing moment, don't you think?
In fairness to the left; Said someone else of a group of 'rebels':
"Today will be a day long remembered..." (g)posted by: TommyG on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
Dennis writes: "Gee, I wonder how Salam Pax is taking the news."
He has an audio thingy up as part of the Guardian's coverage of the capture. Why not go find out?posted by: Jon H on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
The Iraqi Governing Counsel has been unable to reach consensus in regard to what form their new government should take. Perhaps they can work together to sucessfully prosecute Saddam, it would be a start in the right direction. If the Iraqis can take ownership, the calls for internationalization with become irrelevant.posted by: John on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
I apologize. Correction: "will become irrelevant"posted by: John on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
"Looks like "Georgie" just might know what he's doing after all"
Um, no. Saddam's capture, about which we should all be very very pleased, reflects the professionalism and determination of the armed forces presently stationed in Iraq. Hats off to all of them.
How, exactly, does their work eliminate the history of the past eight months? Wasn't the first "Mission accomplished" banner still premature? Wasn't Rumsfeld still wrong to fire Shinseki? Haven't the administration's foreign policy advisers been at loggerheads, and operating a singularly uncoordinated shop for some time now? And what shall we say about sending an envoy to Europe seeking debt forgiveness only two days before very publicly shutting those countries out of reconstruction contracts; or the now amply demonstrated fact that the admin never did any serious planning for postwar reconstruction until well after the occupation had begun -- and more recently has been seeking advice from the Israelis (!) about how to put down an uprising, and on that advice doing things like bombing the buildings of suspected militants and surrouding entire towns with razor wire.
Saddam's arrest is great news -- one very important task accomplished. But the occupation has been (and remains) much harder than it had to be because of poor planning and poor leadership from the White House.posted by: TedL on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
Wow. Per JonH I went and listened. Salam is a bigger shmuck than I had every imagined...which is surprising given my prior opinion of him. You could hear Salam forcing himself to say this was a good thing. What a Yutz. Lileks was right.
Yes, TedL, I reflect on the utter incomptence of the Bush Administration every time something like the capture of Saddam occurs.
I reflected upon it when the U.S. crushed the Taliban regime in Afghanistan without the massive bloodshed, military quagmire and humanitarian disaster predicted.
I reflected upon it when it became apparent that the Osama Bin Laden lies in a nameless grave of a cave in Tora Bora.
I reflected upon it when our troops secured Baghdad and Iraq without the massive bloodshed, military quagmire, humanitarian disaster, refugee crisis, ecological disaster, massive Arab uprising...did I forget anything?...that was predicted.
And now, eight months...EIGHT MONTHS later, because Iraq does not conform to the arbitrary utopian vision of those predisposed to find fault in anything Satan Bush and His Evil Minions do we are supposed to throw up our hands, admit International ANSWER was right all along, and vote for Howard Dean.
And imagine talking to the Israelis about Arab terrorist tactics! What's up with that? Obviously Bush should be talking to the government of Costa Rica about Arab terrorist tactics. Go figure.
If you have any more D.U. memes, feel free to throw them out there.posted by: DennisThePeasant on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
This should wrap up the insurgency for good. Democracy and Freedom? Right around the corner.
Are we sure that is really him?
posted by: Waffle on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
Ted L wrote:
How, exactly, does their work eliminate the history of the past eight months?
It doesn’t but rather it is the culmination of eight months of steady and often uncredited progress being made in Iraq.
Wasn't the first "Mission accomplished" banner still premature?
Nope, it was raised to signify the end of major combat operations in Iraq.
Wasn't Rumsfeld still wrong to fire Shinseki?
Nope, getting rid of Shinseki made it easier to push through modernization of the armed forces which is something that we will need for the future.
Haven't the administration's foreign policy advisers been at loggerheads, and operating a singularly uncoordinated shop for some time now?
And what shall we say about sending an envoy to Europe seeking debt forgiveness only two days before very publicly shutting those countries out of reconstruction contracts;
I would say “read the actual directive instead of setting up strawman arguments.”
or the now amply demonstrated fact that the admin never did any serious planning for postwar reconstruction until well after the occupation had begun
Burn strawman, burn.
