I agree on the discussion beinng good - don’t agree with the slightly condescending conclusion that I might be or not be insane or sincere. Why not address my argument and its fallacies than what you perceive over cyberspace about me personally. Been here (OWs site) a long time and have been pretty consistent, I think. But you will decide for yourself.
I don’t think we were wrong in Vietnam because at the time Communism was the greastest menace on the planet - having murdered many more in its name than nazism. But I also think we should not enter into a war that we do not have the political will to win. I’m personally less sure about the wisdom of Iraq but I don’t know. If the neocons are right, they have done a great thing and may have stabilized the entire meideast. If wrong, we wasted a lot of men, women, money etc. But where I probably differ from you is I think Bush et al are well intended and believe they are doing a good thing and that there is no big bad bogeyman conspiracy re Iraq.

BD, But that was not really a link. Its only so if you kind of sideways interpret Cheneys words and you think he’s dishonest. He’s saying (IMO) the geographic heart of T is Iraq and that it was Ts who did things like 9-11. That should be considered in conjunction with the Admn position that Iraq is a compeoent of the overall WOT.

Dugger

Well, to quibble. I don’t know their intention. Neither do you. I don’t get too excited abut poll stats until I see the wording of the question, the demographics of the responders, the totality of the questions, and the timing of the questions. Therefore, why not take things at face value and go by whether you agree with whats happened or not happened. Forget guessed-at motives. Was Iraq right or wrong and why - should be the discussion.

BTW as to the Cheney quote, I think you read it with a cynical mind. The heart of the base of terrorism could well be interprteted to be Iraq - geographcally. But actually I think its just a throw away remark. Myself, I think the Iraq action helps quite a bit in the WOT, but doesn’t fix it. If Iraq were pacified today, would still be more battles to be fought.

Dugger

(A simple Google search for the items “Saddam” and “9/11″ will offer a decent picture of how muddled the facts became on the matter.)

Iraq is not the same geographic place as Saudi Arabia, where most of the Wahhabist ideology that informs Islamic extremism has come from. Iraq is also not, for that matter, the same geographic place as Afghanistan or Pakistan. Throwaway or not (and I’m sorry, what possible excuse is there to make throwaway comments on an issue as big as invading another country), saying that Iraq was the geographic base of terrorism is like saying that China is the central producer of the Toyota Camry because they’re geographically “close enough.”

Which is a really odd statement, because the terrorists who have had us under assault for years were from Saudi Arabia and other countries, but not Iraq.

Cheney has been very slippery in his comments about this matter–”We don’t have evidence that they’re connected, but there’s always new information coming to light…there’s a link, but I can’t confirm or deny it…”

Beyond that, there’s the rather obnoxious moment where Tim Russert asked him what he thought about the 69 percent of Americans who believed that Saddam and 9/11 were connected, and his response was “No, that doesn’t surprise me.” Well, why wouldn’t it surprise you? Where were these 69 percent of Americans getting that idea?

If–as you contend, Dugger–it was never the Bush administration’s intention to mislead the public on this connection, then this stat should have been very surprising indeed.

Anyone with half a brain and common sense recognizes the difference, and unfortunately, the lefties don t

Drink!

The scale is not equal, I’m not saying that. But we should be above things like Abu Ghraib. I believe that the vast majority of our military is capable of being above things like that. It’s the Abu Ghraib apologists, like yourself, who seem to think that our men and women in uniform don’t have that kind of moral fiber, and nor should they be expected to, so it’s not so bad when they do things like that.

You can’t portray yourself as heroic liberators and then let this shit happen. It’s hypocrisy. It undermines the ability to fight the war. So stop making excuses, drpedro.

I know of no place where Cheney linked Saddam and 9-11 directly. Would love to see your proof. Spare me where he said there were links between Al Qaeda and Saddam. Apples and oranges.
re Vietnam. I didn’t think you were attacking the military. But, no it would not be genocide (IMO), it would be warfare. Don’t want warfare, don’t declare war. Keep in mind there were NVA regulars fighting in South Vietnam. I think it would have been OK then to bomb Haiphong and Hanoi. And that would not have been indicriminate bombing per my training. taking out two key strategic enemy targets. And yes lots of innocent people would have been killed and thats very bad. Lots of good German and Japanese people were killed in WWII to defeat the Nazis. Wouldn’t argue that warfare is pretty bad business. Sometimes, though, there are worse alternatives.

Dugger

The “torture” promulgate in abu ghraib was one of parading inmates around without any clothes and dressing them up.

Contrast this with prisons built to torture children, and feeding people feet first into industrial shredders

Anyone with half a brain and common sense recognizes the difference, and unfortunately, the lefties don’t

“So really, your ire is directed at the average Americans who are apparently just too dense to pick up the subtle nuances of George Bush s purple prose.”

No, think you’re wrong. You guys take the results of a poll and then take what you guess to be Bush’s mindset and leap to the conclusion that he intened to mislead.

Sorry about the ‘cute debate trick’. Thats a fair cop.

“Killing terrorists is half of the equation. The other half is fostering an environment where no new terrorists can grow. It s burning the stump.
Yes, I m sure this comes across as some namby-pamby ”

No, it doesn’t (seem namby pamby). Its an honest argument and a harder one to argue against (than attributing bad motives to the opposition). Now, the Neocons might argue they are doing that very thing by trying to foster democracy and a modern society in Iraq (fixing the root cause - I’m not sure it will work - have said so many times).

“The root of terrorism is desperation”

Disagree strongly. IMO its just hate/envy whatever. Look at how many Ts, especially successful murderous Ts, come from middle class backgrounds. I admit thats a bleak thought, but I think its true.

