« The Economist’s Interview with Radley Balko
Is “Republican Moderate” Becoming an Oxymoron? How About “Democratic Moderate”? »
Bush’s War Crimes Trial
What is as close as we’re going to get to a calling-to-account for the former Decider and his puppet Tony Blair for thousands of deaths in Iraq is unfolding, largely out of American media sight, before a panel of British nobles.
The Chilcot inquiry is hearing from such witnesses as the then-Ambassador to the UN that he threatened to quit in the runup to the Iraq invasion over bulldozing from the Bush-Cheney White House.
“The UK’s attempt to reconstitute a consensus,” says Sir Jeremy Greenstock, “had only a slim prospect of success, made slimmer by the recognition by anyone else following events closely that the United States was not proactively supportive of the UK’s efforts and seemed to be preparing for conflict whatever the UK decided to do.”
The ambassador’s testimony follows that of British intelligence officials that right after 9/11 in 2001 they were asked to draw up an Iraq “options” paper, including regime change.
“We dismissed it at the time because it had no basis in law,” says the then-head of the Middle East department at the Foreign Office, noting that “”there was no increased appetite among UK ministers for military action in Iraq.”
A former policy director at the Ministry of Defence adds that, in those days, the issue of regime change in Iraq was like “the dog that did not bark. It grizzled, but it did not bark.”
But Bush’s Neo-Con dogs of war, “hell bent” on the invasion, were barking loud enough to be heard on both sides of the Atlantic, and their call for overthrowing Saddam Hussein and his non-existent WMDs was drowning out all dissenters.
45 Responses to “Bush’s War Crimes Trial”
Its still numbs me to think that Bush actually launched a war that had no cause. I'm not a code pink liberal when it comes to using the military, I firmly believe a strong military is needed, but war is every crime rolled up into one. While sometimes necessary, you better be damn sure it is before you start one. The fact is George Bush started a war without cause, resulting in no one even knows how many deaths and the misery attached to the utter chaos in the wake of our removal of Iraq's leadership. There was no reason I can see for it, and that all falls on one man, Bush. It was his authority that brought it about and no other. If he had any honor out of sheer shame he'd take his own life for the waste of it all.
But that's not going to happen and neither is a war crimes trial. So lets move on, maybe think about ways to stop leaders from doing it again. After all, we voted him in, twice.
Samuel, “But that's not going to happen and neither is a war crimes trial. So lets move on, maybe think about ways to stop leaders from doing it again. After all, we voted him in, twice.”
Well first of all “we” only voted in Bush once. Gore received the popular vote in 2000. It was the electoral college which voted Bush in twice.
Second of all the best way to stop this from happening again is by holding people accountable for their actions, meaning sending them to prison if found guilty. If we have laws which people break, and we don't punish them, then how many people will actually obey those laws?
Given the choice between having almost unlimited power (which is what any US president could have if he was not restrained by laws and if he controlled Congress) and money and the choice of obeying a law out of the goodness of one's heart, which no consequences if the law was broken, what do you think people would do? Even the Catholic Church abuses their power with various cover-ups (i.e. the priest molestation cases).
If we don't hold people accountable for their actions, they (and others) will continue to break laws. Not many people “stop” breaking laws out of guilt or for any other reason. If people think they can get away with something, they will justify everything, whether it's speeding or sending the country to war.
I don't think going down the presidential war crime road is a good. More public castigation of the dumb-dumb president is probably as far as we need to take it. Dubya should go down in history as being the idiot he is, but war crimes trials….naw. Besides, just look what illiterate Andrew Jackson did.
Father_Time, “Besides, just look what illiterate Andrew Jackson did.”
LOL! You made my point exactly!
I'm no fan of Bush's actions, but isn't holding the KSM trial in NYC, a sort of left-handed (sorry couldn't resist) approach to trying his administration?
Also, I did not vote for O, but wish that he does well, for the simple reason that I am in his boat. But I prefer not to second guess him through the perfect lens of 20/20 hindsight.
This article is hilarious. It's like a throwback 5 years with the left fantasizing about getting Bush all over again. Downing Street Memorandum was going to “get Blair”, remember that? Rove to be frog marched out of the White House in a week, remember that?. Remember Schroeder and Chirac opposing the war? Both canned at the next election. Bush and Blair re-elected. You folks might wake up and realize that nobody really cares about your fantasies of 'getting Bush' except the tiny and shrinking group of you. But that would spoil the ongoing entertainment.