-- and more recently has been seeking advice from the Israelis (!) about how to put down an uprising, and on that advice doing things like bombing the buildings of suspected militants and surrouding entire towns with razor wire.
Gee we sought the advice from people who deal with terrorists on a daily basis about how to deal with terrorists. Imagine that.
Aw, now Mr. Winston - we have to mark this momentous occassion. Mr. 'Ted' is this blogs historic : First of the "buts".
He, at least, had the courage to give his "Yes, But" - loathsome and dispicable as it might be. Where, now, the legion of discordant that would normally have the thread ticker up to 100 this many hours into a post?
Kudos to you, Mr L, in chosing to demonstrate the courage of your convictions when the rest of us sad, mislead, simpletons can only find joy, and not the necessary 'modifiers' that would mark us as sensible men.
And well done, indeed, to the "Steadfast and Loyal".posted by: Art Wellesley on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
Due respect to everyone here, but yeesh. Whatever happened to nuance? As a democrat who opposes Bush, but supported the Iraq War, here's my take: The war was morally just and strategically necessary, and there is real progress being made in the aftermath. Nevertheless, the Bush Administration's preference for American unilateralism, disdain for the UN, and staggering inability to hide those feelings have made the job tougher than it needed to be, as have the bureaucratic infighting and overly-optimistic predictions for the post-war situation.
Capturing Saddam is a HUGE step towards securing the peace in Iraq, and finding the info on WMDs, al-Qaeda connections, etc. My one and only feeling upon hearing the news was joy and satisfaction, until I started seeing all the arrogant and ignorant political gloating from Bush supporters and the stubborn and ignorant "ya, but"-ing from Bush opponents on boards like this. I suppose it's naive, but I sure wish we could have gone at least a day without trading pot shots and rationalizations.
Since such bipartisan happiness seems to be impossible, I'll instead just sign off with this suggestion to people on both sides of the debate: you can be thrilled that Saddam is in custody and hopeful for the future of Iraq without thinking Bush is the Second Coming.
So, Bush-haters - feel free to be happy today. And Bush-lovers - this doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of valid criticisms of Bush.posted by: Greg on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
Oh, btw, I want to be clear that I'm referring to the reactions in the Comments section here, not to Daniel's initial post. I almost invariably find his blog entries to be honest, respectful, and insightful.posted by: Greg on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
There is no doubt that Bush scored a big victory today. Whether or not he can translate that into a winning campaign, is something that we can decide tomorrow. It's hard not to rejoice at the downfall of an evil man, and there's no need to hold back about it. Just because Bush believes something, doesn't mean that it's not true. Just because Bush accomplishes something, doesn't mean that it wasn't a success. Today is a big success for America, Iraq, and GW Bush. In a few days, when the euphoria dies down then we'll see if he has the will to carry through the rest of the program. This comes at an awful good time for the Administration, they needed a victory like this to balance some of their muddling and blunders. This seems to fit the bill perfectly.posted by: Oldman on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
A great day to be an American.
Even Joe Leiberman thinks so. He keeps proving -- over and over -- that he's the only Democrat worthy of, and capable of handling, the solemn responsiblity of defending this country.
Here's to America and liberty for the Iraqi people. Heck, I'll even throw a bone to Joe Leiberman.posted by: Kenaka on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
Well said, Oldman. Spats we can (and will) have another day.
and I suppose that means I have to close with a "Merry Christmas" to you, as well. Fair enough. No snide remarks then, just warm regards.posted by: Art Wellesley on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
We'll cross wits as you say another day. Today, we are all Americans. Except of course, for those that aren't. ;-) Holidays are a time that should transcend petty individual differences. After them, we can go back to tearing each other apart. Until then, Wellesley a merry X-mas to you and yours. :-Dposted by: Oldman on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
posted by: Time's up on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
Its a great day for the Yanks, the Birts, the Spanish, the Poles, the Aussies, the Italians and all of those other members of the coalition I've forgotten to recognize.posted by: Gary on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
Nevertheless, the Bush Administration's preference for American unilateralism, disdain for the UN
2) And once again, substituting "UN" for "France and Germany"...
