Sully Nails It

by Lee

Lee,

Can you or someone else please tell me where the President has said that Sadam’s Iraq was involved with 9/11?  I ask out of a genuine desire to know - I’m not trying to mock or put you in a hotspot.  This idea - of the administration saying Iraq was involved in 9/11 - is as best I can tell a liberal strawman.  Not once have I ever heard this come from the mouth of anyone in the administration (with the exception of the editing tricks during the Condi Rice interview at the end of F9/11). In fact, I just watched a youtube video where the President specifically denied that Iraq was involved.  This really irks me because I got in an argument with someone over the weekend about this.

So, if someone can point me to where the connection was made, I’m all ears.  At this point, from everything I’ve looked it, this is nothing but a liberal strawman.

(Lee, I am NOT calling you a liberal).

I don’t think anyone from the administration has ever directly said it.  The lefties, as I understand it, claim that by continually using Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentences or context that it solidified a connection between the two where none existed.  Given that a huge chunk of the country still thinks that Iraq was in some way involved with the planning or execution of 9/11, I think there’s probably something to this theory.

Were you referring to this sentence?

He has even said baldly that the people bombing and murdering in Iraq are the same people who attacked us on 9/11

If so, I think you misunderstood it.  Bush doesn’t literally mean that they were the same people.  In context, he means that one Arab terrorist is the same as another Arab terrorist, and if we could just solve that peskyt Arab terrorism problem then we’d be set.  The flaw there is that Arab terrorists are varied and all have different ideologies.

Look at it like gang warfare.  Here in LA there are tons of gangs.  Sometimes they for alliances, sometimes they kill each other.  In a broad sense you can speak of the gang violence problem, but you can’t speak as if there’s no difference between the Bloods and the Crips.

If so, I think you misunderstood it.  Bush doesn’t literally mean that they were the same people.  In context, he means that one Arab terrorist is the same as another Arab terrorist, and if we could just solve that peskyt Arab terrorism problem then we’d be set.  The flaw there is that Arab terrorists are varied and all have different ideologies.

Look at it like gang warfare.  Here in LA there are tons of gangs.  Sometimes they for alliances, sometimes they kill each other.  In a broad sense you can speak of the gang violence problem, but you can’t speak as if there’s no difference between the Bloods and the Crips.

If this is, in fact a terror problem, then I would imagine that there are many similarities to gangs. If you’re going to take the approach to then say we are unsuccessful at fixing a terror/gang problem and should accomodate it somehow I don’t agree.

We have wiped the italian mafia out to a miniscule element, and terrorist of different feathers do have common threads.

We have wiped the italian mafia out to a miniscule element, and terrorist of different feathers do have common threads.

True.  But look at Hamas and Fatah.  They’re both Islamic, they’re both terrorists, and they both hate America.  So in that sense they’re “the same.” But when it comes to formulating a policy on how to deal with them, you cannot treat them as being the same because they’re sworn blood enemies with different ideologies, and each must be treated as such. 

Let me put it like this.  You can speak about the Middle East in generalities, and often those generalities are correct.  But when it comes to formulating policies, you cannot treat the Middle East as if it is one giant, monolithic entity.  Syria is not the same as Qatar.  Kuwait is not the same as Iraq.  Iran is not the same as Saudi Arabia.

Nuance seems to escape Bush.

Let me put it like this.  You can speak about the Middle East in generalities, and often those generalities are correct.  But when it comes to formulating policies, you cannot treat the Middle East as if it is one giant, monolithic entity.  Syria is not the same as Qatar.

I’m not thoroughly versed in the Arab world, but I tend to think more tribes and sects and less about nationality. You’re right to say that understanding nuance would be something of interest if you want to invade or change something.

I still think that the Arab world has made a very clear point that they will unify behind a few issues that Iran has played perfectly. Jews and Israel, number one (hatred of), the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the further proliferation of Islam as a religion into mainstream society.

How one expects to defeat it, I don’t know, but to say they are Blood and Cryps different is not really where I would file them. I think more East/Westide Cryps.

