Cheney finally admits no Iraq – 9/11 link
Six years after the invasion of Iraq, Dick Cheney has finally admitted there was no link between the people that attacked us on 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. Meaning of course, that thousands of patriotic young men and women rushed to stave off the horrible threat of an Iraq/Al Queda alliance that never actually existed. Cheney still isn’t taking any responsibility for this “mistake”, oh no – it was all bad intel from the CIA of course – mainly George Tenet, though more information seems to point to the Bush team *ignoring* the agency’s information than actually using it. It became pretty clear to everyone as early as 2004 after the extensive investigation by the 9/11 Commission that there wasn’t really any link to Iraq, and that they didn’t have any WMDs. Even before then, people were realizing that Dick and others in PNAC had planned an invasion of Iraq for years and that 9/11 provided the perfect excuse. The actual perpetrators of 9/11, a small rag-tag gang of dirt bags in the hills near Pakistan could wait – Americans were pissed off and it was time to trick them into doing exactly what old Dick wanted to do. This is just guesswork, but I think the Bush/Cheney team concocted a story to draw a false link between that gang and our old favorite villain Saddam, then have their legal staff write up some opinions that would get them off the hook for torturing some of the dirt bags they caught in order to get them to confess such a link did exist. Trouble is, the torture method didn’t work very well – perhaps because after the first 100 simulated drownings the hapless victims figured out they weren’t going to actually be killed? In any case – Dick has been on the news a lot lately. Probably a lot more than someone who flunked out of Yale and dodged the draft should be if the topic is strategic military analysis, anyway.
Comment posted on 6-2-2009
It is highly unusual for a former President of Vice to travel the media circuit. Cheney’s main thrust is that our “questionable” tactics worked to save lives. I see this as an entirely moot point, as what is on the table is whether the tactics were up to our enlightened standards, not if water boarding someone daily “worked”. Hitler worked wonderfully if you want to kill Jews.
Obama stands at a weird precipice. Does he allow the Bush/Cheney/Sith to fade into the background or does he expose them for their truly un-American sins?
I say, pull out of Iraq over the next few years and then nail Cheney to a wall so this doesn’t happen again any time soon. This whole “but it worked” reasoning sounds so very fundamentalist “North Korean” for my American tastes.
EVERYTHING should come out. It’ll be horrible and more genuine than our cuntry has been in a while.
Comment posted on 6-4-2009
It was certainly unusual before the former President of Vice Al Gore made it fashionable. There are no longer true statesmen, only spoiled brats on both sides of the aisle who have lost the ability to negotiate and compromise for the greater good.
Comment posted on 6-4-2009
It was made clear many years ago that George Bush stole the election against Gore in Florida (with the help of his brother Jeb, and may also have done so in Ohio), and that if a true count had been performed – Gore would have won in Florida by over 45,000 votes. So, in a sense when Gore first began speaking out against the rampant abuses of power (and now we understand them to be far more nefarious than we ever expected) in Sept. 2002 (almost two years after the election)…we were actually hearing from the person who should, of rights, been the sitting president but for the criminal behaviors we now understand were the hallmark of this past, disgraceful administration.
Comment posted on 6-4-2009
Gore was vocal about global warming, not about defending his administration. It’s different.
Comment posted on 6-4-2009
He was was a vocal opponent of the expansion of executive powers (on constitutional grounds) and other Bush/Cheney abuses during the run-up to the War in Iraq. He was one of the few voices of reason at the time. Speaking up was politically dangerous to him (even though it seemed he had gotten out of politics), and he should be recognized for it.
Comment posted on 6-4-2009
Oh… you say it was . I don’t know if I see it was different. So you are saying a double standard exists. I say regardless of the message, either its ok for former Presidents/Vice Prez to speak in out in opposition to the sitting administration or it isn’t. Goose/Gander. I don’t/didn’t like what Gore or Clinton did to undermine Bush’s policies but they have a right to speak out just the same. Of course its political dirty pool if you ask me.