If I only had a nickel for everytime etc. etc.posted by: Steve_in_Corona on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
I had predicted before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein would chicken out and agree to move to a agreed upon safe haven. Thus, it surprised me when this did not occur. Yesterday’s surrender without a fight by this cowardly man makes me think that the behavior of France and the other Old Europeans encouraged him to remain in power. Saddam likely thought the French would place sufficient roadblocks in front of the United States. Eventually we should cut the French some slack. In the meantime, though, we are compelled to rub their faces in the mud. They must pay a huge price for stabbing us in the back.
The wiser heads in the Democrat Party, after Saddam's capture, have resigned themselves to the probability of George W. Bush’s reelection. They have bigger fish to fry---the fight for the very heart and soul of their party. If nothing else, people like Robert Rubin, James Fallows, Brad DeLong and even Paul Krugman are free traders. Their economic views hold little sway in today’s national Democrat Party. Sadly, The crazies are marginalizing the Democrats and rendering them irrelevant. As I’ve said previously, the Bill Clinton of 1992 wouldn’t stand a chance for the party’s current nomination.posted by: David Thomson on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
Paul Krugman may be a free trader, but he is also one of the crazies marginalizing the Democratic Party. As long as substantial portions the Democratic message are delivered by people like Krugman, you will find Republicans in the White House.posted by: DennisThePeasant on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
"You're exactly right on your final thought, I believe this is the first 'Big Fish" since Napolean to be taken alive."
Hirohito? Perhaps Noriega?posted by: R C Dean on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
Slobodan Milosevich was also taken alive. Though Saddam is the 'biggest fish' to be captured alive.posted by: sam on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
For comments from another crazy liberal Bush-hater, see George Will's column this morning.
He describes the Bush policy re reconstruction contracts as: "a tantrum tarted up as foreign policy."posted by: TedL on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
Oh yes, and to take just one more voice (of many), that liberal pacifist Max Boot:posted by: TedL on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
Steve in Corona,
Yeah, Ted, I'm sure you and Will are real close on Foreign Policy. Way to cherry-pick, genius.
Hint: Your ideas are supposed to have merit *on their own*posted by: TommyG on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
I would just like to thank you for your dignified and mature commentary on this momentous occasion. As usual, Dan Drezner shows he is a man of class.
Can you imagine a situation where Hitler's death has just been announced -- and contemporary pundits cheapen this historic occasion by more than anything else posting gleeful references to Neville Chamberlain supporters?
posted by: Marcus Lindroos on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
um, Marcus? What was said is important. I'm sure I wouldn't know - but I beleive they have entire departments at universities devoted to " things said in the past"posted by: TommyG on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
“Paul Krugman may be a free trader, but he is also one of the crazies marginalizing the Democratic Party. “
Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong are between a rock and a hard place.
If there were still large numbers of people running around in 1945 saying we should have listened to Neville Chamberlain, I can well imagine there being some gloating at their expense. But the appeasers of those days were quicker studies than the ones we're stuck with now.posted by: Paul Zrimsek on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
Greg makes a seemingly well balanced comment that Bush isn't all bad or good but adds another log to the "unilateral" fire liberals keep burning to bash Bush.
News flash to all lefties: "UNILATERAL" means doing something "alone". Even though Bush could not get corrupt French, German and Russian leaders (with their own political problems at home) to go along with the US, more than ONE OTHER country did.
So stop being rhetorically cute but intellectually corrupt. Bush got many important leaders to support the effort. That he didn't wait for everyone to get on board a legitimate effort is something called "leadership".
I know that giving up years of playing parse the "is" with your ideological soul mate Clinton is tough. However, to misuse one of the left's favorite phrases from that period: Time to "move on" isn't it?posted by: JAG on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
Well put, JAG.
You know, for some strange reason, I'm having a hard time repressing my joy.posted by: TommyG on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
Brendan...I was responding to those who only equate the UN with France and Germany..you know, the same ones who use the term "unilateral" to describe our 60 nation alliance..
USA, England, Spain, Poland, Italy etc. = unilateral
All of the above but add France is somehow OK..
As to USA disdain for the UN..It seems we spent a lot of time trying to show the UN the wisdom of being willing to enforce the resolutions it passed over the years towards Saddam..
