’)
Now you know why you never see Cheney and Voldemort together
Joe Biden can’t be our vice president soon enough. Dick Cheney, unparalleled as the worst human being to ever hold that office, just revels in the unnecessary deaths of 4,500 Americans. He probably gets giddy over the Iraqis that have died as well. Sick bastard.
Oliver, you’re only half-right. I wouldn’t exactly say that Cheney is “reveling” in the deaths of American soldiers.
However, he does seem to display an inappropriate lack of empathy for said soldiers, as well as a complete failure to publicly recognize that the Iraq War was a complete and total mistake, based on false information and saber-rattling.
You are correct, however, about him being a bloodthirsty ghoul.
This is Oliver’s most disgusting bit of propaganda ever. A bigger disconnect between Oliver’s lead and supporting blurb and the reality of the underlying link is hard to imagine.
This blurb as it stands is a lie, Oliver is lying, Oliver is a liar.
Tell me what you really think, apologist.
Jesus, can anyone hear READ or have the slightest sense of reality?
Go and look at the Iraq Resolution, passed by Congress: 10 bullet points, of which Saddam’s WMDs were #2. That means there were nine more reasons — including three direct acts of war against the United States.
I can’t believe how thoroughly so many people have developed convenient recurring amnesia and convinced themselves that “OMG Saddam has WMDs!” was the only reason.
J.
Strike a nerve, Asshat Observer?
I can’t believe how thoroughly so many people have developed convenient recurring amnesia and convinced themselves that “OMG Saddam has WMDs!” was the only reason.</i.
No, but it still is for Darth Cheney.
[...] my “Must Reads” on this topic: Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice (”TMV”); Oliver Willis; Alan Colmes of LiberalLand You Might Enjoy These Related Posts Also:Disgraced Former Bush AG, [...]
I can’t believe how thoroughly so many people have developed convenient recurring amnesia and convinced themselves that “OMG Saddam has WMDs!” was the only reason.
Exactly. The bloodthirsty ghoul (5 deferments during Vietnam) also sent U.S. soldiers to die in Iraq because it was “pretty well confirmed” that Mohammed Atta met with Iraq agents. Which, like about everything coming out of the Cheney White House, was utter bullshit. It wasn’t just Saddam incinerating U.S. cities with balsa wood drone aero-planes or a massive anthrax/mustard gas attack. It was that Saddam was going to give his good friend the Sunni Osama bin Laden the ability to do just that. And that was also utter bullshit. Thanks, chickenhawks. Thanks for reminding us that it wasn’t just WsMD, Jay Tea. Keep up the good work!
Three distinct acts of war. Hell, more than that, but one of ‘em done repeatedly was considered a single act. And not one of them involved WMDs. Or, for that matter, terrorism.
By the way, Saddam was forking over 25 large to families of suicide bombers in Israel.
J.
Three distinct acts of war. Hell, more than that, but one of ‘em done repeatedly was considered a single act. And not one of them involved WMDs. Or, for that matter, terrorism.
Anyone know what the hell this Cheney Apologist is talking about?
Ed, I was curious too. JT, what three distinct acts of war against the United States are you talking about? Three before March 2003, yes? Proven, right?
By the way, Saddam was forking over 25 large to families of suicide bombers in Israel.
Mm-hm. I heard that. Is that why the U.S. invaded then?
I also heard Saddam sadistically tortured Iraqis. Thank goodness that’ll never happen again.
Remember, this is the guy WHO TRIED TO KILL MY DAD!!! (I believe this is one of the OMG ACTS OF WAR!!!! Jay is trying to flog)
Or some such horsepuckey. 6 days to get this bullshit out the door, all wingery 90% off!
Bloodthirsty ghoul? Hyperbole for sure, and an insult to honest, hardworking ghouls.
Soulless, corrupt, hate-filled sociopath is the term you were searching for.
By the way, Saddam was forking over 25 large to families of suicide bombers in Israel.
And here we are merely giving five billion a year to Israel.
Three distinct acts of war.