Comment posted on 6-4-2009
The Florida election LMAO…
First of all had Florida folks just followed the directions we wouldn’t have had that mess to begin with. Had the state used a single ballot type throughout the state it would have also been easier but those rules were not put in place unless you are suggesting that Jeb deliberately caused confusion throughout his state because he just knew it would be crucial or his brother’s election. For the sake of common sense lets not go down that conspiratorial road.
It is not only our duty and right to vote for elected officials but we have a responsibility to ensure that we follow the rules and make clear choices. So lets lay blame where it started, poor choice by election committees, not enough oversight by either party before hand, and approximately 180,000 people who failed to follow direction. (mechanical errors not with standing).
Every state had uncounted or improperly submitted ballots so maybe we should have had a country wide re-count. By the way, when you look at the voting by county it sure gives an interesting perspective. Also, take away California’s electoral votes and Gore doesn’t have a chance. So one state’s electoral votes are going to carry Gore and that is fair?
Don’t forget big lib JFK lost the popular vote yet one the electoral vote too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:File-2000prescountymap.PNG
Bottom line is that 9 years ago the winner was who the winner was. Anything to the contrary is as bad as these current idiots thinking that Obama isn’t a citizen.
Comment posted on 6-4-2009
No, what Cheney is doing is completely different. He is desperately trying to keep you thinking that what they did was necessary and good and not blatantly wrong and illegal. I think it is completely legitimate to speak up about policies that are clearly unconstitutional (Gore is a constitutional scholar for Pete’s sake! Bush can’t string 10 words together with any coherence and Cheney is a manipulative, lying, prick). What they did was make the US more unsafe than at any point since the cold war by imperialist aggression and fomenting religious hatred between the religious wing-nuts on either side. The vast majority of Islamic folks are peace loving and just want to live their life, same thing with the vast majority of Christians – yet to hear Bush and Cheney tell it we’re in a religous war! Bush/Cheney *created* the very thing they were claiming already existed, and now point to it as proof that what they did was right.
Comment posted on 6-4-2009
This next post I need to break it down…
“Six years after the invasion of Iraq, Dick Cheney has finally admitted there was no link between the people that attacked us on 9/11 and Saddam Hussein.”
Hillary Clinton said on the Senate floor, Iraq has harbored and sponsored terrorists, including al-Qaeda. She didn’t say that Iraq was behind 9/11, just as the Bush administration didn’t say Iraq was behind 9/11. Meet the Press on the September 8, 2002, Cheney said, “I’m not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can’t say that.”
The media blurred the lines not the administration. The Bush administration held to Iraq being involved with terrorism and a connection to Al Qaeda based on current intel until that intel, the Prague meeting, was disproved a year or two later. That happens all the time in this business, it is a hazard and makes it hard for us to put the puzzle pieces together.
“…Iraq/Al Queda alliance that never actually existed.”
How do you know? How does any of us know? It’s all hearsay and speculation. What I know for sure is that prior to the war Iraq did support terrorism by allowing training camps to be run within their borders.
“… it was all bad intel from the CIA of course – mainly George Tenet, though more information seems to point to the Bush team *ignoring* the agency’s information than actually using it.”
To make this statement you would need to really understand where intel comes from, how it is handled, interpreted, vetted, validated, analyzed, and presented to decision makers. This “bad intel” wasn’t the phone game. The information came from someone who fooled lots of people and not just the CIA or just US Intel either. Contradiction is a common occurrence with intel, nature of the business. Decision makers are usually presented with all sides of an issue in as much of an unbiased way as possible. It is up to them to make the final interpretation.
“It became pretty clear to everyone as early as 2004 after the extensive investigation by the 9/11 Commission that there wasn’t really any link to Iraq, and that they didn’t have any WMDs.”
