George Bush’s ultimate legacy will be the ill conceived and executed war on Iraq, and the evil it involves
A car bomb exploded Monday night in a commercial district of Iraq’s second-largest city of Basra, killing at least 20 people and wounding about 40, a police official said.
…
Also Monday, six American soldiers were killed in separate attacks. A Marine died in action the day before, making October the deadliest month for U.S. troops in Iraq since January. U.S. jets struck insurgent targets near the Syrian border and at least six people were killed.
I don’t get the politicians (especially Democrats) who still refuse to admit that the war in Iraq has done nothing more than give extremists an easy way to kill Americans. We aren’t any safer, and Al Qaeda isn’t any weaker.
4 years and NO attacks on American soil and “we aren’t any safer”?
This weekend, I had a conversation with a good friend’s son who had recently returned from his second tour in Iraq. He was appalled at the MSM’s lack of reporting on the rebuilding of schools, neighborhoods and infrastructure in Iraq.
“…war in Iraq has done nothing more than give extremists an easy way to kill Americans.” I’d give my left nut to see you say that to his face, Oliver.
Not that I want your left nut, but I would say that to anyone because its quite clear we aren’t any safer. And yeah, no attacks on U.S. soil - they can kill us right in Iraq (or are soldiers not Americans?). There’s no terror threat, but a note from a teenager can shut down New York, Washington, or Baltimore - right?
We are demonstrably safer since 9-11. That includes the Iraq war (roughly 2,800 9/11 - 2,000 Iraq) . So if your yardstick is dead Americans, those Democratic politicians you belabor so facilely would seem to be closer to the truth. Also, do you really believe for a milli-second that if we pulled a Kucinich-like retreat from Iraq, extremists would still not try their damndest to murder our people. Remember, 9-11 was BEFORE Iraq.
Dugger
You’re supposed to add those numbers together, Dugger, not compare them to each other.
OT: Great piece on NPR’s This American Life this weekend. They interviewed the people who did the Johns Hopkins survey of Iraqis killed by the war. The methodology used to achieve the estimate of 100,000 dead was quite sound, it turns out.
There are plenty of reasonable positions to take in regards to an opposition to the war. However, to make such a ridiculous assertion as Al-Quaeda isn’t any weaker is frankly, stupid.
Quaker,
Nonsense. OW is questioning Iraq, an action that came after 9-11. When he says no saf-ER (a comaprative) , he clearly is delineating a time line beginning after 9-11.
Dugger
But how many Americans were killed by terrorists in America during Clinton’s 8 years after the WTC boming in 1993? Other than the OKC bombing (done by right-wing Americans) the answer is zero. Every other attack was overseas. So by that standard Clinton did a supreme job in fighting terrorism after 1993. Somehow I imagine GoOpers aren’t going to make that argument.
There are plenty of reasonable positions to take in regards to an opposition to the war. However, to make such a ridiculous assertion as Al-Quaeda isn t any weaker is frankly, stupid.
Evidence, pelase. Is it the fact that we’ve killed “Al-Qaeda’s Number Two” about 27 times already? Is it the fact that cells either directly affiliated with or inspired by Al-Qaeda are responsible for the Madrid bombings, the Mali attacks, the London attacks, the Delhi attacks, and the daily equivalent of each of these in Baghdad.
Al-Qaeda itself may be operationally weaker, but those who draw inspiration from their activites are immeasurably stronger. You’ve crushed an ant only to watch one hundred scorpions rise to take its place.
If you’re going to talk about the “evil it involves”, why do you not mention the 60 Iraqi casualties (mostly women and children) caused this morning by American “precision bombing”?
elrod,
Or for that matter, Bush 1, Reagan, Jimmy Carter. Many of us would argue that 9-11 was a new era in the annals of terrorism.
Dugger
So when do you ship out, Dugger? Seeing as how you are such strong supporter of George Bush’s War, I assume you have enlisted already?
Don’t tell me you are nothing but a yellow elephant.
http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
Hey! Big Gay Al can time travel!!
wow something i just realized after i re-read my comment. Lisa used a rock to make her point that the Bear Patrol wasnt responsible for keeping bears away. A rock, Iraq. Get it? It works on so many levels.
I take back the yellow elephant jibe. It takes guts to admit you are conflicted and I respect that.
I disagree with you on the patriotism (and intelligence) of the neocons but we can leave that for another day.
“We are demonstrably safer since 9-11.”
Okay Dugger. Demonstrate.
Sadie
You presume wrongly that I support (or don’t support the war). I’m conflicted. In my heart I believe we won’t change a thing in Iraq and have used 2,000 lives and a lot of worker’s money for an unwinnable effort. I just don’t buy into the leftist conspiracy theories. The neocons are patriotically motivated and smart, Iraq, despite my pessimism, may turn out to be a success (but I doubt it).