Could you please list the three distinct acts of war included in the resolution?
Cheney is a pig.
This blurb as it stands is a lie, Oliver is lying, Oliver is a liar.
Translated Amused Observer: “Uhhh, Vice President Dick Cheney is a…brilliant man who has come up with many…well-thought-out, practical ideas, and is insuring the financial future of this country. Oh, and his personal hygiene is beyond reproach.”
(He was kidding right? Right?)
>just revels in the unnecessary deaths of 4,500 Americans.
Your blind partisanship is just amazing. Where does he “revel” in it Oliver? Where does he express glee? Nowhere, of course. You just decide thats what he’s doing because you disagree with his opinion that the risk was worth the reward. Ever heard of that? Risk vs. reward? Making a decision based on imperfect information with the idea that the reward is worth the cost? Of course you have, you just won’t apply it here because you are partisan.
The sad part is that if Obama gets involved in something similar, you will suddenly become a sober and nuanced analyzer of risk vs reward that not surprisingly agrees with whatever Obama does. As a Democrat, he’s an adult you see, and therefore is taking in all that is known at the time and making the best decision he can. Republicans simply don’t do that, they only look for ways to put soldiers in a meat grinder. Pathetic as usual. Have you ever once added an original thought to a debate, rather than regurgitating the latest “gotcha” talking points?
The sad part is that if Obama gets involved in something similar, you will suddenly become a sober and nuanced analyzer of risk vs reward that not surprisingly agrees with whatever Obama does.
Sober and nuanced. Those are the words you would use to describe the public discourse in the run up the Iraq war? Really?
Three distinct acts of war carried out by Saddam Hussein against the United States between 1991 and 2003? As I said, if you had the slightest clue and could FIND and READ the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, passed by the House and Senate and signed into law in 2002, I wouldn’t need to paraphrase it for the gibbering, subliterate morons here.
1) Failure by Iraq to fully comply with the terms of surrender from the 1991 Gulf War. When a surrendering nation does so, that is grounds for immediate resumption of the first war — they have broken the agreement that says “we’ll stop attacking if you do X, Y, and Z.”
2) “He tried to kill my father.” Also known as “attempted to assassinate a former President of the United States as retaliation for actions taken by said President as part of his presidential duties as head of state.” If we do not protect our former presidents from this kind of retaliation, every single future president will have to weigh the personal safety of himself or herself and their families every single time they make a foreign poilcy decision. It simply CAN NOT BE ALLOWED.
3) Repeatedly firing on US aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones. It might have escaped your attention, but shooting at our aircraft when they are acting in places and manners in which they are entitled to do so is literally an act of war — it’s the kind of thing you do when you are at war with someone.
Saddam’s dead, his regime’s destroyed, and the world is a better place.
And please, someone bring up that “the sanctions were working!” The sanctions were crumbling from the assaults of Saddam’s “Oil For Food” bribe program and all the Saddam apologists who were screaming about how many Iraqi babies were dying every month due to the sanctions. I’ve read reports that the sanctions were within six months of being lifted even though Saddam hadn’t complied with the terms that ended the first Gulf War.
And hey, look — not a single “ZOMG! WMD!!!!” in there.
It’s all there, in black and white. All it takes is the intelligence and integrity to track down the actual text of the actual resolution that authorized the war and read it.
Alternately, you can keep letting Oliver and his ilk rewrite history for you and gibber the same fraudulent talking points over and over again until it seems truthy enough, and you hope that everyone you talk to is as ignorant as you are.
J.
In other words, the same claptrap we’ve been hearing for 6 years now after no WMD were found and 4,500 good people have died for nothing. You guys have tried and tried and tried to redefine why the hell we went into Iraq and what the goal was/is for so long you don’t know up from down anymore.
The sanctions were working. George HW Bush was never in any serious danger from Iraq, and the shooting at coalition aircraft was more of a joke from a tinpot dictator than anything.