Now, if you equate UN disdain with the USA subjecting our national security interest to the whim of a French veto..well, that is a different issue, isn't it?posted by: Steve_in_Corona on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
In the spirit of the holidays, just a brief reminder. When being confronted with evidence that doesn't fit our expectations, the wise thing to do is re-evaluate our expectations. The second pertinent point is that wishful thinking about your opponents will fall on their swords conveniently is rarely gratified.
There is no reason to believe that any democrat has conceded the 2004 elections, publicly or in their own minds. Wishful thinking to the otherwise, even the White House expects a close race. Yes, getting Saddam is a boost the White House but only if things get better here on out and Bush is given the credit. Polls on the American public seem to indicate rejoicing, but not some sort of wholesale conversion to Bush's policies. Very few people had their minds changed by this one. I suggest you stop predicting other people do exactly what you need to feel vindicated. If nothing else, it's a piss poor winning strategy. Happy holidays, Thomson.posted by: Oldman on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
“There is no reason to believe that any democrat has conceded the 2004 elections, publicly or in their own minds. Wishful thinking to the otherwise, even the White House expects a close race.”
Ever heard of George Stephanopoulos? He has already publicly stated his opinion that president Bush should win reelection. Also, the harsh and justified rhetoric of Senator Lieberman is nothing less than a fight for the very soul of the Democrat Party. He obviously considers the struggle for the Presidency to be of secondary importance. The Bush White House must premise its actions as if the election will be tight. It is simply good strategy not to take anything for granted.
Only a legitimate tragedy can truly jeopardize Bush’s chances. Even the Liberal media poses only a minor threat. America must experience either an economic debacle or a foreign policy disaster. Or, somebody will have to find some scandalous pictures of George W. Bush enjoying gay sex with a farm animal! Nothing less will do.posted by: David Thomson on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
Am I the only one who was struck by similarities between Saddam and everyone's favorite Crazy Uncle Ted? And no, I'm not talking about TedL, though the coincidence is worth noting, if only to avoid being accused of making cute implied comparisons.
As for TedL... compared to any standard other than perfection, the liberation of Iraq has been a stunning success. The nightmare scenarios of mass civilian casualties, thousands of American losses, Arab street uprisings, mass starvation, millions of refugees, etc failed to materialize, so now it's a failure because we didn't wave a magic wand and fix everything in a long weekend. Has everything gone perfectly? Of course not; only fools expect perfection, and nobody is claiming that everything is going perfectly - if they are, I lump them with the people who trumpet every imperfection as a sign of abject failure. Your opinion is noted, and I'll just assume that you won't be swayed by any evidence to the contrary, which makes you irrelevent.
The history of the past eight months is success, a big fascist destroying victory and freedom sundae with a live Saddam in US custody as the cherry on top. The biggest problem we face is complacency in the face of such a huge success - and the administration is staying focused and correcting their errors with astounding speed.
We concluded major combat operations in weeks (that's the elimination of the Iraqi army as an opposition force; the point at which large formation maneuvers became irrelevent; you seem unclear on the concept). Rumsfeld is a brilliant SecDef by any standard.
Prior to taking action, yes, the administration does seem to put out a wide variety of options and opinions that fall within the general overall strategy. Odd that, once action is required, all of that fractiousness and countervailing opinion seems to go away. It's almost like they're looking at problems from different points of veiw and figuring out the best approach. What shall we say about a nuanced, complex foreign policy?
As for planning, clearly, they had a plan; that the first step was "check your assumptions against the situation on the ground" is a GOOD THING. The alternative is going into a situation that may or may not be what you've planned for, appropriate or not. The UN had a plan - those refugee camps are still empty. Not publishing the plan in advance doesn't mean there was no plan; it means that we're not interested in telegraphing our moves in a situation where there are still hostile forces working against us, in and out of Iraq.
There was extensive contingency planning prior to the war; I offer up our short error-correction loop as evidence of this. Governments and military establishments see change as riskier than continuinig with a policy that is in place - even when there's strong evidence that the policy needs to be changed. That our tactics and strategy have been altered numerous times in the pas eight months is not a sign of failure, it's a sign that the administration is keenly aware of the dangers, and of the things we don't know we don't know, and they've PLANNED for the inevitable discovery that some things didn't go as expected. We're a damned sight closer to our best case scenario than we could be based on luck, and the only way to spin it as a failure is to redefine the worst case scenario and claim that perfection beyond the best case scenario was not only possible, but expected.posted by: Doc on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
but as you should realize, invading Iraq had nothing to do with U.S. security interests
I think eliminating Saddam and his sons has made my family and childrens' life and future more secure. There are millions of Americans who agree with me, including the current President and Congress.