It had always been clear to me and my colleagues that Iraq was predicated on the WMD threat and not a link to 9/11. To say that they did not have WMDs is not an accurate statement either. A case can be made that we did in fact find several stock piles of chemical weapons and we did. The debate is whether they could have been viable for an attack. As for a reconstituted Nuclear program, what we learned was that Saddam’s senior advisors provided false assurances to him based on fear and over stated their ability to stand up a Nuclear program. A similar situation was noted during the Soviet – US arms race. There was never really any contest but the Soviet leadership was never truthfully informed because of fear. Our assessments were wrong about that too yet the results were a bankrupt Soviet Union and the wall came down. More than 40 MIG fighter were found buried in the Iraqi desert…is it possible more chemical or biological weapons are out there? I don’t know.
“This is just guesswork, but I think the Bush/Cheney team concocted a story to draw a false link between that gang and our old favorite villain Saddam…”
At least you dignify this with this is just guesswork. Again I say that this link was perpetrated by the likes of Chris Matthews and other media types who were against the war for political reasons.
“…then have their legal staff write up some opinions that would get them off the hook for torturing some of the dirt bags they caught in order to get them to confess such a link did exist.”
First show me where it has been said that the 3 guys were interrogated to make a link between Iraq and 9/11. Second, those opinions were based on interpretation of the Law of Land Warfare, the Geneva and Hague Conventions, US Constitution and other sources. You and I can interpret differently, it may not mean that either is right. I disagree completely that loud music, humiliation, extreme temperature changes, or sleep deprivation should be considered torture. I’m sure we will have a deeper discussion on that.
“Trouble is, the torture method didn’t work very well”
Do you have proof of what information was produced post waterboarding? I don’t so if you have definitive information that the harsh interrogation methods did not work let me know. The FBI interrogator doesn’t count for this since it is one man’s professional opinion against another. Show me data.
“perhaps because after the first 100 simulated drownings the hapless victims figured out they weren’t going to actually be killed?”
After the treasonous release of the interrogation memos they certainly know that now.
Comment posted on 6-4-2009
So you continue to cloud the the intent of the post using your hatred for Cheney rather than sticking to the logic behind it. It is exactly that polarization that continues to divide the country, MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY…NO COMPROMISE.
There is only one way to know how “safe” the US is. We need to suffer through another attack. Until that point it is pure speculation. Imperialist aggression?? Really? What exactly are we keeping? Where are the US colonies in the Middle East? Hell we aren’t even reaping any benefits from the Oil fields yet. The American people fomented that religious hatred all by themselves, the administration has always spoken out against only the most radical extreme factions of Islam which are responsible for the terror attacks. One priest molests an altar boy and all of Catholicism is slammed on the tonight show~ welcome to the world. Neither Bush nor Cheney EVER mentioned or even alluded to us being in a religious war (with the exception of knuckleheads “Crusade” remark, but i agree that he was not a smart ad libber.)
Comment posted on 6-4-2009
Unfortunately you make so many (good?) points that it gets difficult to respond to all of them and go to work in the morning too. Maybe I’ll have to take off tomorrow
Terrorist training camps in Iraq? Yes, I believe there was evidence of this. What of it? Were they related to Osama’s merry band? HELL NO. Saddam hated Osama’s brand of craziness and wouldn’t ever have allowed any of his boys inside his borders much less collaborated with them. Lots of folks knew that any linkage between Iraq and Osama was very unlikely before the war got HIJACKED by Cheney, et al. but Rove knew that if they repeated a thing often enough, folks would believe it. Was Saddam a real threat? We had no-fly zones established over his north and south borders, his people were starving under sanctions (though he and his buddies were doing OK) and we hadn’t finished the job in Afghanistan. The whole world was behind us, our coalition was strong. We had the moral high ground and sympathy for the 9/11 attacks had brought even muslim nations to our aid. Everyone wanted the American cowboys to go in and get the criminals that had masterminded the plot – even if it meant invading Afghanistan, even if it meant going up in the mountains, yes – we might have even been able to move into Pakistan to get him.