And I served 27 years in the USAF (I’m starting to sound like Dobie Gillis’ dad). Which makes me no more qualified to analyze this war, despite the idiot chickenhawk proponents on the left, than the pizza delivery guy.
Dugger
To those who beleive the Iraq War is what has prevented additional terror attacks, some wisdom from the Simpsons-
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a
charm.
Lisa: That’s spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn’t work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It’s just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
Dugger,
That’s precisely my point. Mentioning the lack of attacks in America post-9/11 is a premature, if not outright flawed metric for determining whether or not we are safer since Iraq. Me, I look at it globally. Have we made gains against our Islamist extremist foes? In some spheres we have: the central structure of AQ is severely compromised. Afghanistan isn’t the haven for terrorists it once was. Polls show OBL less popular in the Middle East than he was before. Lebanon peacefully kicked out Syria. But to me, we’ve set ourselves backwards unnecessarily in so many ways. We’ve unleashed so many centrifugal forces in Iraq and we have no ability to contain them. The “victories” for democracy in the region have become mere shams (Egypt) or preludes to civil war (Iraq). And worse, the Iraq war and the Bush Administration’s mismanagement of it has substantially damaged our military’s fighting capacity and this country’s resolve in seeing through further conflicts. This isn’t a problem of the pacifist left, who never support war. This is a problem for the center, which supported the war initially, and then became demoralized when the original casus belli disappeared and the war dragged on with no end. For those reasons, in my opinion, the Iraq war has made us less safe.
Gee, Dugger, you’re conflicted… But you were in the military — you’re supposed to favor the war. SadieB has forgiven you for not running out and enlisting. C’mon, Dugger, favor the war — it’s OK!
I was in favor of it; I think it was the right thing to do. I don’t see any reason to change my mind — certainly not because others have changed theirs.
I’ve stated my reasons for supporting the war (no, not because of WMD’s, no, not because Hussein was implicated in 9/11) more than once; and I don’t feel like explaining myself again right now.
Yes, a lot of Americans have died and been wounded; so have a lot of of Afghans and Iraqis. I believe that the probability of a civil war is less than 50 / 50 — more like 20 / 80. which not coincidentally represents the percentage of Sunnis in Iraq.
I don’t listen to Hannity or Limbaugh or Dobson or O’Reilly, so don’t even go there. There is a ton of commentary and good reporting in the OnLine MSM, journals, and the blogs all saying the same thing: the successes of the Iraq war are being largely downplayed or ignored by the NYT - WaPo - LAT axis; ABCCBSNBC, CNBCCNNMSNBC, PBSNPR, and TimeNewsweek.
But the facts can be found. And, if, “the lack of attacks in America post-9/11 is a premature, if not outright flawed metric for determining whether or not we are safer since Iraq”, then so is the mention of every single attack that takes place every day, a poor and unfair way to describe lack of progress in the Global War on Terror.
So, I’m not conflicted, and I’m not backing down. I don’t care if terrorists are booking group rates to Baghdad; killing them wholesale is better than killing them retail.
Well, except for the fact that they’ve never been able to kill more Americans and that we’re creating new ones every day, everything in Iraq is going along perfectly.
What successes of the Iraq War? The schools, the hospitals, the daily suicide bombings?
Well, Frank, I wouldn’t say that every single attack in Iraq accounts for the progress, or lack thereof, in the War on Terror. The issue is overall stability, not the existence of a bombing here and there. John McCain said it best when he mentioned that victory in Iraq could only come after he was able to get from the Baghdad Airport to downtown on the Airport Road without a massive armed convoy in escort. People can talk all they want about the schools and the reconstruction, but any good conservative knows that security is the first order of government. And no rational observer can describe the situation in Iraq as secure - by any acceptable standard. Maybe one day we will succeed in Iraq. My view is that December 15 is the last chance, because after that a permanent Iraqi government will be in place, and the pressure from the new Iraqi government for US withdrawal will grow immensely. If the situation isn’t dramatically better by, say March 2006, then it is time to get out.
elrod: Would it surprise you to know that I’ve already suggested the very same thing?
Perhaps uf you people could shut off the the reflex arc that goes “Frank_D comment = something stupid = prepare left wing rebuttal” before you read my comments, you might actually engage in a debate.
And, to all the rest of you, I am measuring progress in Iraq, not by painted schoolhouses — not exactly a bad thing — but by the number of trained and ready Iraqi security and police forces.