And there were no WMDs. Which were the prime justification for the Iraq War and the reason a slim majority of Americans supported it. The other justification was the administration’s commingling of 9/11 and Iraq, a connection that existed solely in the fevered dreams of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the conservative media.
And Osama Bin Laden, the leader of the terrorist organization that killed thousands on George W. Bush’s watch, still lives to threaten America.
You apologists (what remains of you, at least) are apologists for some of the worst leadership the country has ever had. Either you believe the nonsense wholeheartedly, or (more likely) you just are intellectually dishonest.
5 more days, sweet Jesus.
Shorter Oliver: “I don’t care what the actual resolution said, BUSH LIED AND PEOPLE DIED!!!!!”
And so much for “it’s the thought that counts.” When those dipshit white supremacists were caught after threatening to assassinate Obama, in a plot that had zero chance of succeeding, Oliver wrote a big old article about that one. But a plot to assassinate a former president? Missiles and anti-aircraft fire at our pilots that they manage to dodge? “No harm, no foul.” Kind of like how all those rockets fired into Israel because Israel has serious civil defense, and the Palestinians are inept assholes. Because the Israelis haven’t cooperated and let themselves get killed, the rockets really don’t count.
“The sanctions were working?” In what world? Saddam was still living in the lap of luxury — look at the palaces we captured. The Iraqi people were living in squalor because he was taking the money that was supposed to be helping them and using it on himself. And part of that money was buying off people in Russia, Germany, France, the UK, and the US — among others — to get them to lift the sanctions. Remember the billions from the “oil for food” (or, as I prefer to call it, “Crude Pro Quo”) program that went into bribes?
I thought not. They contradict your world view, so they never happened.
Who’s the denier now?
J.
Where did Oliver say the state from which those supremacists came from should be invaded and its infrastructure destroyed, along with thousands of innocent civilians?
Jay = fail
Well, whattaya know… from the comments on Oliver’s article:
Jaim
Aug 25th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Stay classy, Republicans.
Jaim = asswipe.
J.
Little Jay:
And please, someone bring up that “the sanctions were working!” The sanctions were crumbling from the assaults of Saddam’s “Oil For Food” bribe program and all the Saddam apologists who were screaming about how many Iraqi babies were dying every month due to the sanctions.
Little Jay, 90 minutes later:
“The sanctions were working?” In what world? Saddam was still living in the lap of luxury — look at the palaces we captured. The Iraqi people were living in squalor because he was taking the money that was supposed to be helping them and using it on himself.
You should really make up your mind about whether or not you’re going to pretend to actually care about the Iraqi people in a particular thread, dearie.
You just decide thats what he’s doing because you disagree with his opinion that the risk was worth the reward.
Reward? Anybody see any reward lying around?
Oh, right. Haliburton and KBR and Blackwater no-bid, cost-plus contracts. THAT reward.
Republicans simply don’t do that, they only look for ways to put soldiers in a meat grinder.
Question: Exit Strategy? How will we know when we’re done?
“Go and look at the Iraq Resolution, passed by Congress: 10 bullet points, of which Saddam’s WMDs were #2. That means there were nine more reasons — including three direct acts of war against the United States.”
Which three, o’ mighty Podhoretz log-gagger?
Iraq Resolution (excerpted):
“Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.”
-UNMOVIC / Blix confirmed UNSCOM successfully dismantled Iraq’s unconventional weapons program – UNMOVIC program expedited then terminated due to coalition invasion.
Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction.”
-None found. Never had any ZERO. Despite the bleatings of 20 percecnters. See above.
“Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population.”
Uzbekistan. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia -Allies of the US who do the same.
“Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”.
-In the cases of the Kurdish town of Halabja and attacks on Iranian troops -True: With tacit support from from the Reagan oval office.
“Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
-A retaliatory attack for the assassination attempt was carried out when the U.S. launched a cruise missile attack against a building housing the IIS in Baghdad in June of 1993. Ended in trial and conviction of 11 Iraqis and three Kuwaitis.