But GREED and personal vendetta led them to seek excuses to shift the focus to Iraq at the expense of American lives, American prosperity, and global sympathy for our cause. There are plenty of other petty dictators around the globe who wish the US ill, shall we invade them all? Or just the ones with vast oil reserves? That certainly leave Venezuela and Iran on the table, doesn’t it? These things were obvious to me then, and remain so. I was certainly not the only one who recognized it, either. Even Bush eventually realized he had been duped by the Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld cabal and (too late) started changing course. If he had only listened to his dad who had the foresight in 1991 to not invade Iraq even though we had the mandate to do so at the time.
It has already been revealed that Cheney basically took control of the flow of information coming from the various intel sources and limited what the president saw as options. This is partly Bush’s fault because he was too lazy to get into all the details, and abdicated a lot of his job. Your idealistic view of all intel and options being presented to the decision maker is, unfortunately in this case, a fantasy.
Give me a break – I don’t watch Chris Mathews or any of those idiots on TV – in fact I don’t watch TV. But the link between Iraq and Osama was obviously made up by someone who wanted to invade Iraq and the whole crop of ex Bush 1 folks who found themselves on the inside again with Bush 2 were on record as believing that invasion was a US destiny. Coincidence? THERE WAS NO LINK.
More and more evidence is emerging that Cheney personally ordered torture of Gitmo detainees and enemy combatants held in Egypt under US order for the express purpose of determining a link between Iraq and 9/11. Torture WORKS if you just want to make someone say something you want to hear. Torture does NOT WORK to make people reveal knowledge they don’t have. People WILL lie and make up things under torture to make it stop. These facts make torture almost useless as a real intel gathering tool. If you don’t think the techniques used constitute torture, please ask Senator McCain what he thinks about it. The article is a biased right wing account wherein he reveals information under torture – but leaves out the bit where he also admitted to things he didn’t do. The point here is that he “broke” under very similar techniques to those used under Bush/Cheney. If you think these techniques are acceptable, then lobby to change the law – but until then, their use was not legal and the manipulation of the legal department to make them appear so should also be considered a criminal act.
A murderer is stalking NYC and you are a detective on the case. You haul in a bunch of suspects. Is it OK to use these techniques on them? Why or why not? They aren’t torture in your book, but only one (if any) of them is the actual criminal so you know you’ll be using the techniques on innocent men as well. Is it only OK if the men are muslim? Is it only OK if you caught the men in another country?
I subscribe to the notion that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. We are a nation of laws, and no one – not the president, not a member of the military, nor a private citizen is above them.
Are you mad!? The US is undeniably an imperialist regime! How can you explain a country with only 300 million people having a larger military than the entire rest of the world combined? Or vast numbers of military bases and troops stationed around the world? We’ve been in Japan and Germany alone for 60 years! Not to mention places like Guantanamo and South Korea and hundreds of others. We are the new Rome – that was the whole idea behind the folks behind People for a New American Century (PNAC)! The idea being we need to position ourselves to rule the world or we will eventually lose it to the Chinese, and Indians. First priority is to secure the oil sources in the middle east – not going so good.
Bush/Cheney never made it a religious war? This guy disagrees.
Comment posted on 6-4-2009
Cheney’s mantra through all of the torture disclosures has been “but it worked and we saved lives.” This is a Machiavellian argument, not one that supports American values. All indications are that the Bush/Cheney administration went well beyond their questionably legal boundaries for harsh interrogation. It’s important to be outraged by this! Why? Because if we’re not outraged it can become the norm, it can happen again and it can get much, much worse.
Comment posted on 6-5-2009
Sorry Non-P, not only am I not outraged, I want those techniques to be made available again. I’m not an interrogator although i have worked with them in the past. It is not my call on how to interrogate nor am I qualified to elicit information from a captured person (detainee, EPW, whatever).