Were you referring to this sentence?

Yes.  Thank’s for clearing that up, I get what he was trying to say now.

I don’t think anyone from the administration has ever directly said it.  The lefties, as I understand it, claim that by continually using Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentences or context that it solidified a connection between the two where none existed.

Well, I flat out know lefties that say the Administration has made the connection.  This goes back to the argument I had this weekend.  I asked this particular leftie WHERE did the President say this?  “State of the Union”, she says.  Bullshit, I say.  I pull up the SOTU 2002 and 2003 and hand it to her.  There is no connection.  Except, of course, when she reads it she says it’s being implied.  Quite frankly, it pisses me the hell off.  I don’t want to re-hash reasons for going to war in Iraq, but what the hell is wrong with mentioning the two in the same sentence? I know Bush doesn’t do himself service because he’s Mr. Bumbletongue, but the threat of allowing Hussein to provide WMDs to terrorists who would use them on American cities (which is a stated aim of AQ), after 9/11, was not a threat that could be ignored, simply because Hussein was being a douchebag and not cooperating for 12+ years.  After 9/11, not invading Iraq would have been irresponsible.  Again, I’m not trying to open up this can of worms, but why the fuck can’t the president use the threat of another 9/11 as justification for going to war in Iraq - knowing Hussein’s past (use of WMD; lack cooperation with the UN)?  To me, this just reeks of this country being full of too many dumbasses that don’t fucking pay attention.  It makes me furious.  And quite frankly, I left that argument this weekend really fucking upset.  Not only was this bitch going on about this topic, but all of your other typical lefty bullshit - Haliburton! Cheney! War for Oil! Guns are Evil!  And I’m thinking to myself - “Self, in 10 days you are going to boot camp to be a Seabee in the Navy Reserve. You will most certainly be in Iraq by the end of next Summer, if not earlier.  You will be risking your life for fucking dumbasses like this.  Is this country even worth fighting for anymore?”

Given that a huge chunk of the country still thinks that Iraq was in some way involved with the planning or execution of 9/11, I think there’s probably something to this theory.

A little over a third of Americans, and about half of the Democratic party, believe that Bush either MIHOP or LIHOP.  Do you think “there is probably something to this theory”, then?

Bush doesn’t literally mean that they were the same people.  In context, he means that one Arab terrorist is the same as another Arab terrorist, and if we could just solve that peskyt Arab terrorism problem then we’d be set.

I think the President is both wrong and right about this.  He is right when he says “the terrorists” seek to establish a regional, then global, caliphate (though he hasn’t talked about this in over a year, from what I remember).  However, he does do a disservice to us all by simply lumping AQ with Hezbollah with Hamas with etc.

Anyway, this reply turned into a rant.  I’m sorry, but thanks for letting me get it off my chest.

The inverse, of course, is that Congress can also defund the troops. But apparently that’s not an option. Bush’s position is that Congress can make one decision - to go to war - and then their role is to pay for it indefinitely, regardless. He’ll listen, but he won’t hear. He’s the decider.

No, an ideal situation would be for Congress to:

1. Authorize the war
2. Complain that it’s a “quagmire” after a couple of months
3. Shreek about military abuses
4. Call for the head of the Sec. of Defense
6. Request increased troop levels
7. Run against the war during elections
8. Approval a new general
9. Request decreased troop levels
10. Call the war “lost” less than two months after a new strategy has started
11. Repeatedly try to signal to the enemy when we are leaving.

No, let’s just turn the whole thing over to Congress!  They’re geniuses! ...

When will they be called onto the carpet for their lack of support in the war effort and the harm this has caused?

10. Call the war “lost” less than two months after a new strategy has started

I’m going to nitpick on this one.  The “Surge” has only been at full-capacity for 3-weeks.  Reid declared it lost within a week of it being at full-capacity.  Why?  Because he knows that the American public are dumbasses and don’t realize that that the “Surge” and the buildup to the “Surge” are not the same thing.

Agreed dawrestla.  I was giving them too much credit.