And the guy who replaced him isn't doing any better than he did. In fact he seems to be doing considerably worse. Whatever else Bush did he gave the bad guys a heck of a bloody nose and it seemed to have worked quite well from the standpoint of deterrence, at least for the subsequent 8 years.
– [isn't holding the KSM trial in NYC, a sort of left-handed (sorry couldn't resist) approach to trying his administration?]–
Uh—-no.
What's this “we” business?
I hardly expect to see Bush ever held accountable for all the blood he has on his hands, or for the general mess he left as his legacy for that matter, but there's nothing wrong with trying to educate those people who have yet to grasp what a terrible flop he was as a leader. Neither is there anything wrong with trying to promote that old-fashioned thing called a “conscience” – especially these days. As for the man having two terms (even discounting the first bogus “election”) it's a national embarrasment… to say the very least, and I didn't have to wait for hindsight to realize that either. What amazes me are the folks who still function as active apologists for that whole rotten administration, long after the record is clear. Something very bizarre going on with that particular dynamic.
It it is hard to imagine anyone defending that the best way to fight terrorism is by waging war on suspected sponsor states. Especially since one of the two wars was against a state that didn't sponsor terrorism and in fact didn't have terrorists until we invaded.
The cost of the wars is huge. Over 5000 deaths. Over a trillion dollars in cost, all borrowed. (This doesn't include the costs all of the F-22’s and Virginia class nuclear submarines need to fight the terrorists.)
Don't you have to question the quality of deterrence of the previous administration's terrorism policies when it involved ignoring the contribution of Saudia Arabia to the 9/11 terrorists. Or when one of the Taliban's sponsors is invaded and you send billions of dollars to the other.
As to the OP, if you didn't want to impeach Bush in office then don't try them after they are out of office. Think of it as the if you vote for incompetents you must learn to live with incompetence principle.
“a state that didn't sponsor terrorism and in fact didn't have terrorists until we invaded”
They didn't have or support the terrorist that attacked us on 9/11. They did support and sponsor other terrorist actions.
There's not much need to 'defend' Bush's action in, for example, invading Iraq. It was approved by a strongly bilateral majority in Congress. Bush was re-elected after the invasion, and even when the war grew unpopular among some, it was funded every single year no matter which party was in charge of Congress.
The success of the Bush strategy in Iraq is further demonstrated convincingly by the fact that the Obama Administration has adopted it with no significant changes whatsoever.
The idea that nobody could defend the strategy is preposterous when it was so beloved on both sides of the aisle as to have been approved in advance, supported with generous funding, and adopted wholesale by the opposition.
I totally agree with holding people accountable, Stockboy. That should go for a President that breaks the law, all the way down to the lowest among us (although I don't believe anyone is truly “lower” than anyone else). Accountability, however, is fast becoming scarce in our society. Criminals are not held accountable as they should be – with plea bargains and cushy prisons. Politicians are not held accountable – with two party rule and the same ol' crap being offered up on election day. And individuals are not held accountable – with people looking to erase a lapse of judgement with the killing of a baby.
As far as the President goes, he took intelligence to Congress and Congress voted to attack Iraq. Do I believe the intelligence was faulty. Partially. I personally have seen WMDs in Iraq. They were the same ones Saddam had in 1991. Most of them made their way to Syria (another Ba'ath party nation). For us to play armchair quarterback and condemn Bush and Blair for having the nads to back up their threats to Hussesn; in my opinon, is futile at best.
Ok, merkin… Gotta ask.
What, then, was the best way to fight terrorism?
As I see it, the only way to truly end terrorism is to kick Israel off of the Asian continent and restore Palestine. Is that what you suggest?
If not, then we will never be free from a terrorist's bomb looming over our heads.
I personally like a President who backs his words up with force. I cannot stand war, our nation used nothing but words against these clowns for well over 30 years. They came to see us as a joke, and every diplomatic threat was laughable to them. Along came Bush, and the threats became very very real. I apply this litmus test to President Obama as well. I think he's doing ok as commander-in-chief thus far. But if he makes threats he has no plans backing up, then he'll lose my respect.
“[I]sn't holding the KSM trial in NYC, a sort of left-handed (sorry couldn't resist) approach to trying his administration?”
Yes, it is. In addition to a base-emotion PR stunt, it's a sop to the extremists here and the protestors in Europe. Obama's gang once more is out of touch with the mainstream, in choosing to do this. I hope it doesn't end up becoming a debacle, as it's pretty much decided (other than where the trial actually will be held; any competent defense will demand a change of venue, obviously) that they're going to proceed.
“I personally have seen WMDs in Iraq.”
This never was a big deal (prior to the war's launch). We know Hussein had had WMDs, and had used them before. Even anti-war protestors (who questioned the WMDs' existence in the face of history) had given as a reason not to invade that WMD use by a desperate Hussein was a possibility.
* * *
Side note:
“I totally agree with holding people accountable, Stockboy”
Do did someone who is a probable role model currently sought by saner Dems nowadays, and he also suggested voters do the same: Teddy Roosevelt. (While on the road today I needed something fresh to read, so I got a paperback book, a collection of “vigorous idealism” writings by Roosevelt about citizens and what should be sought for the country (with a wholesome capital-P Progressive flavor).
Quite correct. Iraq did sponsor terrorists before we invaded. Sponsorship we, encouraged or tolerated as far back as the Reagan presidency.
Of course I misspoke and meant to say al-Qaeda.
I am intrigued that there is a belief that it doesn't make a difference if we punished Iraq even if they didn't sponsor the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 (as well as the African embassy bombings and the USS Cole attack, of course). Not a punishment has to fit the crime type? Don't believe attacking a country not directly involved would hurt our credibility and the qualify of the deterrence the attack was suppose to provide?
Saddam had gassed the Kurds in the north of his own country. That the man deserved to be ousted was the conclusion of President Clinton long before Bush. The only difference was that Bush did something about it, more than write a position paper. What is always unfortunate in any war is that those who get caught in the cross-fire suffer the most. The African proverb is à propos: “The elephants fight, and the grass gets trampled.” But dissecting Iraq is backward looking, when Iran is heating up. Look for Israeli bombers to destroy Iran's nuclear plant within 90 days. At that point, this all gets really interesting.
“Look for Israeli bombers to destroy Iran's nuclear plant within 90 days.”
I wouldn't be upset if that were to happen.
* * *
“nobody really cares about your fantasies of 'getting Bush' except the tiny and shrinking group of you”
The revanchists, a year after he was replaced by Obama, only look more pathetic the more they persist.
The New York civilian terrorist trial is probably meant to appeal to this tiny group (extremists here, PC protestors in Europe).
More serious, though also bringing to mind that sick Bush-bashing, is this. (Could be a new thread)
Failing to kill or capture bin Laden…Bush's other war:
“Osama bin Laden was within our grasp at Tora Bora.”
“Our inability to finish the job in late 2001 has contributed to a conflict today that endangers not just our troops and those of our allies, but the stability of a volatile and vital region.”
http://foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Tora_Bo…
Redbus, “Saddam had gassed the Kurds in the north of his own country. That the man deserved to be ousted was the conclusion of President Clinton long before Bush. The only difference was that Bush did something about it, more than write a position paper.”
Once Bush that ousted Saddam, why didn't he send in a couple hundred thousand troops to North Korea? They DO have nuclear weapons and ARE poking us in the eye. Why didn't Bush invade all those other countries that have dictators just as bad as Saddam? No, Bush lied to the members of Congress and the American public, and the world about the reasons to invade Iraq. And at what high cost to us Americans? Not just the money we've pumped into Iraq over much of the past decade but our standing in the international community as well as the “opportunity costs” of being mired in Iraq when our troops could have been going after the head terrorist, bin-Laden who not only claimed he was going to attack us but did so with lethal consequences. If I want to kill a rattlesnake I'll chop off it's head… not it's rattles.
By the way…. Bush ran back in 2000 on a “humble” foreign policy position, and was anti-nation building. That's what Americans voted for. If Americans wanted a president who was going to send American troops into every country that we didn't like the way they ran their country then Bush was not the man to vote for.
I don't know about Israeli bombers destroying Iran's nuclear plant within 90….. but when (or if) it does happen I agree with you…. it will be really interesting. And of course no matter what Obama does the Republicans will find fault with him.
Saddam had gassed the Kurds in the north of his own country.
With our full knowledge and implicit assent.
That the man deserved to be ousted was the conclusion of President Clinton long before Bush. The only difference was that Bush did something about it, more than write a position paper.
It wasn't a position paper; it was legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by Clinton. And it was the brainchild of the neoconservative cabal at that time — you know, folks like the brothers Kagan, and Bill Kristol, and Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith, et al. They wanted Clinton to adopt an Iraq policy of regime change, and the so-called “Iraq Liberation Act” was their way to lay the groundwork for an invasion. Obviously, Clinton could have refused to sign it, but Clinton was always so eager to please the neocons and he was a total wimp, and although as I understand it he did resist for a time, he finally caved under the pressure. I'm not absolving him of responsibility, but it needs to be remembered that the ILA was not his idea or even his preference.
I am saying waging war on the suspected state sponsors of terrorism has not not proven to be very effective at combating terrorism. Especially when you are so bad at it you are only batting 500.
The incidents of terrorism increased and the number of terrorists increased after our invasion. Certainly the opposite should be the aim of an anti-terrorism campaign.
You are correct the problem goes back to Reagan negotiating with the Iranians to free the embassy staff. Until then we had a firm policy of not negotiating with terrorists. Then, in response to the Marine barracks bombingtin Lebanon he declared we would stay as long as it took to bring the Iranian sponsored terrorists to justice. Three weeks later we withdrew and invaded Granada instead. Enough to satisfy our blood lust and prove to ourselves we had balls but to the Middle East it looked like we ran from the terrorists.
In response to the African embassy bombings and the attack on the Cole Clinton lobbed a few missiles at them. And he was roundly denounced by both the right and the left for his efforts. (Clinton was hamstrung by his pending impeachment)
In these cases the public was not in favor of serious action. But this also was a failure of leadership too, to convince the public of the need for serious action.
Then we came to 9/11 and we launched two wars, one in error.
Terrorists try to achieve two goals. They want to spread terror through the population and push the authorities to over react. The 9/11 terrorists succeeded in both.
Obviously our reactions must be somewhere between the extremes we have so far. We can't just leave and killing thousands of civilians is also not reasonable.
After 9/11 the world was willing to help us go after the terrorists, even the Iranians. The Taliban offered to turn OBL over to us for trial. The country was united. We could have taken serious steps, finally, toward reducing our oil imports which help fund the terrorists.. We could have tried to work on the core problems feeding the terrorism, the Israel-Palestinian conflict for one.
But finally this a problem of religious fundamentalism. And since religion is involved you are not dealing with a rational problem. There is only so much you can do. But I don't see where waging war has been effective either against fundamentalism.
And the unintended consequences of this war will bite for years. Certainly the way we treated Pakistan reinforces the idea you can get better treatment from the United States if you have nuclear weapons. Do you think our invasion of Iraq made it more likely Iran would pursue building a nuclear bomb or would it make them less likely to?
Here's a clue. Thouse of you who are so set against what happened in Iraq take note. No matter how bad you twist facts and revise history there are millions of us who will never agree with you. Of course the same goes on the reverse and trying to argue facts with people like Kathy is an exercise in futility. I personaly am not fighting the war indefinatly with people on the internet.
“The incidents of terrorism increased and the number of terrorists increased after our invasion. Certainly the opposite should be the aim of an anti-terrorism campaign”
Maybe but you give no facts just your take on it. Really we had a massive increase in insurgent activity and I'm sure that couldn't be the terrorist you refer to. Terrorist activity in general has had ebbs and flows with many different actors over the years. Personally while increasing the number of AL qaeda actives I have no doubt that the “distraction” of afghanistan and Iraq has kept them focused in activities overseas making direct attacks mainland US less likely.
“And the unintended consequences of this war will bite for years. Certainly the way we treated Pakistan reinforces the idea you can get better treatment from the United States if you have nuclear weapons. Do you think our invasion of Iraq made it more likely Iran would pursue building a nuclear bomb or would it make them less likely to?”
This is a silly comparison that ignores the long term history of Pakistan and the region.
“Why didn't he send troops to North Korea?”
Well, you are partially right on this one, Stockboy. I see your point, and thought the very same thing back then. The fact is that North Korea is a “war” that has been going on for 60 years. A whole lot of extra baggage comes along with that particular conflict. The biggest is China. The Chinese did us a favor and smacked down Kim Jong iL and put him in his place. That's why we haven't heard much from the clown. He may in fact be dead because of it – but that's unconfirmed and communists nations tend to hide it when their leaders die. So, no, we didn't send troops to North Korea….. but make no mistake we did respond – via China.
And you are correct on the humble foreign policy for Bush in 2000. That deal was welched upon on September 12, 2001. Once again… Not a big Bush fan. But the man took the reigns and set worldwide terrorism back a notch or two. They don't operate out in the open as they once did.
Merkin,
“The incidents of terrorism increased and the number of terrorists increased after our invasion”
I don't believe this to be true overall – only in Iraq. The number of worldwide terrorist plots went down. Al Quaida focused its efforts on sending insurgents into Iraq to fight us via Iran and Syria. Instead of Al Quaida being spread out and upredictable, they went to Iraq and were semi-predictable. Something happened during this time….. Al Quaida became more of a combatant, focusing attacks on our military and backed off on killing innocents.
For the most part, Bush's tactic of fighting them there instead of having them unpredictably and indescriminantly attack American civiilan and military interests worldwide – worked very very well.
As far as Iran you are partially correct there too. Iran has been trying to go nuke since 1979 when it became the Islamic Republic of Iran. Those efforts were increased after our invasion for two reasons. First because they saw us as a threat. Second because their resources were no longer devoted to protecting themselves against Saddam. Personally, I cannot blame Iran. The US now has them surrounded on every side (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and Azerbaijan). What happens when you corner a wild animal? They act irrational and do silly things. I think that was the MAIN reason for our invasion of Iraq, by the way – to corner Iran who has been the enemy for 40 years. All part of the bigger picture.
I understand your inference, but really you cannot take away the power of the President by judicial precedence for trying to defend the American people and muffing up the public relations effort in the process. If you prosecute Dubya, what future president will ever take bold action against an enemy without all the “t”'s crossed and “i”'s dotted again? The Cuban missile crisis is one example. Kennedy stood his ground in the face of World Ending Nuclear War….after…. The Bay of Pigs.
This is one of the most hilarious threads I have read in a while…
Bush wanted to go to war and overthrow Hussein since prior to his selection, all he needed was an excuse. As soon as he found one, off to war we went…
I don't know why anyone was surprised by this rush to war or by the crappy job as president, the Onion told us exactly what to expect:
Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'
Only the clowns are allowed to tell the truth… And Damn if they weren't far more accurate than all of the main stream media…
Sadly, as much as I would like to see it happen Bush is never going to stand trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity, both of which he has done… All there is left to do is hope that some painful nasty disease makes the rest of his miserable life a living hell on earth, and that he dies before I do so that I can go down to Texas and piss on his grave.
Its instructive that Dems are hated and maligned for wanting Bush to stand trial for something that he could not be convicted of unless guilty while Repubs cheer at the fantasies of coup and assassination. As an added bonus we get to hear how this is equivalent which makes me question the intelligence and the morality of those making that argument. Not all Dems want a trial and not all Repubs want a coup but seeing what they cheer for is instructive of the morality and belief in the rule of law that the different sides hold.
I suppose the good news for Obama is that short of a blow job I see no way of him being impeached nor prosecuted for anything he chooses to do. Also if Saddam had WMD's I would suggest you quickly take that evidence to England before Blair is embarrassed further with the truth. The truth that the world media and the left and libertarians of this nation have been saying since 2003.
Its rather simple gents, if I bring you massaged intelligence and I was in charge of the request for it to be massaged and the request for my desired action then I am guilty on two counts and you can hide behind the shield of “they lied.” This is how it works, this is how we hold people accountable and if Nixon's people would have actually done time they would not have been so easily placed into Reagan's administration. Then when they again created more crimes with Iran/Contra if they would have done time and been properly prosecuted they would not have made it into W.'s administration but no…lets not investigate because we like right wing crimes. Really that is all I hear, “I like their lies so screw it if its a crime, they are on my side!”
agreed
Aside from learning from history, I wonder if O's advisers are still fighting the past, or even if it goes as far back as we do in this forum. As Seinfeld would say: “Not that there's anything wrong with that”. I for one don't need to rehash the basis of the Iraq war except as it pertains currently to Iran. The worst of whatever R, B, C, or B did pales when compared to the evil acts of the current and past heads of state of our enemies and OSB. (In all a lot of countries, we would all be rounded up if they could get to us, for what we say here.)
And, yes our presidents do screw up, and no they should not fear the threat of a trial (or a substitute trial) for their actions, foreign or domestic. I wish this also for Obama.
My soldier friend didn't see any WMDs, but he did tell me about large caches of weapons that were discovered later in the war, after the media frenzy had pretty much died down. There's a lot about that country that never came out in the press.
Personally, I think that Bush went in there because of his oil connections.
I stand corrected.
Seems I've stirred up a hornet's nest here! Look, former President Bush was not my favorite. On the issue of fiscal responsibility alone, he was dismal. However, we soon forget history. The man despised the United Nations, yet people fault him when he wanted them to give real teeth to the 17 resolutions they'd already passed against Saddam? (Oh, I forgot, Koffi Annan's son was on the take from Saddam…little detail there…oops). We can criticize Bush for being virtually unilateral in his decisions, but what viable enforcement agency is there in this world? Not the U.N., that's for sure. And let's not criticize Bush for North Korea. Let's give him a little credit for avoiding a “one size fits all” approach to foreign policy. And BTW, StockBoy, looks to me like President Obama, now that he's in the Oval, may be looking at the world in ways not so different than his predecessor. Face it — Bush derangement syndrome is alive and well.
I am sure they had an amazing amount of arms considering we had once funded their fight against Iran but even though our reporters stopped looking the world media did not yet have found none. We also have a very large and incredibly active conservative media in this country that have completely failed to find it so either they again failed to block the exits and were hoisted on their on petard or they lied their asses off like the downing street memos say. This is one of those moments that if people have evidence to the contrary they should be quick like shipping stuff and themselves to Britain to clear up this whole pesky misunderstanding. Of course its just possible that though the rule of law has left our shores it is still upheld elsewhere. I just do not buy hearsay evidence in the face of all of the international press and available evidence much like I think 911 was plotted by arab terrorists.
No matter how bad you twist facts and revise history there are millions of us who will never agree with you. Of course the same goes on the reverse and trying to argue facts with people like Kathy is an exercise in futility.
Okay, so millions of us on both sides will never agree — and trying to argue facts with people like me is futile…. So, um, maybe you should ask me what it's like to try to argue facts with people like you. You think it's any easier?
“My soldier friend didn't see any WMDs, but he did tell me about large caches of weapons that were discovered later in the war, after the media frenzy had pretty much died down. There's a lot about that country that never came out in the press.
Personally, I think that Bush went in there because of his oil connections.”
Two things, stockpiles of chemical weapons and empty warheads for WMDs were found. Saddam was in violation of his agreement with the US and also UN mandates. Saddam possessed and was actively hiding WMDs. Now none of those weapons (I think over 500) were of recent manufacture nor was there a current WMD program of any real significance. Kind of like the whole yellow cake thing. It showed that Iraq had no successes in getting possible nuclear materials from one source but also that Iraq was trying to get nuclear materials. What you consider important what you take but both sides are true.
Second, Bush never had those kind of contacts in the oil business. He walked away 20 years earlier when they were still trying to give money to him. Most of his oil “carer” was in trading leases in west Texas. He then started a small exploration company that was entirely domestic and sold, to a company owned in large part by George Soros, for just over a mil. A huge player he was not.
“Okay, so millions of us on both sides will never agree — and trying to argue facts with people like me is futile…. So, um, maybe you should ask me what it's like to try to argue facts with people like you. You think it's any easier?”
Come on Kathy, when have you ever argued facts? I oppose almost everything you stand for politically down the line so I get why I, or my comments, may bother you.
say what you will about me but I try and make my arguments based on fact and reason. Some things are purely based on personal values, (for example whats more important freedom or equality?) but I don't tend to jump to conclusions or make decisions based on partisan talking points. When a poor man committed suicide you jumped in fully and blamed it on the evil right. Sure I thought you were full of it but I couldn't know the details so I kept my mouth shut. Now of course we know now that you fantasies were false and the man did commit suicide. Never heard you ever admit you were wrong either. Really for the most part you echo your talking points and argue emotion. Nothing wrong with that but don't pretend facts ever made a difference to you.
Fair enough, he wasn't a major player. He was connected with that group, however, and would still have more empathy with oil companies.
And there's Soros again. It's not hard to see why his name pops up so often in conspiracy theories.
Anything is possible, my point being, that without more evidence on the surface there is no more reason to believe that than any other scenarios, less really with the weight of evidence on other factors,
Of course, we'll never know for sure, which is why I started with “Personally, I believe…”. I obviously have no proof, nor would there be any way for me to get proof. Maybe with a physic, a time machine, a good suit, some spy equipment, and an expert plastic surgeon…
Anyway, it's just gets a little frustrating watching all the lives and money that go into making wars instead of getting rid of our oil dependency.
… say what you will about me but I try and make my arguments based on fact and reason. Some things are purely based on personal values, (for example whats more important freedom or equality?) but I don't tend to jump to conclusions or make decisions based on partisan talking points.
I think you are not objective or honest enough about yourself to self-judge your own arguments as based on fact and reason, and mine as based on partisan talking points. It's much easier to see the partisan talking points in someone else than in yourself. That you don't even seem to realize that further discredits your claims.
Now of course we know now that you fantasies were false and the man did commit suicide.
No, that is not a statement of fact. The authorities in Kentucky have issued a ruling that he committed suicide. That is the fact in this matter. I will not “admit I'm wrong” about the Clay County case when I'm not convinced I am — but neither will I continue to argue that I was right when I have nothing but an intuitive gut feeling to support such an argument against the fact of the ruling. And i will not let anyone push me into doing so.
Which further undermines your claim that I “echo talking points and argue emotion.”
So even tho the facts are against you, you still persist in your partisan beliefs. Yeah that undermines my claim of arguing emotion.
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. Comcast decided I could do without my internet connection for a few days.
“Maybe but you give no facts just your take on it.”
I am sorry, I didn't give any facts since I felt it was widely known that terrorism had increased dramatically since 2003. It was, after all, in all the papers. I can only assume you feel the same way about your counter claim, which presumably is that there have been fewer terrorists acts since 2003. I make this assumption since you also provided no facts. One of us must be wrong.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18399660/
The citizens of Madrid and London would argue that their countries participation in the Iraq invasion actually precipitated terrorists' attacks on them. Do you believe these attacks had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq? (I must disclose that my was attending the University of the City of London during the July 2005 terrorists attacks, heard the bombs of 7/7 and was in one of the tube stations unsuccessfully attacked in the second set of bombs.He was not hurt only because the bomb fizzled. )
“Really we had a massive increase in insurgent activity and I'm sure that couldn't be the terrorist you refer to.”
Ah, I see, we are defining terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan as insurgent activity. Even if it is against non-combatants by foreigners? We can completely eliminate terrorism in this way, by defining it as something else. That is much cheaper than waging war. It is a shame we didn't think about it sooner. Of course bombs would still be going off and people would still be dying.
“Personally while increasing the number of AL qaeda actives I have no doubt that the “distraction” of afghanistan and Iraq has kept them focused in activities overseas making direct attacks mainland US less likely.”
I am not sure the military or many others in the United States would be happy with the characterization of the war that has cost so much in blood and money as a distraction. I am certain you misspoke and did not mean it.
Of course, Al Qaeda took more than eight years between attacks on United States’ soil before. How can you be so sure we are not just seeing a repeat of their previous pattern?
“This is a silly comparison that ignores the long term history of Pakistan and the region.”
Pakistan certainly developed nuclear weapons because the Indians did and the Iranians have started to develop them because Isreal has them. The question however, is a simple one. Do you believe that the United States’ invasion of Iraq makes it more likely or less likely for the Iranians to pursue developing an atomic weapon?
I believe it makes it more likely for them to continue to develop the weapons in the face of international sanctions, huge costs and the threat of attack. When you push people against a wall most will react aggressively rather than passively as the neocon playbook assumed. But it is just an option and you are welcome to believe the opposite, presumably which would be that the Iranians view the invasion of Iraq as a reason to abandon the weapon's development, regrettably outweighed by other concerns.
Simply put, waging war against suspected sponsor countries as an anti-terrorism means is too expensive in lives, money and reputation and shows too little in the way of positive results to ever be used again. If you disagree with this opinion please tell me if you have yet decided on the next country we should invade to keep the homeland safe?
At some point we as a nation must stop fighting about who was right and who was wrong, Bush lovers verses Bush haters. This is in the past. We must constantly evaluate what works and what doesn't. Arguing blame over past mistakes only makes it more likely we will repeat them.
I supported McCain and finally voted for Bush in 2000. I supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003 because I was mad as hell and willing to strike out at anyone who seemed remotely to blame. But I was wrong. The war was wrong and even counterproductive. We shouldn't do it again.