There are millions who agree with you, and you get to express your opinion at the ballot box along with myself. (I assume you are American)
It all comes down to the fundamental issue. Do you believe we are in a war against terrorism. A war that will be fought for many years, on many fronts and in many ways. I say we are in such a war.
George Soros has said it is his purpose in life to see that Bush is defeated in 2004. I think that is rather pathetic, but to each his own on that score.
However, Saddam and other terrorists have made it clear their purpose in life is to kill as many Westerners (and Jews) as they possibly can. And this is not idle sentiment, but rather a desire to spend the time, money and resources to see their goal actually proceed with action.
To such men as these, we must imprison or kill them as soon as possible. And I want my elected leaders to be dedicated to that goal...UN or no UN.posted by: Steve_in_Corona on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
"... invading Iraq had nothing to do with U.S. security interests." That is, prima facie, an untrue statement. It is in the interests of the US for the UN to have some credibility. It is in the interests of the US to discourage states from sponsoring terrorism. Et al - though last but not least, oil supplies are a vital security interest to the US, and will remain so until the next fuel shift. It's debateable whether or not we have a national interest in squashing totalitarian regimes, or if we have some moral obligation to impose democracy on the world, but our need for oil is not.
And yes, if you want to put it that way, I am saying BLOOD FOR OIL.posted by: Doc` on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
Brendan..the world, and yes, US citizens are safer for their future now that the Saddam regime is ended. That is my belief and I think the belief of millions.
You may not believe that and if so, then Howard Dean is your man since it seems he thinks Saddam and his sons' regime are indifferent to the cause of world peace. Vote accordingly and see you in Nov 2004!
You obviously do not think we are in a war against terrorism versus radical Islamic extremists who want to see my son and wife's throats slit.
I choose not to be nearsighted in these things..Sure Bin Laden was not much of a threat to Americans here until it was too late either.
As I said, anyone who would not hesitate to kill millions of Americans if possible..anyone who would finance, execute or otherwise support a plan to perhaps drop a dirty bomb in a major US city..is a security threat. They must be killed first or imprisoned.posted by: Steve_in_Corona on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
Lynch - for god's sake, the man ran a police state - A POLICE STATE. Ya think maybe, just maybe, that he could have conducted just about any damn thing he pleased. Wheter or not your simple self was aware?
Yeah - it probably *never* occurred to him to do something about the americans. You know, the one's casuing him all that trouble. Is that it?
Crawl back under your rock.posted by: TommyG on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
Well, we could ask our pilots who tried to enforce the UN decree of the no-fly zone all those years if they agree with your view on Saddam's not doing ANYTHING to try and kill Americans....dut I digress.
Yes, the war on terrorism is quite a challenge. And a democratic Iraq will go a long way to showing these brainwashed (mostly) youths in the countries you mentioned that there is another way to live.
The "we haven't gotten Bin Laden" rhetoric is LAUGHABLE..because three days ago people just like yourself were saying "we haven't gotten Bin Laden OR Saddam Hussein yet"...does the phrase "rope a dope" mean anything to you.
Finally, allow me to flip this coin over. The entire radical Islamic world is in mourning (and anger) that Saddam Hussein has been captured. Isn't that an odd reaction to someone you have no allegiance with?? I know all the talk about Saddam being "secular" but in fact he USED radical Islam to further his desire to see Jews killed didn't he?
You see, I am not going to split hairs about terrorist ideology. If someone wants to see my son's throat slit so he can dance in his blood, for the simple reason that he is an American (and a Christian, god forbid) then he his my enemy in this war. If you want to argue "yes, he wants you dead but he is not allied with radical Islam so is not part of the war on terrorism" then go ahead and enjoy the minority....especially come the elections of 2004posted by: Steve_in_Corona on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
Brendan, I have seen the light. The world is NOT any safer now that Saddam's regime is over. In fact, we just made it worse since now these folks are REALLY angry with us.
