Sound outrageous? Follow this. Another psychopath blew himself up in a Tel Aviv market today and killed at least three people and wounded dozens (four seriously). The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is claiming responsibility. Now as readers of this blog will recall, the PFLP is the group that Saddam appears to have financed via the UN Oil-for-Food Program.
It’s not surprising the article I linked above from The Scotsman has not gotten more play by our mainstream media. It does not fit with their narrative that Saddam had little to do with outside terror groups. Otherwise the justification for the war would be clear. In this case it’s Saddam covertly working through the United Nations. What could be more criminal than that?
Look, Saddam’s connection to Palestinian terrorism was overt and well-known. (As is Iran’s and Saudi Arabia’s.) Maybe that should have been cause to remove him in and of itself, but the war wasn’t fought over that. It was fought over WMD and links to terrorist threats to the US — none of which existed to any meaningful extent.
Grasping at straws like this only underscores how weak the original case actually turned out to be.
Speak for yourself, Otter. The war is big, it’s on many fronts, and it’s about stopping the destruction of civilization. Narrow it down all you want, but you’re just playing around with words. Nice position, though. You get all the benefits, and none of the responsibilities.
Otter ó “But… but… he wasn’t blowing anybody up here in America!”
That’s the multilateral sentiment that will make this country great again….
“It was fought over WMD and links to terrorist threats to the US — none of which existed to any meaningful extent.”
Except for the 1993 attack on the WTC. The bombers for that had passports from Saddam’s Iraq, and one of them escaped to Iraq to live on Saddam’s payroll.
As for WMD — ask the Kurds.
otter:
Saddam was placed on the list of nations that sponsor terrorism long before Bush left Texas. It is revisionist history now to qualify that and say well if they just kill Jews……
Of course he was overt about his support of terrorists who kill Israelis. That’s just another reason the UN was against his removal.
Otter is parroting the sad belief of the Left that this war is just retaliation for Sept. 11. Once OBL is caught it’s over.
Sorry Otter, it won’t be over. It won’t be over for decades. It’s a war against an ideology as deadly as communism. Bush and his cabinet have been saying this all along.
Maybe Otter would understand it if Bill Clinton told him.
And that, Kynna, begs a mighty imoportant question. Why WON’T Bill Clinton tell him? Because his mind is unable to see humanity as something not contained within “Bill Clinton”. It’s a friggin’ mental illness, and it’s the party’s password.
I would be angry and frustrated too, if I had to defend a guy like George Bush. It must be rather difficult, what with half of this country and most of the rest of the world disagreeing with you. And all because of the Liberal media.
Certainly, there is evidence that Saddam supported terrorists. But the “see, I told you so” mentality is pretty weak at this point. Don’t be affraid to call this war in Iraq for what it really is- not what you think I think it is, but what it really is all about. I would probably be on the wagon, too, if I hadn’t been fed so much B.S. from this administration, but once you lose faith in your leader, it is easy to find fault. I only wish Bush had made clear his strategy from the beginning. I doubt we would have any more support from the rest of the world (perhaps less, and this is why), but he might have a lot more support from the people of this country.
Why do you think so many want to see Bush fail, on an issue that is so important to the entire world? Perhaps it is not that we want him to. Maybe he is failing.
I know that very few realize the true success of this campaign, but why is it so easy to dismiss his faults, or even recognize that there have been mistakes.
Even if you think the world is a better place with a U.S. military base, some shabby semblance of democracy to support it, a 7-11, and a Blockbuster video store on every corner, across the globe, you might be able to recognize that this man has so little support that he is not going to be able to get the job done.
Just as with the media, the belief in the importance of their mission will not transcend failures in ideology or achievement, and they both should be held accountable.
The people will make sure of this in both instances.
Saddam’s financing of Palestinaian suicide bombers was well covered by the mainstream media and was common knowledge. It’s one of the reasons I always hated him.
Otter
Perhaps you don’t know the history of the US and Iraq or conveniently choose to overlook those parts that don’t fit your paradigm. In 1998, Bill Clinton made it official US policy to remove Saddam by signing the Iraq Liberation Act. Incidently the act had been earlier approved by a unanimous vote in the Senate. Kerry, Aye.
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/01/981101-in.htm.
Nearly five years later GWB rushed into war!
Roger;
Notice how quickly the thread has skipped to the WMD argument and away from the intentional barbaric blowing up of non-combatants without a military target to justify colateral victims. The left has become so blase about the Palestinian tactic of suicide bombing that they have no resevoir of outrage left to be shocked by this evil form of war. The fact that Saddam openly supported this form of terrorism is now offered up as a reason why were wrong to oust this piece of human filth.We shouild have known that when democrats vote for regime change they are just voting for the idea of it, not actually doing what they say they want to. We should have known that when the UN says that there would be terrible consequences to not FULLY cooperating with the inspection regime there would be no negative consequences. In UN speak this means another in a series of resolutions that Saddam was using as toilet paper. We even get the old communist propaganda that this war is for corporate expansion,that it has nothing to do with self defense and spreading democracy. Roger, I should have known you are a fraud and just a lackey for Blockbuster and 7-11 and that your praise for the fledling democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq were just press releases from the Southland Corporation. No doubt they know that slurpies will sell in that desert community and that they will kill as many people as they need to to get those sales.
I’m so confused, Otter. I thought the current line was that I was supposed to be shocked that Bush let tons of explosives that could be used as nuclear triggers disappear from an Iraqi weapons depot.
And mbro:
The only difference between you and the British colonialists who talked about the “White Man’s Burden” is your attitude seems to be “screw the buggers; when I go trekking in the bush, I want the authentic experience.”
Kevin P-
You obviously read my post and I must say, you have done a very nice job of missing the point entirely. Calling me a communist and suggesting that I have no idea what we’re doing over there are nice touches, not to be outdone by your praise of this aministration’s success. You, sir, are a shining example of the kind of people we need running our country.
Hey, Kevin! Bipartsan support! Now’s the time to throw your hat in the ring!
Mbro;
I don’t know you so I did not call you anything.But when I see the cliche ridden rhetoric of a failed idea I recognize it’s origin and I give it the respect that I feel it deserves. Just my opinion. For all I know you could be right wing isolationist but the tired idea that all US foreign policy is driven by the evil corporate interests that suck the life out of the proletariat was crap when the left used it against Roosevelt and Churchill(of course they changed their tune after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union)and I think it is crap now. I also remember that in Germany we used our bases to “force” democracy down the Germans throats and then used those nasty bases to keep W
est Germany from the same fate that East Germany suffered. And yes our corporations were there to. I think things turned out all right.Ditto for Japan. And even though it took longer and wasn’t as smooth it worked in South Korea too. The UN talks about human rights but in reality enforces the status quo.Previous Republican and Democratic administrations have ignored the non-democratic governments of the middle east as long as our oil supplies were guaranteed. President Bush was going to continue that policy but after 9-11 he knew that to continue that bi-partisan mistake was folly. The fledling Democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan are fragile but tell me how long it would have taken the UN,the EU, or any other international group to achieve what Bush has done in 3 years. The UN that Kerry wants to rely on was trying to maintain the status qou and while they were at it stole 10 to 20 billion from the Iraqi people. Other then South Africa tell me how many dictatorships have the UN converted into democracies. They were going to leave Saddam in power and any group that can’t list suicide bombings in cafe’s and hospitals as acts of terror has serious failings and is not a group I would rely on.
Kevin-
Right. If I wanted to make reference to what many believe is a corporate interest in the middle east, I would have mentioned something like oil, or Haliburton. I know enough not to go there with this group (nor do I actually believe that this is why we are there). My mention of 7-11 and Blockbuster was more of a failed attempt at a sarcastic, anecdotal reference to our wish to form the rest of the world in our likeness.
I think your are right when it comes to what the rest of the world would have done.
My opinion on this whole Iraq war issue is rather simple. I think it needed to be done. I don’t think Bush handled it very well, and consequently, I don’t think he has enough support to turn this into a success, regardless of the actual outcome.
He was dealt a rather loaded hand and he played it wrong. I’m not falling for the tired rhetoric that many Kerry supporters would have us believe that this mission was supposed to be easy, and now we’ve messed it up and so now it’s hard. Everyone in this administration new it would be decades before this project’s success comes to be fully realized. And to this, it makes no sense to me why they would approach it the way they did.
I do not believe that diplomacy and sanctions alone would have solved any real problems. I do, however, feel that this administrations seeming inability to be diplomatic, especially in light of so much support after 9/11 can be construed as a failure.
I am aware that too many of our “allies” had interest in not invading Iraq to just drop everything and start slinging bombs, but part of the President’s job should have been to realign these leaders. Apparently this administration did not feel we had the time or the ability for that sort of diplomacy. I never bought into the urgency of invading Iraq. And if Bush lacks this sort of ability, I don’t want him as my President. I don’t know that Kerry will be able to do anything more at this point, but this issue is obviously going nowhere with Bush as our President.
I simply think the execution was botched. But now we are under way, and I don’t think Kerry is going to erase or even reverse the progress we have made.
Based on what most people are seeing in Iraq (whether or not it is the whole picture) Bush has raised some credibility issues and anti-American sentiment that is not good for this country. The facts are not to be disputed (although they seem to be, on a regular basis these days). That does not mean they will be reported, in their entirety, which has lead to a very serious perception problem in this country and abroad. Perception is not to be discounted, it can, however be changed. I just don’t think Bush has proven himself very capable of changing peoples minds.
Mbro:
Has President Bush been perfect in how he handled the war? Of course not. The problem with trying to plot your strategy to curry approval from the world community is that sometimes the world community does not want the right thing. A perfect example was the first war against Saddam.The first president Bush was able to get the UN and even Arab countries to sign up for the war. But part of the bargain to get them to sign on was to agree not to follow Saddam’s troops back into Iraq. To be honest I thought this was the best way to go and when some bashed Bush 1 for not finishing the job I echoed the administrations defense that we had to keep the coalition together. Bush hoped that a home grown revolution would rise up and depose Saddam. So the “world”(America included) sat and watched as Saddam gassed his own people and began the slow torterous process of terrorizing anyone and their families who had dared to speak of change.The”world” let us set up the embargo and the no fly zones to keep Saddam’s army penned up. This policy did nothing to bring regime change and then the ‘world’ set up the oil for blood scam that was supposed to help stop the innocent victims from dying from the economic embargo. All that program did was give Saddam more money to fund his perversions and other terrorist groups. Before 9-11 the “world” was already starting the process of dropping the embargo and they were already signing deals with that pig for post embargo reconstruction. The “world” was going to leave Saddam and the Taliban in power. Sometimes the “world” is wrong and a leader has to act even if he can’t get the “world” to pitch in. The ‘world” thought Reagan was an idiot and only a fool would think that you could pressure the USSR hard enough to collapse. Most of the “world” was against him. The anti-Bush protests in europe were carbon copies of the anti-Reagan protests in the eighties, down to the giant puppets and the Hitler references.Sometimes the world is wrong.