See
here
and
here
Elrod;
Don’t you understand that it’s either; get out NOW, or stay uyntil the last man is standing? There is no interim position. That’s what they tell me, anyway.
Dugger;
Most decent people are coflicted about this war. Personally, I think a timetable is important because it is human nature to take longer to get a job done when you are given no time limit. Deadlines work. If you tell the Iraqis; You have until June of 2006 to get your act together, they will get it done. If you give them to December of 2006, they will take the extra six months to do the same work.
Sadie,
” it take guts to admit one is conflicted”. Not really.
frank,
I voted R and will vote R again. I hope I’m wrong on Iraq. Hope it (what we’re doing there) turns out to be some kind of modified, less costly mideast Marshall plan and we produce a shiny, modernized democratic state - a state that will stand in stark contrast to the primitive backward Syrias and Irans of the region. And I hope we have sent a message to the terrorists’ ‘cave’ boardrooms that the US will fight back and fight back hard, and that we will strike at your supportive infrastructure and your enablers, no matter how big and powerful they are. Theres just that doubt that we won’t really change a thing about the essential nature of Iraq’s life and culture, and after we leave, like Shahist Iran, they will revert to a 16th century theocracy or an authoritarian dictatorship.
Semant, You said most decent people are conflicted about this war. I think thats (’most’) presumptious. There are plenty of decent people firmly convinced its the right thing to do and plenty (decent) convinced its the wrong thing. Decency has little to do with it. And while I have doubts about our being there, we are there and must now stay the course and not cut and run - which is what a timetable would amount to, IMO.
Elrod (and frame),
My perspective in intra-US. I’m only arguing that there have been no fatal attacks on American soil by Islamic terrorists since 9-11. 9-11 killed about 2,800 innocent civilian American citizens. How can we (the US, not the world) not be safer? I agree that there can be a sh*tpot of different, subjective reasons for that margin of safety (and many may have nothing to do with the President) , but also there is no way you can just arbitrarily discount measures taken by the Bush Admin, including the Iraq war.
All in all, I realize he’s just engaging in partisan bluster, but I strongly disagree with OWs assertion that we are not safer. he’s a strong partisana nd toa dmit the reality, that, for whatever reason, we are safer, hurts the Democratic Party - whom many view as weak on the WOT.
Dugger
Dugger
Dugger;
I don’t want to split hairs over what ‘most’ means and my statement did not exclude people of both persuasions from the ‘decent’ appellation.
I do think there are people who perceive themselves as ‘decent’ on both sides of the aisle on this issue who are less than decent, but they are a minority.
IMO
Semant,
OK by me.
Only I would quibble that there ARE decent people on both sides (maybe you meant that).
“I do think there are people who perceive themselves as decent on both sides of the aisle ”
Dugger
The schools, the hospitals, the daily suicide bombings?
I’m not sure if you’re lumping schools and hospitals with daily suicide bombings, but the fact of the matter is as clear as a bell - before the beginning of sanctions in 1991, and compounded of course by the invasion in 2003, Iraq had one of the best, if not the best, systems of schools and health care in the Middle East. Like oil production and water, they may have improved slightly since the end of shock and awe, but they still aren’t anywhere near what they were before the Americans and British decided to “help”.
Yes, Eli and industrial shredder maintenance and repair was a thriving industry, as was secret gravedigging.
“I m only arguing that there have been no fatal attacks on American soil by Islamic terrorists since 9-11.”
There were no Islamic terrorist attacks on American soil for eight years between the first Trade Center attack and the second. Up to Sept. 10 2001 would you have argued that we were demonstrably safer based solely on that information? The fact that there have been no attacks on American soil since 9-11 in no way demonstrates that we are safer. There’s just you saying its true and then pointing a bunch of new programs and the Iraq war. But there’s no way you can actually demonstrate that anything Bush has done including the Iraq war has made us safer. See Johnny Ps Simpsons reference above. In this instance I’m not arguing that we are safer or that we aren’t safer. For all we know the Iraq war has had no effect on our safety one way or the other. My only point is that you said we were “demonstrably safer” and yet you cannot demonstrate that we are. All you’ve got is your feeling that we must be safer. You sound positively liberal trusting your feelings like that.
frame,
Oh, I agree there’s no way I can prove that Bush is responsible for our improved safety. Equally, there is no way you can ‘prove’ he isn’t. And in fact, as with Bubba and the techno-bubble economy, Bush gets credit - it happened on his watch and he’s the guy in charge.
“Safer” is a comparative and compares the post 9-11 period to the time before that. Terrorists killed about 2,800 innocent Americans on American soil. After that, zilch. I’d say thats demonstrable. Part of the problem here is (for you) OWs faulty premise.
Dugger