-The no-fly-zones were created by US and British without any explicit authorization of the UN Security Council as a vehicle to carry out air attacks against installations that had targeted them, also on installations that had no hostile intent. The US claimed that these increased attacks were the result of increasing Iraqi provocations yet the British Ministry of Defense later revealed data showing that the number of provocations had actually dropped dramatically prior to and just after the increase in allied attacks.
” Iraq’s “continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations,” including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
-If ever proven, Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian of Palestinian origin was among the leaders of the group Ansar al-Islam which is based in northern Iraq, -a region not under Baghdad’s control.
” The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.”
No connection between the 9-11 attacks and Iraq has ever been established.
Saddam’s dead, his regime’s destroyed, and the world is a better place.
Ironically, the country (Iraq) is a complete clusterfuck.
And Osama Bin Laden, the leader of the terrorist organization that killed thousands on George W. Bush’s watch, still lives to threaten America.
Despite Obama’s (and Oliver’s) frequent criticism of Bush’s inability to kill or capture Osama and his claim during the campaign that “We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.”, Obama has now decided that merely keeping Osama penned up in a cave is enough to “protect America”.
Gee, ya think that Bush’s preference might have been to “capture or kill him” Osama?
According to Obama’s standard, Bush has been protecting America from bin Laden just fine for the last 7 years.
Either you believe the nonsense wholeheartedly, or (more likely) you just are intellectually dishonest.
Oliver, your “Cheney thinks American troops’ deaths were worth it” = “Cheney revels in their deaths” post above shows that you are clearly the latter of the two. No surprise.
“Gee, ya think that Bush’s preference might have been to “capture or kill him” Osama?
“You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him..”
Bush has been protecting America from bin Laden just fine for the last 7 years.
I’ve protecting the planet from the aliens of Alpha Centauri for thousands of years. Got a costume and superpowers n’ stuff.
You’re welcome.
But look, there was a book about VICTORY!!!!! in Iraq and everything.
August, you seem to be having trouble understanding the simple difference between those two comments of Jay Tea’s. Let me help.
“all the Saddam apologists who were screaming about how many Iraqi babies were dying every month due to the sanctions.”
Here, he’s pointing out how Saddam supporters were trying to shift the blame away from Saddam and to the sanctions themselves.
“The Iraqi people were living in squalor because he was taking the money that was supposed to be helping them and using it on himself.”
And here, he’s pointing out that the Iraqi people’s living conditions are the fault of… Saddam.
Could you not figure that out? Or was this just an lame attempt on your part to shift the argument from the reasons behind our invasion to whether or not Jay Tea cares about the Iraqis?
Let me help.
No thanks; we’re good.
But thanks Chickenhawks for the awesome Iraq Invasion. Mission accomplished!
Haplo9: The sad part is that if Obama gets involved in something similar, you will suddenly become a sober and nuanced analyzer of risk vs reward that not surprisingly agrees with whatever Obama does.
Not saying you’re wrong, Haplo9. But I still manage to be surprised by those who can see artisan bias by the other side, but not by their own.
“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
Bush/Cheney’s decisions to start the wars weren’t “based on imperfect information” and an evaluation of risk v reward, but rather a selective picking of intelligence that supported what they’d already decided they wanted to do.
Jay Tea: If we do not protect our former presidents from this kind of retaliation, every single future president will have to weigh the personal safety of himself or herself and their families every single time they make a foreign poilcy decision. It simply CAN NOT BE ALLOWED.
Not disagreeing that threats against former presidents cannot be allowed. But I don’t care for the idea that any high official would consider their personal safety in making any decision. It’s a form of putting yourself first when you have chosen to take a position where you are to put others first. If you can’t handle the burdens of the office, you shouldn’t run.
Jay Tea: If we do not protect our former presidents from this kind of retaliation, every single future president will have to weigh the personal safety of himself or herself and their families every single time they make a foreign poilcy decision. It simply CAN NOT BE ALLOWED.
Shorter Jay Tea: If Dick Cheney does it, it’s (by definition) not illegal.
Awesome. What could possibly go wrong?! (which hasn’t already, I mean.)