Please direct me to Howard Dean's website so I can make a contribution and stop the madness.posted by: Steve_in_Corona on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
Yes...What... was...I ..thinking? Must appease...must. never. judge. Country much less safe...
What's that address, Steve?posted by: TommyG on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
> I choose not to be nearsighted in these
> Yes...What... was...I ..thinking? Must
First, Saddam's arrest turns out to be the final nail in the coffin to the Administration's case that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. I would regard this scenario as MORE THAN LIKELY at this point, since virtually nothing has been found to date. This, in turn, means Saddam DID NOT represent a major threat to Western nations and it also invalidates that claim he was a source of WMDs to Al Qaeda & co.. It does vindicate Howard Dean's position, though.
Next, Al Qaeda manages to carry out an Oklahoma City-level attack on U.S. soil sometime before the next presidential election. If this one can be traced back to Afghanistan much like Sept.11 2001, it means the Administration has focussed its "war on terror" efforts on the wrong enemy while diverting money and people from the true enemy -- Al Qaeda and other organisations that have been attacking Americans abroad for 10+ years now. Again, this would vindicate the Democratic position. So I would not say the "Bush doctrine" has won yet.
posted by: Marcus Lindroos on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
The simplistic worldview of certain pro-war types is certainly amazing. The problem, we are being told, is there is no democracy in the Middle East. Sounds nice in theory, but how do you actually implement "freedom" in practice when the general population tends to be even more anti-Western than their corrupt leaders?! Or how do you promote democratic reforms when support from the existing autocratic tyrants (e.g. Pervez Musharraf) in some cases is needed for winning the "War on Terrorism?"
posted by: Marcus Lindroos on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
no, no... You win. I am completely convinced.
So much so that I'm pinning your posts to the refridgerator so that I can reference them again this summer - when I'll need them most as a buffer to the conflicting information that we'll certainly be seeing in the papers by then.
Keep screaming, I've (um...waitasec...got to book-mark this pa...ok) got plenty of ink in the printer cart.
You know, Steve and Tommy, I don't know how much independent thought you put into your positions, but if your comments here, and the miserable lack of evidence you've adduced to support them, are indicative of the depth and caliber of your deliberation, then you're pathetic excuses for citizens. We don't do ourselves, or our children, any favors by blindly accepting whatever our favorite politicans tell us
You see, it can be lonely being the smartest guy in the room. At least you have Howard Dean for company. Maybe your job is teaching at a University or somewhere you get a captive audience, but you look quite foolish here.
My position is the same one held by such Bush lackeys as Joe Lieberman, Dick Gephardt, Joe Biden and in fact close to the majority of Democrats, and definitely the majority of American citizens overall.
Now, maybe you have better intelligence than Senator Biden of the Senate intelligence committee...you know, that Bush hack.
Maybe you alone can interpret the remarks of our leaders given to Congress, the UN or directly to the American people over the past several years. We clearly can't be trusted to think for ourselves.
But by all means..continue to call all Americans who rejoice that Saddam's regime of terror is over "pathetic excuses for citizens" because you are painting quite a politically diverse and rather large number of folks with that broad brush.
Like I said, enjoy being the smartest guy in the room. And enjoy your minority political status for the generation to come.posted by: Steve_in_Corona on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
You know, Steve, now he's got me curious. Lynch, just what *is* a day like for such a deeply-passionate "world citizen" that has no convictions other than that other people are mean and stupid? Where's the certainty? Where the solace, or fun?
Paint us a day, Mr. Wonderful.posted by: TommyG on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
Stumbled across this again tonight and thought of this thread...some more of the pathetic excuses for American citizens are listed below..(I eliminated the Repubs since we know they all are evil/stupid..whatever..)
posted by: Steve_in_Corona on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
Thank you Ted L. and DennisthePeasant for restoring my faith in the average IQ of US residents. Saddam was a jerk. He was a dangerous jerk if you were within his reach. And we helped make him that way by giving him money, support, and weapons (in violation of a UN arms embargo). So now Bush knows what he's doing because he capped this botched war by interrogating enough people to find a guy hiding in a hole? Gosh, I feel safer already.
Dan, if you really believe that, I have some swampland in Florida I'd like to talk to you about.posted by: Chris Finnie on 12.14.03 at 10:02 AM [permalink]
Post a Comment: