Please take Al Gore's crystal ball away from him.

[14ers]

Another famous Al Gore prediction.

It was 1987! At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt.Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan Administration.

There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning!

He was being drilled by a senator; 'Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?'

Ollie replied, 'Yes, I did, Sir.'

The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, 'Isn't that just a little excessive?'

'No, sir,' continued Ollie.

'No? And why not?' the senator asked.

'Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir.'

'Threatened? By whom?' the senator questioned.

'By a terrorist, sir' Ollie answered.

'Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?'

'His name is Osama bin Laden, sir' Ollie replied.

At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued. Why are you so afraid of this man?' the senator asked

'Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of', Ollie answered.
http://email.secureserver.net/download.php?rand=464472&folder=INBOX&uid=4059&part=2.3&tnef_part=-1&aEmlPart=2&orig=cid%3A001a01c7e1ba%2490b24f80%240100007f%40Main&inline=1&filename=image002.jpg&type=image%2Fjpeg&encoding=base64&
'And what do you recommend we do about him?' asked the senator.

'Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth.'

The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip.

http://email.secureserver.net/download.php?rand=54009&folder=INBOX&uid=4059&part=2.4&tnef_part=-1&aEmlPart=2&orig=cid%3A001b01c7e1ba%2490b24f80%240100007f%40Main&inline=1&filename=image003.jpg&type=image%2Fjpeg&encoding=base64&
By the way, that senator was Al Gore!

I wonder what Al Gore thinks now of making fun of Oliver North's fear of Osama bin Laden?

[Crim]

linky?

[larrymcg421]

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.asp

You lose.

[Crim]

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.asp


Never mind...

[Crim]

:D


heh...

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Has PSUC co-opted 14ers handle or something?

[Logan]

We need some sort of legislation that requires people to check snopes before posting anything on the internet.

[wade moore]

pwned.

[Lathum]

Has PSUC co-opted 14ers handle or something?
i thought the same thing

[Subby]

14ers is a fairly well known doofus assmunch around these parts already...right? Maye he can ascend to the ranks of grand poobah doofus assmunch now that psu and frankie noballz are gone.

[Lathum]

14ers is a fairly well known doofus assmunch around these parts already...right? Maye he can ascend to the ranks of grand poobah doofus assmunch now that psu and frankie noballz are gone.

I guess someone has to. What would FOFC be without annoying political threads where people can argue to a brick wall for 5 pages then have the thread locked when someone finaly realizes that their rantings to a stranger on a message board aren't gonna change someones political views.

[Flasch186]

I think I learn alot from Glen, Cam, nomyths, biggles and others in threads revolving around politics...but those are ones where you can discuss. What do you discuss in this one? "The article is false" Lock it up.

[LloydLungs]

We need some sort of legislation that requires people to check snopes before posting anything on the internet.

I agree, but Snopes shouldn't have even been necessary on this one. The stilted fakey dialogue just screams "hoax" at about 10 different points. I don't know how anybody believes these things.

[ThunderingHERD]

Fakest. story. ever.

[Karlifornia]

lol...Can't Ann Coulter get a hobby or something?

[Crim]

This is Ann Coulter's hobby. Honestly, as a staunch conservative, I hate crap like this.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Al Gore invented Bin Laden.

[LloydLungs]

This is Ann Coulter's hobby. Honestly, as a staunch conservative, I hate crap like this.

It certainly isn't unique to conservatives. I recall many on the left (Barbara Streisand most notably) using the widely-distributed "Shakespeare" passage during the buildup to Iraq.

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind..." etc.

Which of course sounds nothing like Shakespeare to anyone with even rudimentary knowledge of Shakespeare, and indeed it is not.

The lesson? Lotta stupid, gullible people out there with absolutely no spidey sense for hoaxes. Even Snopes can't stop em.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I don't see how misquoting a non-American playwright from several hundred year ago even compares to misquoting a recent Democratic Senator and presidential candidate about America's currently most despised terrorist enemy, but that's just me. How about finding a liberal misquote of a Republican senator for starters. Not saying it hasn't happened, but you certainly didn't add much punch to your point there.

[Logan]

I agree, but Snopes shouldn't have even been necessary on this one. The stilted fakey dialogue just screams "hoax" at about 10 different points. I don't know how anybody believes these things.

You know, you're right. In fact, as I read it, one sentence kept coming up in my mind:

"Kyle, tell us about Hornsmaniac."

[LloydLungs]

I don't see how misquoting a non-American playwright from several hundred year ago even compares to misquoting a recent Democratic Senator and presidential candidate about America's currently most despised terrorist enemy, but that's just me. How about finding a liberal misquote of a Republican senator for starters. Not saying it hasn't happened, but you certainly didn't add much punch to your point there.

Well, I would argue that Shakespeare greatly transcends "non-American playwright," but be that as it may, I was really just being a snooty English major there. I have no desire to argue Republican vs. Democrat because I can't stand either side -- but if you've read even ONE play of his, that quote should absolutely scream "not Shakespeare." It's much worse than a misquote -- it's not even in the ballpark stylistically. I just thought it was hilarious that people, who were obviously going for the intellectual high ground in a debate, could miss such an obvious hoax.