If we do not protect our former presidents from this kind of retaliation, every single future president will have to weigh the personal safety of himself or herself and their families every single time they make a foreign poilcy decision.
I think that’s called “obeying the law,” Mr. Tea. If we excuse presidents from weighing “the personal safety of himself or herself and their families every single time they make a foreign policy decision,” then we excuse the president from being punished for breaking the law.
SDM: …surprised by those who can see partisan bias by the other side, but not by their own
Fixed.
(some things spell checker just fails on sigh)
Jay Tea: “Shorter Oliver: “I don’t care what the actual resolution said, BUSH LIED AND PEOPLE DIED!!!!!’”
Shorter J. G. Thayer: “I don’t care if George Bush lied about WMDs. As long as he didn’t lie about EVERYTHING, he was justified. Who cares if WMD was the main argument and most of the rest was never even seriously discussed? Clearly this war was always about enforcing the no-fly zone!
Dear Fuckhead In A Basement:
There is a huge difference between “will I possibly go to jail for doing this?” and “will I have to worry about some whackjob killing me three years from now over this?”
The former is a GOOD fear. It helps to keep the politicians honest.
The latter is a BAD fear. It encourages politicians to keep their own safety as their top priority, instead of their elected duty.
Protecting politicians from this kind of retaliation is the duty of our nation. It’s part of the unspoken social contract between the governing and the governed in a democracy: as long as they are acting within the duties of their office, they will be protected from extralegal retaliation for that.
I understand such civilized concepts escape you.
J.
“Despite Obama’s (and Oliver’s) frequent criticism of Bush’s inability to kill or capture Osama and his claim during the campaign that…”
The stupidity burns.
Listen, dipshit, Bush had the chance to capture or kill Bin Ladden, but instead decided to attack Iraq under false pretenses.
Obama now has a trail that has been cold for about six years making it nearly impossible for him to capture bin Ladden.
Faced with these facts, you choose to attack Obama.
Fucking ‘tard.
As I said, if you had the slightest clue and could FIND and READ the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, passed by the House and Senate and signed into law in 2002, I wouldn’t need to paraphrase it for the gibbering, subliterate morons here.
Jay Tea, why so excited? You get asked for specifics and all of a sudden you’re frothing. Is it really that upsetting for you to have to commit in writing to a specific set of facts?
I’m sure I speak for many here when I say that we feel for you, brother. It must be rough getting burned so often by your usual talking points. Clearly you’ve succumbed to a classic Pavlovian association: Asserting specific “facts” = pain.
At any rate, I think PD100 supplies the necessary critique of all ten points included in the AUMF, including the three “acts of war.”
They were, essentially, the same responses given at the time. If we had actually had a “nuanced and sober” discourse about the issue of invading Iraq, I am certain that cooler heads would have prevailed and we would not have be in the mess we are still in today, which the new admiinistration will have to clean up.
The only thing I can add to PD100s comments is that Cheney is on record, in an interview with Tim Russert in 2003, that WMD were the single most important reason for going to war. It is the only item in the AUMF that rises to the level of a “continuing threat” as referenced in that part of the AUMF that defines the presidents authority:
Without WMD, Iraq posed no threat to the United States. Zero. Certainly not such a threat that billions of dollars and thousands of lives were required to deal with it. Not even close.
Without the WMD, everything else in the AUMF is just padding.
Dear Fuckhead In A Basement:
Goodness.
Somebody woke up with a bad case of the crankies this morning.
At least we can all be respectful of Jay’s military service in Iraq, putting his ass on the line to fight the most importantest war evar and defending all of our freedoms.
Quaker in a Basement, Jan 15th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Goodness.
Somebody woke up with a bad case of the crankies this morning.
We have a winner!
Although, at this point, it’s like fish-in-a-barrel time anyhow. They crank themselves up, and you guys hit it out of the park. And, funny thing – you’d think that, by now, they’d be used to having been proven wrong on Operation Iraqi Liberation (actual original Republican’t name). You guys got about as long as you’ve been making Teddy Kennedy jokes to get used to hearing about it, too…
Protecting politicians from this kind of retaliation is the duty of our nation.
Isn’t that why they have a Secret Service detail for the rest of their lives?
What more do you want, diplomatic immunity?
Duros, from the Secret Service web site:
In 1965, Congress authorized the Secret Service (Public Law 89-186) to protect a former president and his/her spouse during their lifetime, unless they decline protection. In 1997, Congress enacted legislation (Public Law 103-329) that limits Secret Service protection for former presidents to 10 years after leaving office. Under this new law, individuals who are in office before January 1, 1997, will continue to receive Secret Service protection for their lifetime. Individuals elected to office after that time will receive protection for 10 years after leaving office. Therefore, President Clinton will be the last president to receive lifetime protection.
J.
fafaroo: “Clearly you’ve succumbed to a classic Pavlovian association: Asserting specific “facts” = pain.”
Sorry to nitpick, faf, but since I’m an experimental psychologist and a little anal about these things – that would be an instrumental association, not a Pavlovian one. A good example of a Pavlovian association would be seeing Jay Tea’s name above a comment on this blog, which should provoke a conditioned gag reflex to most any thinking person reading this blog.
There is a huge difference between “will I possibly go to jail for doing this?” and “will I have to worry about some whackjob killing me three years from now over this?”.
There’s also a huge difference between protecting presidents from assassination and retaliating against countries who are involved in plots against American presidents.
(As an aside, how many times can we retaliate against a country for the same act before it becomes “extralegal retaliation” itself? Since the Clinton administration had already responded to the Bush assassination plot in 1993, doesn’t that make the invasion of Iraq double dipping?)
Back to the point, however, Jay Tea do you really think any US president as ever paused to think, “Maybe I shouldn’t do this because it might make me the target of assassination?” Are you kidding?
They became potential targets for assassination the second they decided to RUN for president. Look at Robert Kennedy. It’s a risk that comes with just seeking the effing job and continues long after they’ve left.
Hell, I’d venture to guess that by the time someone is actually sitting behind the desk, they’re as accustomed to the idea of being a potential target as they are with having orange juice for breakfast.
In other words, you’re getting completely pissy defending a point that makes no fucking sense. Typical.
“…that would be an instrumental association, not a Pavlovian one …”
And here I had actually wasted time looking up Pavlov to make sure I had it spelled correctly. Thanks for the correction.
Together, we get a little closer to understand WTF is wrong with Jay Tea everyday.
“I’m an experimental psychologist and a little anal about these things …”
And that’s Freudian, correct?
Secret Service protection for former presidents to 10 years after leaving office.
January 20th, 2019. Mark it on your calendars, folks.
I’m just sayin’.
[Please don't joke about this, not even with freaking Bush. Thanks. -- Oliver]
“Together, we get a little closer to understand WTF is wrong with Jay Tea everyday.”
“And that’s Freudian, correct?”
Hahaha, right you are on both counts, fafaroo.
“January 20th, 2019. Mark it on your calendars, folks.
I’m just sayin’.
Don’t bother. Dubya had better be cautious about vacationing overseas, for a day may come when he is dragged kicking and screaming to the Hague. Lessons learned from Pinochet.
“January 20th, 2019. Mark it on your calendars, folks.”- Sean D. Martin
I’m sure there’s some fucktwit out there marking down January 20th 2023 or 2027 on his calendar as well. Of course Sean is okay with that.
“Therefore, President Clinton will be the last president to receive lifetime protection.”
So Poppy DOES have a Secret Service detail. Thanks for proving my point for me.
“Protecting politicians from this kind of retaliation is the duty of our nation.”
So you invade another country despite George Bush Sr. never being in any real danger. But you dismiss a threat against Obama because you claim the gunman was a meth addict.
Interesting contradiction there.
So I wonder if there ever was a war that our liberal friends would accept as justified?
Fafaroo, Just a bit curious, what pray tell is wrong with retaliating against countries who are involved in plots against American presidents?
The biggest mistake Bush ever made was over estimating the guts and will of people like you. Obama is going to be tested. Probably not as hard as Bush was but he’ll be tested. We can only hope he can do half as good a job as Bush and Cheney did on our behalf. And when that happens we will once again see the fair weather patriots approving his actions.
Clinton launched meaningless missle strikes to change a newscycle when he was being impeached for perjury. Liberals didn’t bat an eye. No honor, no shame.
We can only hope he can do half as good a job as Bush and Cheney did on our behalf.
Like when they leapt into action at that memo that said “Bin Laden determined to strike…” Oh, wait.
So I wonder if there ever was a war that our liberal friends would accept as justified?
1812, the Civil War, WWII, Korea, Desert Storm Kosovo, and Afghanistan. Not the Revolution, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, WWI, Vietnam or Iraq.
At least for myself, it’s just that I don’t think ALL wars are justified.
Fafaroo, Just a bit curious, what pray tell is wrong with retaliating against countries who are involved in plots against American presidents?
First of all, wouldn’t it be nice if their involvement was actually proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? This was not the case with Iraq and the plot to assassinate Bush. Indeed, after our invasion, we seem to have found zero evidence in the Iraqi Secret Service records linking the IIS with the plot, despite the mountains of records it kept on just about every other thing it had been up to:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/25/pentagon-report-shows-no-_n_93264.html
Now, I get it. Sometimes you aren’t going to get 100 percent verification of these kind of things and we have to do something if we have strong suspicions. The Clinton administration had exactly that and so launched a missile strike on an IIS building in Baghdad in 1993. But maybe the lack of clear cut evidence linking Hussein to the attempt is why Clinton launched what you call “meaningless missle strikes” instead of invading the whole fucking country.
I guess that’s a second, factor: proportionality.
We can all only imagine how you would have reacted had Clinton announced at the time that he was going to invade Iraq as a response to this alleged attempt on the life of an ex-president. Do you seriously expect me to believe that you would have rallied to Clinton’s side? I doubt it solely because you’re current statements on the issue don’t make any sense.
If invading Iraq was the only “meaningful response” to this alleged assassination attempt, then you’re essentially accusing Clinton of trying to create a media distraction by killing too few Iraqis. If there was justification in 1993 for a full scale invasion of Iraq, why didn’t Clinton just do that if he wanted push Lewinsky off the front pages? Hell, that would have pushed straight out of the news period.
Whatever you actually think about Clinton’s response, it was a retaliation for the assassination attempt. I’m sorry, but when it comes to international affairs of this sort, you don’t really get any “do-overs.”
Which brings us to the third point in my answer. You really only get to retaliate against a country for something once–even if some asshat on down the road thinks the first time wasn’t good enough.
By the time the AUMF rolled around it had been over a decade since the attempted assassination, all the suspects had been tried and sentenced and Clinton had already retaliated against Iraq. But Bush decided none of that was enough and we should retaliate again?
Of course, he actually didn’t. Because in the world of civilized nations, you don’t get to do that.
As usual, Jay Tea got his facts entirely wrong. When Jay Tea wrote above:
He seems to be operating under the assumption that the assassination attempt had, in fact, been “allowed” as if we had not yet retaliated. Of course, we had. There’s a number of other glaringly stupid ideas packed into this little sentence as well– namely Jay Tea’s confusion of the concepts “protecting against” and “retaliation for”–but I think I pointed that out above.
Getting back to the point, the AUMF does not say that the president is being given the authority to use force against Iraq in retaliation for the assassination attempt. What it actually says is that the president is being given authority to use force against iraq because Iraq “has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,” an example of which is it’s attempted assassination of former President Bush.
Those are two really different things.
So, surprise, suprise, the AUMF does not actually say what jay tea says it says. This is so often the trouble with him whenever he does take the time to FIND and READ something. He reads it wrong.
In sort of conclusion, this whole discussion is stupid because we didn’t go to war in Iraq because Iraq tried to assassinate Bush.