Mitter

So Bush made you do it? Man, frat boy can do some marvelous things. You first clearly stated that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Then you said that “I think it was the multiple times George Bush mentioned 9-11 immediately after saying something about Iraq.” But I’m glad to note that you believe Bush did not try to mislead - if I understand you. Myself, I don’t know, but I would have to see something other than coincidence to believe it.

Dugger

DrDoper, dumbass, yes, I did have a serious problem with anonymous sources in the Valerie Plame matter. There the anonymous sources revealed national secrets for pure political retribution against an outspoken critic of the Bush Iraq claims. that isn’t whistleblowing. There’s a difference. I did not have a problem with an anonymous source revealing Bush’s illegal (-alledged) wiretapping activities. I think that source is now revealed. That si whistleblowing, adn the details he revealed i.e. existence of a secret program operating outside the law of the US, has been confirmed by the government. Your anonymous source cites evidence unavailable to anyone, unconfirmed by the government or other sources, conclusions and evidence that would only be of benefit to the administration. In other words, why is it anonymous, why isn’t it being trumpeted by GWBUsh and his spokesmen, and why hasn’t the identity of the anonymous source been of any concern to said authorities?

Don’t you remember in the lead up to the Iraq invasion, anonymous government sources were leaking all sorts of information and evidence, much of which was shown to be untrue and known to be untrue or unreliable at the time it was leaked. This is so similar.

If you’ll permit a classical example, it’s the Lernean Hydra problem that Hercules had to deal with–cut off one of its nine heads, and two more took its place. He had to burn the stump that remained, in order to defeat the beast.

Killing terrorists is half of the equation. The other half is fostering an environment where no new terrorists can grow. It’s burning the stump.

Yes, I’m sure this comes across as some namby-pamby “root causes” thing, but the only way you kill something that goes so deep is by attacking the roots.

The root of terrorism is desperation and those willing to exploit it. The surest way we have to cut down on the number of new recruits is to behave the way we say we’re going to. Our credibility is a powerful weapon, because it undercuts the opportunists who would sell the a package of “America is out to steal from you, crush you underfoot, and destroy your culture.”

Abu Ghraib apologists, for one, missed this point. We told the Iraqis that we were coming in to save them from the humiliation and torture of Saddam’s regime, and then we set up a humiliation and torture chamber in his old prison. Yes, we can argue all day about how PFC England and her ilk were just a few bad eggs, but then again, the Baathists were also a few bad eggs who managed to gain control of the country.

(And no, no, a thousand times no, I’m not equating our entire military with the entirety of the Baathists.)

We’re set a higher standard. That’s what happens when you foster that image of yourself. We win the war on terror not just by defeating al-Qaida and all the other organizations, but by maintaining that higher standard.

Missed your response earlier. I don’t claim we can or ever will kill all Ts. I do believe that has to be our policy though. I assume your point is to the effect that while we kill terrorists we create more of the same. Wish it were that easy. Then all we would have to do is not fight back and we win the WOT, right?
AS to the idea that we have been killing Ts and we are still having to fight the war. Well yes. They are a tough and fanatical (suicidal) foe and their hatred of us and what we are (and Israel) is very deep.

I do not know if Iraq was exactly the right or wrong thing to do but I sure support a pro-active policy in fighting the Ts. Anybody who believes that the proper way to fight terrorism is to be able to repond with rescue forces more quickly after the next attack is missing something. Better to kill the people who plan to perform that next attack.

Dugger

And secondly it is not George Bush s fault if you or your friends have a reading comprehension problem. The fact is he DIDN T say Iraq was involved in 9-11. Words being close together won t hack it all. Try something else. You have no leg to stand on there.

Help me out here.

At one point in a run-up to the war, the polls indicated that something like 7 in 10 people believed Iraq was involved in 9/11. However, you would have us believe that this idea simply occurred out of nowhere, and certainly not from the Bush administration.

Above, you complain that this idea is a “reading comprehension problem” on the behalf of liberals.

But most liberals didn’t believe that there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11.

So really, your ire is directed at the average Americans who are apparently just too dense to pick up the subtle nuances of George Bush’s purple prose.

I’m sure you were out there in 2003, making sure everybody understood that Bush wasn’t trying to conflate the two. It’s not his fault, after all, that all those Americans who supported the invasion did so because they didn’t hear him correctly.

Many sources go on “backround” and if you notice in the article they have multiple, consistent sources….the NYT could learn something from that.

The question was: was the V war winnable? My answer: yes (didn’t say it was winnable via means acceptable to you or the left). My suggestion for the politicians is don’t train us one way, take us to war and then not let us fight the war like you trained us to. W has been much better about that than LBJ.

Mitter,

First of all you have no idea if Iraq did or didn’t sponsor AA terrorism. I would argue that harboring Abbas comes pretty close. And secondly it is not George Bush’s fault if you or your friends have a reading comprehension problem. The fact is he DIDN’T say Iraq was involved in 9-11. Words being close together won’t hack it all. Try something else. You have no leg to stand on there.

And a bi-partisan Congress most certainly did vote to go to war. They gave the chief executive the option to go whenver he felt necessary. Why do they call it a war vote? Why did Kerry say: that even if he had known then what he knows now, he still would have voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq in October 2002.

Dugger (I’m beginning to understand why you snipe rather than debate)

if we had reduced Hanoi and Haiphong to rubble, would the the war have continued - with a viable NVA presence? I don t think so.

We did bomb Hanoi and Haiphong (OK…maybe not “to rubble,” but bombed.)

That would be taking “destroying the village in order to save it” to a new extreme, wouldn’t it?

Incidently, why anonymous government officials? There are three main reasons government officials are anonymous: they fear retribution, they are lying, the reporter is lying. Since this is information beneficial to the admin, I would rule out fearing retribution.