To me, this just reeks of this country being full of too many dumbasses that don’t fucking pay attention.  It makes me furious.  And quite frankly, I left that argument this weekend really fucking upset.  Not only was this bitch going on about this topic, but all of your other typical lefty bullshit - Haliburton! Cheney! War for Oil! Guns are Evil!  And I’m thinking to myself - “Self, in 10 days you are going to boot camp to be a Seabee in the Navy Reserve. You will most certainly be in Iraq by the end of next Summer, if not earlier.  You will be risking your life for fucking dumbasses like this.  Is this country even worth fighting for anymore?”

I get where you’re coming from here dawrestla. i think the cold bitter reality that the president thought he was tip toeing around and baby stepping us into is now a nightmare reality. Most all of the Arab world has shown solidarity against the west and our ideals. they declared war on us Sept. 11 and they’ve shown no remorse or mercy in there ruthlessness at killing us or destroying people in peaceful settings. It’s a war that unfortunately may need to get worse before it gets better.

they declared war on us Sept. 11

And another thing.  I can’t stand when lefties say 9/11 was a “tragedy”.  No GODDAMNIT it was an ACT OF WAR! 

The GWoT is like the Cold War.  There was the Chinese, Norks, NVA and Viet Cong, etc.  Different enemies, but they were all Communists. We approached each differently, but the overall goal is the same.  The President has the overall idea right (or at least he did up until 2005, he sure hasn’t acted like it since (I read a lot of Dailypundit)), but I can buy the idea that he’s not properly implementing the “Big Idea” on a micro-level.

I wish he would, b/c as far as I’m concerned, this war started in 1979 in Iran.  At least Carter, Reagan, and Bush 41 can use the Cold War as an excuse to ignore all the Islamofascist attacks, but Clinton and Bush 43 (pre-9/11) had no such excuse.

Lee, I’m really glad you kept blogging, cause at least this gave me an outlet.  My goodness, I leave for Boot next Friday and the thought of fighting for these Dumbasses scares me.  Too bad I didn’t realize it before I signed the contract.

You will be risking your life for fucking dumbasses like this.Is this country even worth fighting for anymore?”

I think you have got this upside down. The woman in this case is what you are defending - her right to disagree with you, and to say what she believes - is worth defending. What is not worth defending is this incompetent, corrupt and unethical administration.

Haliburton!

It should never have happened. How this bunch of bandits were ever offered a contract in the first place is beyond me, but that they were able to secure it no-bids, and rip off American taxpayers should make you all froth at the mouth. It goes against everything this website is supposed to stand for.

War for Oil!

Didn’t Australia’s defense minister pretty much say the same this week? I remember the Polish premier also saying that Poland was there for the oil too. Right from the get go, when the oil ministry was protected (and not civilian infrastructure), to the privatization of much of the Iraqi oil industry - that’s what this has been about. It’s about energy security. There are enough people on both sides saying this for it to be a reasonable proposition - hardly the stuff of radicals any more.

I will most certainly be in Iraq by the end of next Summer,

Is that your only choice? Going to war in support of an incompetent administration who don’t know one end of a tank from the other? The war was bad policy from the beginning, and the ONLY answer has been to throw more and more resources at it. And for what? Has it actually made anyone safer? Are the Iraqis any better off? How much has it cost? What is the exit strategy?

You are a member of the armed forces, so asking questions and holding your polliticians accountable for poor policy is pretty important - particularly if it’s a policy that may cost you your life. I don’t care whether you agree with me or not. The woman you met IS what is important.

Yeah, dawrestla. you’re defending our right to call stogy a douchebag, ball slop eating grub.

Pardon my ignorance, but I thought acts of war were declared by governments. Bin Laden and his fellow scumbags are a group. They operate under no national banner, although some governments obviously are helping them. There were plenty of terrorist attacks against Americans long before 9-11; the main difference here was the sheer size and scale of the attack and the psychological impact it made.

Our reaction to 9-11 was understandably highly emotional; we all wanted to get these fuckers. But we lost Binny in Tora Bora and haven’t seen him since. Bush then decided that he needed to invade Iraq. Now we see Al Qaeda having regrouped and Binny, if he’s not a pap smear somewhere, is laughing his ass off as we muddle through in Iraq and Bush destroys the sense of unity and purpose we had after 9-11.

As far as the analogy to the Cold War goes, it is similar in the sense that Russia and China couldn’t stand each other (and we knew how to take advantage of that). But you could reason with the Russians and the Chinese because they were rationalists who could at least be counted on to reign in their client states. The unpredictability of the various factions in the terror world means you can’t treat them as a monolith. We should be getting greater cooperation from our allies in this regard but Bush sees it as his duty, and his alone, to be the world’s Fearless Leader. Everyone else who should be on our side is treated as though they were just along for the ride.

Bush has done the impossible (or, as he might say, “Unpossible.") He has managed to combine the worst elements of Carter and Nixon and combine them into a new, weird hybrid being called The Decider.

P.S. I would have added LBJ into that mix, but he at least was willing to admit that he was getting killed over his war.

And another thing.  I can’t stand when lefties say 9/11 was a “tragedy”.  No GODDAMNIT it was an ACT OF WAR! 

It was as much an act of war as the olympic bombing was an act of war by christians on America or McVeigh as libertarians declaring war on America or IRA bombs as America declaring war on Britain etc.

It was as much an act of war as the olympic bombing was an act of war by christians on America or McVeigh as libertarians declaring war on America or IRA bombs as America declaring war on Britain etc.

Except for, you know, the 3000+ dead Americans.  Not to mention a fourth plane that was headed for the Capitol, or the fact that it was AQ’s aim to damage deal a crippling blow to the U.S. economy (they tried in 93).  Yeah, no difference.  Geezus, this is the “dumbassery” I’m talking about.

Pardon my ignorance, but I thought acts of war were declared by governments. Bin Laden and his fellow scumbags are a group.

Yes, and that scumbag group has declared war on us.  After all the shit they put us through in the 90’s, and on 9/11, why shouldn’t we declare war back?

t should never have happened. How this bunch of bandits were ever offered a contract in the first place is beyond me, but that they were able to secure it no-bids, and rip off American taxpayers should make you all froth at the mouth. It goes against everything this website is supposed to stand for.

I dont’ know enough about the no-bid policy to comment on it.  I don’t think it’s a policy unique to this conflict, though.  I could be wrong.  Also, the whole world wanted Saddam gone, the U.S., Britain, Australia, Poland, and Denmark had the balls to finally do something about.  On that basis alone I have no problem with only companies of those countries getting contracts to do construction work.  But obviously if the giving of contracts is done in an illegal or immoral way, that’s still wrong (and I’m not saying they were or weren’t).

Didn’t Australia’s defense minister pretty much say the same this week? I remember the Polish premier also saying that Poland was there for the oil too. Right from the get go, when the oil ministry was protected (and not civilian infrastructure), to the privatization of much of the Iraqi oil industry - that’s what this has been about. It’s about energy security. There are enough people on both sides saying this for it to be a reasonable proposition - hardly the stuff of radicals any more.

Oh, I have no doubts that oil security was a factor to go to war.  My problem is fucking liberal dumbasses that believe that this is the ONLY fucking reason we went there.  No, we went there primarily for the reason I gave above (1:00 pm post).  Were there other reasons given?  Yes, democracy and some others.  But were there other reasons still? Like oil security, or permanent bases in the ME to extend American power in the region to strike out at other terrorist supporting states like Iran? I don’t doubt it.  If you want to look at a war that was pretty much all about oil, look to the first Gulf War.  Sorry pal, this one isn’t.

Is that your only choice? Going to war in support of an incompetent administration who don’t know one end of a tank from the other? The war was bad policy from the beginning, and the ONLY answer has been to throw more and more resources at it. And for what? Has it actually made anyone safer? Are the Iraqis any better off? How much has it cost? What is the exit strategy?

Well, I actually have no choice (besides actually volunteering).  But that’s ok, because I want to go. I believe in the mission, I want to help the Iraqi’s who’ve cast their lot with us, and quite frankly I want to kill some AQ motherfuckers.  I am not saying there was any substantial AQ presence before the war, but they are there now, and they are evil bastards.

For the record, I’m very unhappy with this president’s leadership in the GWoT for the last 30 or so months.  I thought the leadership was fantastic during the first term.  The man was a fucking Reagan, Churchill, and FDR all rolled into one.  Now the bastard has devolved into fucking LBJ and Carter.  We’re both dissatisfied with this President, but I can assure you the reasons are 180 degrees apart.

You are a member of the armed forces, so asking questions and holding your politicians accountable for poor policy is pretty important - particularly if it’s a policy that may cost you your life. I don’t care whether you agree with me or not. The woman you met IS what is important.

Yes, I understand this is true.  And it IS important to me.  However, it’s just sometimes fucking depressing to think that you CAN NOT get through to people.  But I don’t expect anyone to really understand how I felt without having been there.

Sorry for all the typos.

Posted by dawrestla on 07/12/07 at 05:41 PM from United States

Pardon my ignorance, but I thought acts of war were declared by governments. Bin Laden and his fellow scumbags are a group.

Yes, and that scumbag group has declared war on us.  After all the shit they put us through in the 90’s, and on 9/11, why shouldn’t we declare war back?

What does declaring war on Al-Queda have to do with Iraq?

Posted by dawrestla on 07/12/07 at 12:08 PM from United States

Lee,

Can you or someone else please tell me where the President has said that Sadam’s Iraq was involved with 9/11?  I ask out of a genuine desire to know - I’m not trying to mock or put you in a hotspot.  This idea - of the administration saying Iraq was involved in 9/11 - is as best I can tell a liberal strawman.  Not once have I ever heard this come from the mouth of anyone in the administration (with the exception of the editing tricks during the Condi Rice interview at the end of F9/11). In fact, I just watched a youtube video where the President specifically denied that Iraq was involved.  This really irks me because I got in an argument with someone over the weekend about this.

So, if someone can point me to where the connection was made, I’m all ears.  At this point, from everything I’ve looked it, this is nothing but a liberal strawman.

Here’s a few links… After reading them, I expect you to take back the entire bullshit post above:

Cheney Link of 9/11 to Iraq Challenged

One paragraph from that link: But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning “more and more” about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.

Cheney Lectures Russert on 9/11 Iraq Link

A paragraph from that link: After telling a national radio audience last week that there was no connection between the World Trade Center attacks and Saddam Hussein, “Meet the Press” host Tim Russert got an earful on Sunday from Vice President Dick Cheney, who outlined a mountain of evidence tying Iraq to the 9/11 catastrophe.

The Impact of Bush Linking 9/11 and Iraq

Bush Again Links 9/11 to Iraq

Is that enough, or do you want to me to embarrass you further?

Thanks for the links, Gadman.  That was what I was saying earlier.  Nobody in the administration ever directly came out and said explicitly “Saddam planned 9/11.” They did, however, insinuate it, and they often used Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence, which will subconsciously tie the two together in people’s minds.  Like I said, the fact that so many people still think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 is, I think, evidence that this strategy worked.

Fuck that. Cheney flat out said it.  And people on the right still deny it.

Ah, but he didn’t flat out say it.  Cheney may be a lot of things but stupid is not one of them.  He insinuated it in the strongest terms, he implied links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and between Saddam and OBL.  But he never directly said “Saddam planned 9/11.”

I’m not disagreeing with you.  He sure as hell was trying to get that point across, and he was wildly succcessful at doing so.  But he wasn’t stupid enough to come out and directly say “Saddam planned 9/11.”

Right… But he said, and I quote…

In Sept, 2003:  “If we are successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good, representative government in Iraq that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.”

And…

“I have argued in the past, and would again, if we had been able to pre-empt the attacks of 9/11 would we have done it? And I think absolutely. We have to be prepared now to take the kind of bold action that’s being contemplated with respect to Iraq in order to ensure that we don’t get hit with a devastating attack when the terrorists’ organization gets married up with a rogue state that’s willing to provide it with the kinds of deadly capabilities that Saddam Hussein has developed and used over the years.”

And…

“We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of ‘01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. It has never been—we’ve never been able to collect any more information on that. That was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11.”

And…

You want more?

I think we’re talking over each other.  I’m in total agreement with you that Cheney was implying/insinuating that Iraq planned 9/11.  The only thing I am saying is that he never literally, explicitly, or directly made the claim.  Look at the way he phrased it in your examples.

1) He can plausibly claim that he was speaking of terrorists in a general term, and that he was speaking of the 9/11 terrorists as a subset of this group.  “If we can get rid of this crackhouse we will have removed from our neighborhood a den of criminals, criminals who raped Mrs. Smith last month.” You can use the word criminals to mean the larger set of lawbreakers, or the subset of individuals who committed a specific act.  Cheney did EXACTLY the same thing.  He clearly implied it, but he never actually *said* it.

2) The quote is phrased as a hypothetical.  Again, it’s obvious what he was doing but, by phrasing it as a hypothetical, he never specifically makes any claims.

3) “That was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11.” Note the use of the word possibly.  That’s not there by accident.

Like I said, Cheney’s not stupid.  He’s not dumb enough to go on the record explicitly claiming that Saddam was behind 9/11.  He is, however, smart enough to say it countless times without ever actually saying it, to the point that a good chunk of America STILL believes it.

Except for, you know, the 3000+ dead Americans.  Not to mention a fourth plane that was headed for the Capitol, or the fact that it was AQ’s aim to damage deal a crippling blow to the U.S. economy (they tried in 93).  Yeah, no difference.  Geezus, this is the “dumbassery” I’m talking about.

I don’t see how the number of people killed makes any difference in relation to whom it was that attacked. Had McVeigh blown up 15 buildings, it would still not have been the start of a global war on libertarians.

But then, even declaring was on a specific terrorist group would have been better than declaring war on a tactic.

Well, I flat out know lefties that say the Administration has made the connection.  This goes back to the argument I had this weekend.  I asked this particular leftie WHERE did the President say this?

I feel, like I might be re-treading old ground here - but you have to realise that these speeches are written, rewritten, and re-written again by the best communicators the world has to offer in order to get across exactly the right message.

Do you think that mentioning 9/11 and Iraq in the same context was an accident?

Nuance seems to escape Bush.

Nuance was openly mocked by Republicans during the 2004 elections. So was treating terrorism like a police matter to hopefully reduce it to a uncommon nuissance level. Both were bang on.

I dont’ know enough about the no-bid policy to comment on it.  I don’t think it’s a policy unique to this conflict, though.  I could be wrong.  Also, the whole world wanted Saddam gone, the U.S., Britain, Australia, Poland, and Denmark had the balls to finally do something about.  On that basis alone I have no problem with only companies of those countries getting contracts to do construction work.  But obviously if the giving of contracts is done in an illegal or immoral way, that’s still wrong (and I’m not saying they were or weren’t).

I have been thinking about this today, and I did want to add that I in no way think that Halliburton are evil - in fact, they are simply using a bad system to their own advantage. It’s not Halli that sucks, but the system that allows them to screw as much money as they can out of taxpayers.

We’re both dissatisfied with this President, but I can assure you the reasons are 180 degrees apart.

I’m OK with that. But just remember - you may well be killing Al Qaeda members who have joined up simply because their family members were killed in an earlier bombing run. Then their cousins, aunts, sons, daughters will also find it necessary to join up. It doesn’t end.

My morning paper today said that according to a top US spy, Al Qaeda is now at pre 9.11 strength. Talk about taking your eye off the ball. Strong police/military action against militants, coupled with some nice carrots aimed at the poor may have done a lot more than the current policies ever will. And cost a tenth of what has been wasted in Iraw.

And not put you in harm’s way.

If I remember correctly, one of the main arguements for not just bombing Saddam or other targeted military strike to just take him out was that it could throw the country into chaos, or would at least be unpredictable. Good thing that didn’t happen, eh? I think I read somewhere recently (might have been on here) that for the cost of the war to-date, the US could have given every Iraqi about $19,000.

GADMAN:  You most certainly did not embarass me with your links. But I do appreciate you providing them.  Simply saying the administration implied there is a connection is simply not good enough.  There is nothing wrong with mentioning 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence - for the reasons I gave in my original post.  That said, the first two articles you linked clearly show Cheney is either mistaken or lieing about some points.  The second two articles are simply more of the same - “implying”.  Also, the first two quotes you provide in your 11:05 pm post make my point for me (the point in my original post).  The third quote is what I was referring to when I said Cheney was either mistaken or lieing.

Padders:  The McVeigh simile isn’t entirely appropriate.  For one, McVeigh was by himself (well, him and the other guy) and wasn’t trained by a large terrorist network bent on establishing a global caliphate that was given safe haven by the Taliban.  Also, I agree that calling it the GWoTerror is silly.  It should be called what is really is - a Global War on Islamofascism.  I used to think that the administration knew this, but was just saying the “Religion of Peace” meme for diplomatic reasons, meanwhile giving the American people a “nudge, nudge, wink, wink - we know who the bad guys really are”.  Unfortunately, I now think he really belives the “Religion of Peace” crap and wouldn’t dare call this war what is really is.  This is one of the reasons I’m incredibly upset with him.

britishcress: NO, I do not think mentioning 9/11 and Iraq in the same context is an accident.  Please see my original post.  I still maintain it would have been irresponsible to not invade Iraq after 9/11 - knowing full well that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

So was treating terrorism like a police matter to hopefully reduce it to a uncommon nuissance level. Both were bang on.

Bullshit.  What if that was a family member of yours that died in one of these “nuissance” attacks.  You know, there was still plenty of terrorism against the United States both inside and outside of the country (mostly outside).  It’s about time we started doing something about it.

I’m OK with that. But just remember - you may well be killing Al Qaeda members who have joined up simply because their family members were killed in an earlier bombing run. Then their cousins, aunts, sons, daughters will also find it necessary to join up. It doesn’t end.

It can and will end when we’ve destroyed those regimes that support Islamofascist terror.  These include Taliban Afghanistan and Saddam’s Iraq.  We’re barely holding on to those two.  It will be over when the current gov’ts of Iran, Syria, and finally Saudia Arabia are gone.  And I much prefer this method than simply policing it to a “nuissance” as we slowly descend into an Orwellian Security State.  Fuck that shit, I value my liberty.

My morning paper today said that according to a top US spy, Al Qaeda is now at pre 9.11 strength.

I know that’s what the headlines are saying, but I’m pretty damn positive the report itself ACTUALLY says that AQ is at it’s strongest level SINCE 9/11.  There is a big difference.

Again, sorry for some typos, I’m in a rush.  But thanks for everyone’s input.

It can and will end when we’ve destroyed those regimes that support Islamofascist terror.  These include Taliban Afghanistan and Saddam’s Iraq.  We’re barely holding on to those two.  It will be over when the current gov’ts of Iran, Syria, and finally Saudia Arabia are gone.  And I much prefer this method than simply policing it to a “nuissance” as we slowly descend into an Orwellian Security State.  Fuck that shit, I value my liberty.

Haha, as if changing the regieme is going to get rid of the terroists; we have already seen how well that worked in Iraq.

I know that’s what the headlines are saying, but I’m pretty damn positive the report itself ACTUALLY says that AQ is at it’s strongest level SINCE 9/11.  There is a big difference.

What’s the difference, the 20 guys on the planes?

OK. I have the report here. It says:

Al Qaeda has used its safe haven...to restore its operating capabilities to a level unseen since the months before Sept. 11, 2001.

The policies have failed. It’s time for something else.

I know that’s what the headlines are saying, but I’m pretty damn positive the report itself ACTUALLY says that AQ is at it’s strongest level SINCE 9/11.  There is a big difference.

Well, if padders dismisses terror for being a small percentage of attacks that should be only policed this development should hardly scare anyone. We lived through a World Trade Center bombing and USS Cole bombing before AQ even entered the public conscience, so being aware of AQ at 9/11 strenght and acknowleding thier presence should be enough to thwart them. It should be any kind of scary development.

The policies have failed. It’s time for something else.

Which policies would those be? As far as I can understand there hasn’t been a terror attack on US soil since 9/11. I’d say that’s successful. Not to nitpick but our terror policy was designed to keep America from being attacked. The foriegn policy is something else entirely.

Not to nitpick but our terror policy was designed to keep America from being attacked.

The only problem with this whole theory of yours is that its not the terror policy that’s made America safe - it’s law enforcement, using good old tried and tested techniques. The whole argument that “we are fighting them over there so they don’t attack us over here” is a complete furphy. It rests on the completely utterly stupid supposition that the same people who are there are therefore not here.

Which policies would those be?

Policies which put human rights and dignity first. Start by making sure everyone has access to clean water.

It rests on the completely utterly stupid supposition that the same people who are there are therefore not here.

Actually, now that I read that again, it sounds like a completely reasonable supposition, but you know what I mean. :p

The only problem with this whole theory of yours is that its not the terror policy that’s made America safe - it’s law enforcement, using good old tried and tested techniques. The whole argument that “we are fighting them over there so they don’t attack us over here” is a complete furphy. It rests on the completely utterly stupid supposition that the same people who are there are therefore not here.

Stogy, many plots and tactics/places to look for terrorists came from intelligence recieved from Iraq, Afghanistan and continuing relationships with Mossad and Egypt. I’m sorry but it wasn’t from clever beat cops.

Policies which put human rights and dignity first. Start by making sure everyone has access to clean water.

Oh, please. Stop the insurgency and Al Quaeda in Iraq and water would flow. Do your suggestion first and they will simply bomb it back out of commission.

Haha, as if changing the regieme is going to get rid of the terroists; we have already seen how well that worked in Iraq.

You conveniently left out Afghanistan. Besides, I already stated we’re barely holding onto both.  But the GWoT is certianly winnable, but I honestly think it will be longer than the Cold War.

You know, I’d also like to add that if there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, the President wouldn’t have needed another ATUMF.

Well, if padders dismisses terror for being a small percentage of attacks that should be only policed this development should hardly scare anyone. We lived through a World Trade Center bombing and USS Cole bombing before AQ even entered the public conscience, so being aware of AQ at 9/11 strenght and acknowleding thier presence should be enough to thwart them. It should be any kind of scary development.

I don’t think we should use police tactics to combat terrorism because the attacks are a small percentage (not sure what you mean by that though, I have only said we need to put things in perspective); the reason we should use police tactics to combat terrorism is because it works. Launching wars does not.

The only problem with this whole theory of yours is that its not the terror policy that’s made America safe - it’s law enforcement, using good old tried and tested techniques. The whole argument that “we are fighting them over there so they don’t attack us over here” is a complete furphy. It rests on the completely utterly stupid supposition that the same people who are there are therefore not here.

It also requires you to stay there forever, in a continued state of war for that to work. Of course this argument was made when the idea of permanent bases was pretty much the aim; cos that worked so well in Saudi Arabia.

You conveniently left out Afghanistan. Besides, I already stated we’re barely holding onto both.  But the GWoT is certianly winnable, but I honestly think it will be longer than the Cold War.

Afghanistan is only barely functioning and there are still continued attacks going on. Afghanistan may work out, but that still istn’t looking likely at the moment; not to mention that the Afghan-Pakistani border is completltly lawless and a great hiding place for terrorists.

Afghanistan is only barely functioning and there are still continued attacks going on. Afghanistan may work out, but that still istn’t looking likely at the moment; not to mention that the Afghan-Pakistani border is completltly lawless and a great hiding place for terrorists.

We’re in complete agreement here.