Rather, Iraq’s alleged attempt to assassinate Bush was used as an example of Iraq’s willingness to attack us. A point that is directly connected to the argument that Iraq had WMD. Indeed, if Iraq didn’t have WMD, it’s desire and willingness to attack us in the past wouldn’t have meant shit if we had known how impotent it was in the present.
It’s more evidence why it doesn’t matter how many other points are listed in the AUMF. Every other point is there to support the WMD point, not as a substitute for it in case, you know, that one’s total bullshit.
And BTW, the same thing goes for the other bit of evidence in the AUMF clause I quote above which Jay Tea counts as one of his three acts of war, the Iraqis firing on US planes. Now that is, indeed, an act of war and we’ll just leave aside the idea that the only possible response to this provocation was to invade the whole fucking country, which is ridiculous.
But the attacks on US planes is, again, held out not as a direct reason for war, but rather as evidence of Iraq’s willingness to attack us.
Let’s look at that clause in its entirety:
Notice the word “including”. That indicates that the two examples after it do not exhaust all the examples possible. Well, WTF were those? Were they also direct reasons for us going to war? No, of course they weren’t, they aren’t even listed. Neither is the assassination attempt or attacks on our planes reasons we went to war. These were only two, of supposedly many examples, too many to actually list, of Iraq’s willingness to attack us. It’s that willingness to attack us that justified the use of force, according the AUMF. Attack us with what, pray tell? WMDs, of course.
So anyway, WTF did you ask me, AO? Oh right. What’s wrong with retaliating against countries who are involved in plots against American presidents.
Well, AO, nothing, really. If we can prove it, the scale of the retaliation is in some way proportionate to the actual offense (attempted is still a little different than successful) and after it’s over we can you know, let it go.
But in the context of Iraq, this discussion is entirely moot. We didn’t go to war in retaliation for the assassination attempt.
Simple as that.
You know, I just realized I mentioned Lewinksy above but that wasn’t at all going on in 1993.
AO, could you remind me just WTF Clinton was trying to create a distraction from in June 1993?
“We can only hope he can do half as good a job as Bush and Cheney did on our behalf.”
Is there a type of LOL bigger than MEGA-LULZ? Because I’m at a loss after reading this dumbest of dumb things ever said.
Iraq? Katrina? Recession/Depression?
“We can only hope he can do half as good a job as Bush and Cheney did on our behalf.”
-Managing to get both Germany and France to hate us? Fuckin’-A, he was a uniter!
Amused Observer, Jan 16th, 2009 at 1:19 am
Clinton launched meaningless missle strikes to change a newscycle when he was being impeached for perjury. Liberals didn’t bat an eye. No honor, no shame.
Amazingly Obtuse launches a disingenuous propaganda catapultation to try and distort historical reality, when the Republican’ts he fellates on a daily basis were busy with their dog and pony show impeaching the last legally elected president for partisan political reasons. And he cheerfully and mindlessly spews these lies without batting an eye.
Your modern day Republican’ts, ladies and gentlemen: no honor, no shame.
We can only hope he can do half as good a job as Bush and Cheney did on our behalf.
wow, you’re fucked up.
As noted above, the assasination attempt and Clinton’s retaliationfor it took place in 1993. The Lewinsky scandal broke FIVE YEARS LATER.
LOL
Scratch an amused observer and an ignoramus bleeds.
Amused Observer: “So I wonder if there ever was a war that our liberal friends would accept as justified?”
Yes. World War II, for instance. Or more recently, I supported the War in Afghanistan, although I now think it is being mismanaged to the point where victory is close to impossible.
“The biggest mistake Bush ever made was over estimating the guts and will of people like you.”
8 years of fuck-ups, and that’s what you come up with. You truly are worthless.
“Clinton launched meaningless missle strikes to change a newscycle when he was being impeached for perjury. Liberals didn’t bat an eye. No honor, no shame.”
Amused Observer. No honesty, no brains.
Michael Moore went after Clinton for that attack, as did I. At the time, I felt the intelligence didn’t warrant that attack.