Look, give me a break. I got a D in algebra in high school. Literature-based snootiness is all I have.

[JPhillips]

So is 14ers man enough to admit his mistake?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Well, I would argue that Shakespeare greatly transcends "non-American playwright," but be that as it may, I was really just being a snooty English major there. I have no desire to argue Republican vs. Democrat because I can't stand either side -- but if you've read even ONE play of his, that quote should absolutely scream "not Shakespeare." It's much worse than a misquote -- it's not even in the ballpark stylistically. I just thought it was hilarious that people, who were obviously going for the intellectual high ground in a debate, could miss such an obvious hoax.

Look, give me a break. I got a D in algebra in high school. Literature-based snootiness is all I have.

We don't talk literature here, just endless political discussion.:D

[Cringer]

I don't care what snopes says, i am sure this is true. I just don't understand why the part where Gore got up and did a pole dance for Ted Kennedy, was left out?

[lordscarlet]

No reply from 14ers?

[flere-imsaho]

This is fun! Let's make up quotes from other people as well!

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?"

"And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

"All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques,"

"Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."

-Dick Cheney, 1992


Oh wait, my bad. Those are real.

[Neon_Chaos]

In the glorious words of Nelson...

"Ha-ha!"

[M GO BLUE!!!]

As to the Cheney quotes, I found Karl Rove's reasoning on Meet the Press hilarious... that Cheney was right in a 1994 mindset, but 9/11 changed everything.

[stevew]

Not only is this post wrong, it's about 5 years old and wrong. That's a rare feat.

[Logan]

14ers' last activity is when he posted this. Think he knew it was bullshit? I mean, if I start a thread, I check back pretty regularly to see what people have said.

[stevew]

I'd like to know 14ers feelings on elmo and michelle wie

[Mustang]

My brother swore up and down that the Brazillion soldiers dying joke for Bush was true and they had it on tape.

He also believes that 9/11 was due to Enron wanting to cover their tracks to destroy hard drives.

He also believed in Art Bell so.... ummm.. not sure where I am going with this other than my brother is out there sometimes.

[Logan]

14ers is your brother?

[gstelmack]

As to the Cheney quotes, I found Karl Rove's reasoning on Meet the Press hilarious... that Cheney was right in a 1994 mindset, but 9/11 changed everything.

:rolleyes:

FWIW, I think this is a fundamental dividing line in American politics today. To me, 9/11 did change everything, including how we view threats that have nothing to do with terrorism. We thought he had WMDs, the Clintons thought he had WMDs, the main objectors were those making money off him and so were voting their own personal gain, he'd shown a tendency to use them, he was stonewalling everyone, and 9/11 meant we no longer take chances, period, as we were being attacked on our own soil.

So I agree 100% with that change in direction from Cheney. Those of you that don't think 9/11 changed everything will disagree. Whatever.

[lungs]

Snopes is nothing but liberal propaganda trying to cover up the truth about people like Al Gore.

I bet this did happen but Gore's cronies are trying to cover his tracks for him.

[flere-imsaho]

We thought he had WMDs, the Clintons thought he had WMDs,

Why does it always come back to the Clintons? Look, the list of people who, in 2002, are on record as saying "Saddam has WMDs" is long, no one's going to deny that. But what else were they going to say? What evidence did they have to go on?

Answer: The evidence the Bush Administration was giving (notably via Colin Powell) in support of invading Iraq. Evidence that was later found to be:


Heavily slanted in CIA reports that were largely authored by the "Office of Special Plans" set up by Dick Cheney in the Pentagon.
Almost entirely based on the word of a single source, i.e. "Curve Ball", who was later found to be completely unreliable.
Difficult even to pass the "sniff test" of Powell, who exploded when reading the first draft of his speech for the U.N.
Contradicted by at least one major U.S. intelligence agency (the State Department's INR)


It does your argument no credit to say "well, the Clintons/Al Gore/random democrats agreed with Bush in 2002." At the time, these people were doing, ironically, what the Republicans have vilified them ever since circa 2004 for not doing, i.e. standing by their President in a time of crisis. And you wish to use this to support an argument about a decision that has since been shown to have been based on incorrect or fabricated evidence and seriously biased conclusions? Please rethink this.

the main objectors were those making money off him and so were voting their own personal gain

In his last briefing before the Security Council in 2003, Hans Blix reported that the Iraqis had cooperated to the point where his team had managed to review all the sites previously identified in the 90s. They were now at the stage in their investigation where, based on their last reports from 1998, which showed near-complete disarmament, they could postulate what Iraq could have developed in the interim and determine which areas (based on their knowledge and US/UK intelligence) to re-examine.

Blix specifically recommended this further investigation would only take on the order of a few months after which, assuming continuing Iraqi cooperation, he'd be able to make a comprehensive report on Iraq's current WMD state.

If you're a security council member state in 2003, do you a) embark on what could be a very messy war and occupation or b) wait a few more months for Blix to finish his report or Saddam to do something overt like throw the inspectors out again (which would allow you to do (a) with greater legitimacy)? All but 2 member states chose the latter. You can argue that they did it for financial gain, but it sounds more like common sense to me.

And even if they did do it for financial gain, the various reports that have since come out indicate that US-based companies and individuals benefited from the program at least as much as those from other countries. Further, there's considerable evidence that the US may have ignored activities that benefited key allies Jordan & Turkey during this time.

Using Oil-for-Food as an explanation for Russia & France's votes on the security council is a red herring. A disinclination to go into a messy war too hastily seems, on the evidence, considerably more likely.

FWIW, I think this is a fundamental dividing line in American politics today. To me, 9/11 did change everything, including how we view threats that have nothing to do with terrorism.

If only this were true! A statement like this suggests the implementation of a coherent and tough-minded foreign policy, especially as it relates to threats. We have no coherent policy. We sell F-16s to Pakistan, a known leaker of nuclear secrets (and probable leaker of nuclear technology and materials). We pull troops from an unfinished war in Afghanistan to start another war in Iraq, and end up with neither war doing well in 2007. We implement unprecented monitoring capabilities of dubious effectiveness for our own citizens.

9/11 meant we no longer take chances, period, as we were being attacked on our own soil.

9/11 meant the American public was frightened into giving their elected officials carte blanche to pursue all efforts necessary to secure the homeland. Countless subsequent reports and investigations, not to mention the majority of current public opinion, show that this trust was seriously misplaced.

As I must remind you, only last month, a new National Intelligence Estimate, compiled by the nation's intelligence agencies, concluded that we are now less safe (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/washington/18assess.html?ex=1342411200&en=6f41738fc95e3e2e&ei=5088) than we were before 9/11.

We are not taking less chances, we are taking more.


Edit: I don't mean to single you out, Greg, but it's comments like those you make that really make me despair. I know you're intelligent and possess a good stock of common sense, so why can't you see that the path we've been on has been so wrong, both in intent and execution? And I know your opinion is shared by millions of Americans. It honestly and completely saddens me. I want the country and its citizens to be safe as much as you do, but this is not the way to do it. We can't let fear lead us down the road to irrational knee-jerk half-measures, but that's all the last 6 years has gotten us.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

...To me, 9/11 did change everything, including how we view threats that have nothing to do with terrorism....

To me, 9/11 changed NOTHING.

If it had, we would not still be driving around in SUV's that get 11 MPG with a government that is more willing to ask we shed blood for that right then to change fundamental policies which allow such "freedoms" that happen to make a lot of people very very wealthy upon their exit from public service.

To change everything, we would be asked to alter our lives. Instead, we are asked to continue on as if nothing happened. To mask the hurt and pain, we tab the dead from a terrorist attack "Heroes," instead of opening up the wound that there are men walking this earth that are responsible for the death of nearly 3000 people.

I tend to agree with Cheney in '92 or '94 (whenever he said that) that Saddam was not worth over 3000 American lives. Was he a good guy? Hell no. But removing him has created a mess that has no good remedy. The easy argument is to state that he was funding terrorism, but was he alone in this? Do we replicate what we have done in Iraq in every nation that funds terrorists? Can we?

I fear that this nation is incapable of true "change." As long as you keep a few beers in the fridge and a remote in the hand of the average American, you keep him fat and happy. How has his life "changed?" Oh yeah, he now has a reason to vote for one guy over the other.

Another thing Rove said (in one of his replies that had little to do with the question asked) was that we could not allow Iraq to become a terrorist state, because it sits on the third larges oil reserves in the world and our economy is based so heavily on that energy. This is true, but why should the change we fundamentally make be in attempting to install a government there that is friendly to us? Didn't we have that already, but he turned out to be a bad guy? Why not make changes in this nation that would allow us to be energy-independent from the rest of the world, where if China decided to stop selling us toys covered in lead-based paint that we could just build a lego factory in Wyoming? Wouldn't it be better to spend billions of dollars updating the infrastructure of this nation so the automobile becomes a supplemental form of transit rather than primary?

True change would be telling companies that bleed the American public dry while sending jobs overseas to shove it where the sun doesn't shine... but when the politicians pals happen to be the same guys that get paid hundreds of millions of dollars to retire, we get a superficial "change."

[JW]

I guess someone has to. What would FOFC be without annoying political threads where people can argue to a brick wall for 5 pages then have the thread locked when someone finaly realizes that their rantings to a stranger on a message board aren't gonna change someones political views.

What? Our brilliant arguments don't change people's minds?

[gstelmack]

To me, 9/11 changed NOTHING.

I disagree with nearly everything you posted. As I said, I think it's a clear dividing line. I look at us going into Afghanistan and Iraq as taking the war to the Middle East instead of letting it come here. We have guys going to Iraq and Afghanistan and dying so I DON'T have to change how I live my life here. If you don't get that, you won't, so I won't try to change your mind. As I said, clear dividing line.

[dawgfan]

I disagree with nearly everything you posted. As I said, I think it's a clear dividing line. I look at us going into Afghanistan and Iraq as taking the war to the Middle East instead of letting it come here. We have guys going to Iraq and Afghanistan and dying so I DON'T have to change how I live my life here. If you don't get that, you won't, so I won't try to change your mind. As I said, clear dividing line.
Agree on Afghanistan, completely disagree on Iraq. And we do need to start changing our lifestyles Greg - oil isn't going to last forever, and our heavy dependence on it places our country in very undesirable positions in terms of foreign policy and energy dependence.

[Jas_lov]

Agree on Afghanistan, completely disagree on Iraq. And we do need to start changing our lifestyles Greg - oil isn't going to last forever, and our heavy dependence on it places our country in very undesirable positions in terms of foreign policy and energy dependence.

I also agreed on Afghanistan initially because it was to get the people like Osama bin Laden who were responsible for attacking us. He escaped and we're now involved in two nation building projects, something that President Bush campaigned against and criticized President Clinton/Al Gore for getting into in the 2000 election. I thought Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and disagreed going in there in the first place. Iran and Pakistan might have nuclear weapons, but are they really stupid enough to use them on the most powerful nation in the world and not expect a full out retaliation? Israel, one of our allies, would like nothing more than to blow up Iran and they could with their own nuclear weapons. One of the major reasons for 9/11 was our involvement over there so now we're advocating more involvement over there? It doesn't make any sense.

[dawgfan]

Yep - with Afghanistan there was an obvious and direct link between the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden/Al Qaeda. And with nation-building in a place as fucked-up as Afghanistan extremely difficult, time-consuming and expensive, I felt that the bar for attempting another such nation-building exercise needed to be exceedingly high, and I never felt that the Iraq situation topped that bar, not without a lot more international support in both troops and funding.

[gstelmack]

Let me restate myself since I got sidetracked on the domestic issues. Yes, I agree that internally we need to change a lot of things. Energy use is but one small part. I'd also like to see us stop giving handouts to everyone who thinks they are entitled to all the trappings of modern life without contributing anything to it, get people to stop crying "discrimination!" every time someone of their creed / religion / whatever does something stupid and gets in trouble for it, parents to take responsibility for their children, people to take responsibility for themselves in general, major tort reform, etc. That's a whole side conversation.

What I meant by "everything changed on 9/11" is what Cheney was saying: we no longer have the time to dick around with diplomatic niceties whenever we feel threatened. We aren't going to wait to be attacked first, because the bad guys out there can hurt us bad if we do. It's that simple. Yes, I firmly believe we would not be in Iraq right now if, everything else staying the same, 9/11 had not happened.

For those who think helping the oil companies is the only reason we went in, I'd ask why are you so afraid that Iran and Syria are next? How exactly will that help big oil? Heck, we could have given them a bigger leg up if we'd thrown him out the first time...

[flere-imsaho]

The thing that you're missing, Greg, is that the anger which fuels this anti-American terrorism is enflamed specifically by the actions you're proposing. You propose lashing out indiscriminately whenever we feel threatened, and as a result this means killing, maiming and destroying infrastructure at will. Is it any wonder that this will make people hate us further? Is it any wonder that as a result young, easily swayed men, find themselves willing to listen to religious fanatics who call for them to lay down their lives to defeat the Great Satan, instead of heeding the call of a better life?

Better it would have been to embark upon a comprehensive expulsion of the Taliban from Afghanistan and the border regions, and an extensive effort to bring OBL to justice. Followed-up by focusing our energies by getting a modern, secular Afghanistan back on its feet. Show a (helping) example that way. But no, we have to go tilting at windmills.

For those who think helping the oil companies is the only reason we went in, I'd ask why are you so afraid that Iran and Syria are next? How exactly will that help big oil? Heck, we could have given them a bigger leg up if we'd thrown him out the first time...

Strawman. Is anyone suggesting that attacking Iran & Syria would help big oil? I'm not sure that's even relevant, to be honest. Attacking Iran is not a wise idea simply on the basis that all it will do is add another morass to the list, another place for young Americans to go and die.

I disagree with nearly everything you posted. As I said, I think it's a clear dividing line. I look at us going into Afghanistan and Iraq as taking the war to the Middle East instead of letting it come here. We have guys going to Iraq and Afghanistan and dying so I DON'T have to change how I live my life here. If you don't get that, you won't, so I won't try to change your mind. As I said, clear dividing line.

Over 1000 more Americans have now died in Iraq than died on 9/11. Are their deaths somehow more acceptable because they're soldiers? Are their deaths somehow more acceptable because they are, theoretically, preventing more 9/11s (but sadly, this didn't deter the massacres in Britain, Spain, and elsewhere around the world)?

You're right, I don't think I'm going to get where you're coming from. I think you're operating from a set of beliefs/assumptions that I simply cannot.

[gstelmack]

The thing that you're missing, Greg, is that the anger which fuels this anti-American terrorism is enflamed specifically by the actions you're proposing. You propose lashing out indiscriminately whenever we feel threatened, and as a result this means killing, maiming and destroying infrastructure at will. Is it any wonder that this will make people hate us further? Is it any wonder that as a result young, easily swayed men, find themselves willing to listen to religious fanatics who call for them to lay down their lives to defeat the Great Satan, instead of heeding the call of a better life?

They've hated us long before we were involved militarily in the region. I believe it predates our support for the Shah in Iran, but that was around the time I started paying attention. I'm pretty sure we had no troops in the region when our embassy was seized. You need to read about the schools in Pakistan that have been brainwashing kids for a LONG time into hating non-Muslims, and the US in particular. We've been the Great Satan for a very long time.

Better it would have been to embark upon a comprehensive expulsion of the Taliban from Afghanistan and the border regions, and an extensive effort to bring OBL to justice. Followed-up by focusing our energies by getting a modern, secular Afghanistan back on its feet. Show a (helping) example that way. But no, we have to go tilting at windmills.

We have been attempting just that in Afghanistan. Maybe your key point is "focus" in that somehow being in Iraq prevents Afghanistan from improving, but I would disagree with that as we still have quite the presence there.

Strawman. Is anyone suggesting that attacking Iran & Syria would help big oil? I'm not sure that's even relevant, to be honest. Attacking Iran is not a wise idea simply on the basis that all it will do is add another morass to the list, another place for young Americans to go and die.

My suggestion was that I hear all the time "We are only involved in the Middle East for oil" (including the post I responded to) and "He's going to go after Iran and Syria next!". Those two statements are contradictory. I believe the first one is the false one.

Over 1000 more Americans have now died in Iraq than died on 9/11. Are their deaths somehow more acceptable because they're soldiers? Are their deaths somehow more acceptable because they are, theoretically, preventing more 9/11s (but sadly, this didn't deter the massacres in Britain, Spain, and elsewhere around the world)?

Yes, I believe they have prevented more 9/11s, and thus saved this country much larger grief. And that's the role of the military, to keep us safe. To attempt to quote/paraphrase the cheesy line from A Few Good Men: they stand on the wall and keep watch so the rest of us can get on with our lives and don't have to.

In my opinion the massacres in Britain and Spain show that we are having an effect. They are striking closer to home and losing their reach. I think there would have been a lot more and larger incidents if we weren't keeping them busy back near their home bases.

You're right, I don't think I'm going to get where you're coming from. I think you're operating from a set of beliefs/assumptions that I simply cannot.

I simply believe that there are evil people in the world who will do whatever it takes to consolidate their power and bring ruin upon others. I believe those people will not pay any attention to diplomatic niceties, and their sole goal is the eradication of others who don't think like them. I believe those people are getting access to larger and better weapons that allow them to strike harder. No, I don't believe this is Bush, even though many in this country seem to think it is. I believe that no amount of sticking my head in the sand and saying "Can't we all just get along?" is going to have one whit of any effect. And I am happy we have an Administration willing to do so.

I also believe that if we pulled all our troops out of the Middle East tomorrow, things would get real bad real fast for us. Because our simple existence threatens the world order that the radical muslims wish to create. Because education and technology threaten their power base.

There's an interesting book I read a long time ago called "Living With Terrorism". You ought to look it up and see that no matter how much things change, the more they stay the same.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Our involvement in the region goes back as far as oil consumption goes. Iraq was never a nation that was natural in its construction, but when they attempted to establish a form of a capitalist democracy over 50 years ago, our CIA became involved with making sure a dictator was in power who would be somewhat friendly to the U.S.

Why wouldn't we want a true democracy based on capitalism to be prominent in the middle east? The price of oil.

Why else through the years would we take on any person seen as on an endangered species list of Saddam's? Sure, it looks humanitarian in nature, but people are slaughtered in other nations and we barely blink. If we had done nothing and left them be, some may have risen up and started a revolution or something, and any new government resulting may have not been as U.S. friendly as Hussein's was at the time.

We now are over there and I believe Bush actually thought that any mess over there would have been cleaned up internally. Instead our very presence us an extremely effective recruiting tool for groups like Al Qaeda. It isn't very difficult when you have an occupying force and an uneducated populace to take rhetoric such as "You're either for us or against us" and turn it around. The problem is, of course, how do you eliminate the threat and get out without the threat spreading? It would be helpful if greater numbers of Iraqis were joining the military and police, but many who would are frightened off through scare tactics and others who would if necessary simply allow American blood to be spilled instead of their own.

I find it ironic that the one guy I know who is completely gung-ho on what Bush is doing in Iraq is a guy who has a felony conviction for draft evasion involving Vietnam, where he simply stated that he would not go and was given probation. He wasn't willing to place his own ass in harms way, but says that 3000+ American lives and how many others injured is a small price to pay if we can make it work. He believes we should have built up the military and rolled in with two million troops and destroyed anybody who objected.

That may have worked short-term, but what would have happened when we pulled out?

Iraq is a mess that I don't know if there is a solution to. It is worse than Vietnam, because 'Nam was isolated and didn't matter for shit in the world. It can be argued that Iraq must be won due to the oil that it has, but why should we continue to allow ourselves to be so damned dependent on oil that we need to sacrifice lives for it?

American blood should only be shed when American lives are at risk. Taking over Iraq likely saved fewer lives than we have lost in the process of doing so, but in the long-term has created a situation where instead of 100 guys sitting around in caves trying to figure out how to take us down we now have thousands mixed in the population and the number is increasing.

[lungs]

Wouldn't it be true to say that the hatred of the West goes back to colonialism? They didn't all of a sudden one day decide to hate us. They hated their colonial masters and we pretty much took the baton after WW2. Is our invasion of Iraq viewed by Iraqis as an attempt by the west to return to colonialism? We may not look at it this way, but it sure looks like it is to me.

[Crapshoot]

I disagree with nearly everything you posted. As I said, I think it's a clear dividing line. I look at us going into Afghanistan and Iraq as taking the war to the Middle East instead of letting it come here. We have guys going to Iraq and Afghanistan and dying so I DON'T have to change how I live my life here. If you don't get that, you won't, so I won't try to change your mind. As I said, clear dividing line.

Killing random people because you think they might maybe sorta be a threat someday is a Minority-Report-esque attitude. I supported Iraq at the time, but not for this horseshit. The fact of the matter, you made those bedfellows many times over in many cases - ignoring the responsibility for creating the problems takes an incredible amount of hubris.

When there is a clear and identifiable threat, taking action is a logical and reasonable approach. That has not always been the case, and does not seem to be.

[ISiddiqui]

What I meant by "everything changed on 9/11" is what Cheney was saying: we no longer have the time to dick around with diplomatic niceties whenever we feel threatened. We aren't going to wait to be attacked first, because the bad guys out there can hurt us bad if we do. It's that simple. Yes, I firmly believe we would not be in Iraq right now if, everything else staying the same, 9/11 had not happened.

You mean like North Korea, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia? Even if I agree with your "we no longer have time to dick around with diplomatic niceties whenever we feel threatened", how exactly does Iraq fit into that? How was Iraq even close to threatening us? We had basically emasculated their leader, who was reduced to bluster.

Yeah, we wouldn't have been in Iraq if 9/11 hadn't happened, because the Bush Administration used the climate of fear after 9/11 to go to war with Iraq, which is some the administration as well as the neo-conservatives of PNAC had wanted to do long before 9/11.

[gstelmack]

Iraq was all about the perceived WMDs. Again, Bush was not the only one who thought he had them, the Dems did, too. NK has not proven itself a threat to us. Saudi Arabia is working to clean up their radical element because it's as much a threat to their government as it is to ours. Ditto for Pakistan, we are trying to work with that government and it is trying to work with ours.

Anyway, I've said what I believe, and exactly what context I place the "9/11 changed everything" statement.

[Crapshoot]

Iraq was all about the perceived WMDs. Again, Bush was not the only one who thought he had them, the Dems did, too. NK has not proven itself a threat to us. Saudi Arabia is working to clean up their radical element because it's as much a threat to their government as it is to ours. Ditto for Pakistan, we are trying to work with that government and it is trying to work with ours.

Anyway, I've said what I believe, and exactly what context I place the "9/11 changed everything" statement.

In other words, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's have died, thousands of American troops have died, but the only response is "oops, we were wrong." Seriously? That's your arguement?

Shouldn't that, at the very least, act as a preventive measure to make sure you're right before launching a goddamn war given what's at stake? I don't oppose war (and I supported the Iraqi war on the premise that getting rid of Saddam was a moral benefit to the world) - that's a foolhardy stance, given human nature. I do opposed ill-thought out wars with no planning ("Mission Accomplished?") and people like you who seem to think that a significant error requires no backtracking or understanding of what went wrong, and we should just get on with the next one (bomb Iran!).

[flere-imsaho]

Iraq was all about the perceived WMDs. Again, Bush was not the only one who thought he had them, the Dems did, too.

Why does it always come back to the Clintons? Look, the list of people who, in 2002, are on record as saying "Saddam has WMDs" is long, no one's going to deny that. But what else were they going to say? What evidence did they have to go on?

Answer: The evidence the Bush Administration was giving (notably via Colin Powell) in support of invading Iraq. Evidence that was later found to be:


Heavily slanted in CIA reports that were largely authored by the "Office of Special Plans" set up by Dick Cheney in the Pentagon.
Almost entirely based on the word of a single source, i.e. "Curve Ball", who was later found to be completely unreliable.
Difficult even to pass the "sniff test" of Powell, who exploded when reading the first draft of his speech for the U.N.
Contradicted by at least one major U.S. intelligence agency (the State Department's INR)


It does your argument no credit to say "well, the Clintons/Al Gore/random democrats agreed with Bush in 2002." At the time, these people were doing, ironically, what the Republicans have vilified them ever since circa 2004 for not doing, i.e. standing by their President in a time of crisis. And you wish to use this to support an argument about a decision that has since been shown to have been based on incorrect or fabricated evidence and seriously biased conclusions? Please rethink this.

NK has not proven itself a threat to us.

And Iraq had? Iraq had no WMD delivery systems that could reach the USA (or much past their borders, for that matter) in 2002. Unless you're arguing that Iraq could have sold WMD to terrorist groups, but the same was (and still is) true for NK. And it's probable that NK has enriched plutonium. Iraq didn't.

Saudi Arabia is working to clean up their radical element because it's as much a threat to their government as it is to ours. Ditto for Pakistan, we are trying to work with that government and it is trying to work with ours.

I find it surprising that you're willing to trust the House of Saud and Musharraf this much.

[gstelmack]

In other words, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's have died, thousands of American troops have died, but the only response is "oops, we were wrong." Seriously? That's your arguement?

Shouldn't that, at the very least, act as a preventive measure to make sure you're right before launching a goddamn war given what's at stake?

You won't believe my answer (for the record, it's that we didn't kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, nor did we start a civil war among them that did cause that), and I'm not here to debate. I stand by my original point earlier: you either believe 9/11 changed everything, or you don't. And that's a fundamental dividing line in America right now. As evidenced by the continuation of this thread. Everyone wants to argue whether I'm right or not that it changed everything. I stated what I believe, but I can't prove a negative. I can't prove that if we had hit Afghanistan only and left the Middle East quickly, we would have been hit again and harder. I believe it, you don't.

[gstelmack]

Why does it always come back to the Clintons? Look, the list of people who, in 2002, are on record as saying "Saddam has WMDs" is long, no one's going to deny that. But what else were they going to say? What evidence did they have to go on?

Answer: The evidence the Bush Administration was giving (notably via Colin Powell) in support of invading Iraq. Evidence that was later found to be:

Heavily slanted in CIA reports that were largely authored by the "Office of Special Plans" set up by Dick Cheney in the Pentagon.
Almost entirely based on the word of a single source, i.e. "Curve Ball", who was later found to be completely unreliable.
Difficult even to pass the "sniff test" of Powell, who exploded when reading the first draft of his speech for the U.N.
Contradicted by at least one major U.S. intelligence agency (the State Department's INR)
It does your argument no credit to say "well, the Clintons/Al Gore/random democrats agreed with Bush in 2002." At the time, these people were doing, ironically, what the Republicans have vilified them ever since circa 2004 for not doing, i.e. standing by their President in a time of crisis. And you wish to use this to support an argument about a decision that has since been shown to have been based on incorrect or fabricated evidence and seriously biased conclusions? Please rethink this.


I'm sorry I missed this earlier. You are focusing on 2002. I was focusing on the Clinton Administration and his quotes when he was in office. It's not like he felt Saddam was sufficiently tame to yank our military out back then when he could have. Before Bush was in office, the Dems felt he was a credible threat, and that he had WMDs. What changed once Bush got into office was 9/11, pure and simple. As I said, it changed everything. Yes, I believe Bush stays out of Iraq if 9/11 doesn't happen. But again, I can't prove a negative.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm sorry I missed this earlier. You are focusing on 2002. I was focusing on the Clinton Administration and his quotes when he was in office. It's not like he felt Saddam was sufficiently tame to yank our military out back then when he could have. Before Bush was in office, the Dems felt he was a credible threat, and that he had WMDs. What changed once Bush got into office was 9/11, pure and simple. As I said, it changed everything. Yes, I believe Bush stays out of Iraq if 9/11 doesn't happen. But again, I can't prove a negative.

It's also not as if Clinton felt he was enough of a credible threat to invade the country, either.

After 1998, there remained the suspicion that he had WMDs, just that. This continued, clearly, through 2001, as evidenced by the quotes from Bush Administration officials below.

Again, if you're suggesting that we're justified in attacking any country whom we suspect has WMDs, then we're going to be really, really busy.

Anyway, what's more relevant, the situation in 1998 or the situation in 2002? How about 2001, for that matter?

MR. RUSSERT: Saddam Hussein, your old friend, his government had this to say: "The American cowboy is rearing the fruits of crime against humanity." If we determine that Saddam Hussein is also harboring terrorists, and there's a track record there, would we have any reluctance of going after Saddam Hussein?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Do we have evidence that he's harboring terrorists?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: There is--in the past, there have been some activities related to terrorism by Saddam Hussein. But at this stage, you know, the focus is over here on al-Qaida and the most recent events in New York. Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.

MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.

-September 16, 2001 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20010916.html)




We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

-Colin Powell, February 24, 2001

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

-Condi Rice, July 29, 2001


So, 9/11 changed everything. What's more likely:

A) A bunch of guys, mostly from Saudi Arabia, crash planes into the Pentagon and the WTC and *poof* Iraq suddenly has the WMD and delivery capabilities the U.S. Government (and everyone else) felt certain it didn't have only a few months previously.

B) Shocked by 9/11, and annoyed by Hussein's comments, Bush (and others) decide to do whatever it takes to teach the tinpot dictator a lesson.

The answer is left as an exercise for the reader.

[JPhillips]

The people that crafted our Iraq policy had been calling for regime change for years. Wolfowitz, Feith, Hayes, Rumsfeld, Perle, etc., didn't wake up to an Iraqi threat on 9/12, they believed that we should use military force to overthro Saddam at least ten years earlier.

9/11 changed everything, but not in the way Greg says. 9/11 finally gave these folks the political opportunity to do what they had been calling for years earlier.

Remember, we know the WMD angle was only agreed on as the focus for, "marketing".

[-Mojo Jojo-]

:rolleyes:

FWIW, I think this is a fundamental dividing line in American politics today. To me, 9/11 did change everything, including how we view threats that have nothing to do with terrorism. We thought he had WMDs, the Clintons thought he had WMDs, the main objectors were those making money off him and so were voting their own personal gain, he'd shown a tendency to use them, he was stonewalling everyone, and 9/11 meant we no longer take chances, period, as we were being attacked on our own soil.

So I agree 100% with that change in direction from Cheney. Those of you that don't think 9/11 changed everything will disagree. Whatever.

The problem with this, is that even if you accept the idea that 9/11 changed the equation about whether we go to war with Iraq (which is a big assumption), it changed the benefit side (protecting ourselves from terrorism), not the cost side (involving ourselves in a quagmire). Cheney's statement from 1994 about the difficulty of invading Iraq were not in any respect altered by the events of 9/11. Yet when Cheney and the rest of the administration hit the interview circuit to promote the war they continuously asserted that it would be a cakewalk, in and out in a few months, paid for by oil revenue, flowering democracy in the Middle East and all that other now famous bullshit.

If they really thought that 9/11 changed our evaluation of the threat level such that invading Iraq was worth the cost, when we didn't think it was worth the cost in 1994, then why didn't they make that case to the American people? Why did they have to lie about it? Jon Stewart got this exactly right in this interview last week with Cheney biographer Stephen Hayes (http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?lnk=v&ml_video=91550), maybe the best interview I've seen Stewart do...

If we could have had an honest discussion of what it would cost and whether that cost was justified, maybe we could have made the proper military preparations to succeed (if that was ever possible), and maybe the American people, having gone to war fully informed, would be more supportive of the time and effort required. Of course, if there had been an honest discussion maybe we would have concluded that this war would be counterproductive and it wouldn't have happened at all. That's what the administration was not willing to risk, and why Cheney pretended the things he said in 1994 never existed. And that's why we were lied to, and why we went into this war half-baked without any real chance of success from the first.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

The people that crafted our Iraq policy had been calling for regime change for years. Wolfowitz, Feith, Hayes, Rumsfeld, Perle, etc., didn't wake up to an Iraqi threat on 9/12, they believed that we should use military force to overthro Saddam at least ten years earlier.

9/11 changed everything, but not in the way Greg says. 9/11 finally gave these folks the political opportunity to do what they had been calling for years earlier.

Remember, we know the WMD angle was only agreed on as the focus for, "marketing".

I don't understand how anybody misses this.

The day Bush was elected most of his opponents wondered how long until we attacked Iraq and what the reasoning behind it would be. When we went to Afghanistan it was sort of assumed that once we finished the necessary job there that it's not too far to Iraq. The thing that is mind boggling is that we never bothered to finish Afghanistan off before committing ourselves to a second front, stretching ourselves way too thin.

You either go do something right, or you don't do it at all.

[st.cronin]

The day Bush was elected most of his opponents wondered how long until we attacked Iraq and what the reasoning behind it would be.

Yep, that's exactly how I remember it, too. :confused:

[Buccaneer]

I don't understand how anybody misses this.

The day Bush was elected most of his opponents wondered how long until we attacked Iraq and what the reasoning behind it would be. When we went to Afghanistan it was sort of assumed that once we finished the necessary job there that it's not too far to Iraq. The thing that is mind boggling is that we never bothered to finish Afghanistan off before committing ourselves to a second front, stretching ourselves way too thin.

You either go do something right, or you don't do it at all.

I agree with this as well. Despite the gimmicks that were used, it should (and history will) view it as a continuation of the Gulf War. Too many criticisms for not "finishing the job".

[Buccaneer]

In other words, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's have died, thousands of American troops have died, but the only response is "oops, we were wrong." Seriously? That's your arguement?



Gen'l Grant was wrong at Cold Harbor as well.

[AlexB]

...Iran and Pakistan might have nuclear weapons, but are they really stupid enough to use them on the most powerful nation in the world and not expect a full out retaliation?...

Iran and Pakistan are planning on nuking China or Russia? Where did you get that info from?

[sterlingice]

Everything else in the thread aside, I just love Meet the Press. That is all, carry on.

SI

[Passacaglia]

Al Gore predicts this thread will be locked.

[Logan]

If this gets locked before 14ers comes back for his medicine, I'll be pissed.