I would hope that it would never come to using harsh techniques but I don’t really care that much either. If you don’t want to be water boarded, don’t take part in a cowardly act against people who weren’t even combatants. These animals strap bomb vests on 9 y/o and tell them to go ask for candy from US troops, they strap bomb vests on Mentally handicapped people and remotely detonate them in market places.
Heads were getting cut off long before our interrogations rules were released so the argument that if we don’t do it, they won’t do it is a crock. All they (al-qaueda etc.) see is a weak country who provides them with great intel through a pourous, treasonous media, and they know that if captured they will be treated better than on the battle field.
Comment posted on 6-5-2009
We have literally thousands of people qualified to elicit information from captured people and do so with great success (and mostly without torturing people). They are called police officers.
If the Iraqis were occupying the US for 6 years I would bet a lot of money that there would be a similar level of violence here too except committed by American “patriots”. Please don’t try to argue that Americans are somehow ‘better’ and don’t commit horrible crimes because it’s well known that America is one of the most violent industrialized nations with a long history of sensational murderers. Nick Berg was beheaded in March of 2004. This was the first reported crime of its type in Iraq and came some 2 years after the Bush administration authorized techniques that anyone who ever read the army field manual KNEW were illegal and counterproductive.
Forget the weak country argument – they all know we could drop a few nukes on the place if it came down to it. They don’t think we’re weak – they know they are fighting an impossible battle which is what makes them (in their minds) heros.
As for the media, I actually kind of agree with you to some extent. I don’t believe that the media should be used by the government for propaganda as is evident on some FOX “news” programs, but there is no reason to report on troop movements or military strategy. Report on what happened and leave it at that.
Comment posted on 6-5-2009
I’m not the one who thinks that American’s are somehow better. We are just as bad as anyone else. We don’t have the stomach as a society to rule in an imperialistic way is you keep saying which I still find comical that you even think that outside of the rhetoric.
The Army Field Manual is not a legal document.
Beheading in Iraq or out of Iraq is irrelevant, it isn’t the place but the act and it is the preferred execution method of our enemy. It is usually administered after the prisoner is beaten into a false confession, used for propaganda, humiliated, mentally tortured and displayed for the world (including his/her family) to see. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, these groups are without borders and they are our enemy. Berg was an alleged retribution killing for the abuses at Abu G which had we not released those photos, allowed the Army Judicial system works its course, Nick Berg may be alive today. Nick Berg was killed just as much because of FOIA than anything else.
And hate to burst your bubble but the Iraqi’s that i have talked to about this have a hard time understanding why we don’t fight “eye for an eye”. This isn’t about nukes, thats silly. This is about a society that only responds to Alpha Male domination.
Comment posted on 6-7-2009
Scott,
We have a fundamentally different view regarding what is acceptable behavior for us as a nation. I think you’re entitled to your opinion, but it isn’t one that I could ever respect. Quite frankly, it makes me sick to my stomach. I see the behavior you not only condone but “want” as anti-American and morally wrong.
Humor me while I take a guess; you also claim to be a Christian? (I’m just guessing from your use of the same tired list of talking points that are all too familiar in my parts.) I think Jesus would tell you that you’re not going to promote peace by water boarding a guy daily.
Comment posted on 6-7-2009
Here’s an interesting article by the interrogator on the elite team of investigators who ultimately pinned Zarqawi – without the use of torture. A key point in the article is:
Comment posted on 6-7-2009
Non,
What you don’t have the stomach for is doing what must be done. I know nothing about you but it’s a fair bet that you have no idea what it takes to actually go to war for this country. I work in teams when I ensure that your right to “being sick to your stomach” is kept stable. While doing my job, the one I freely volunteer for, nothing is stronger to me than my team. I will do anything for them and they for me. Conflict requires men to do things for survival that most civilians couldn’t even fathom. Have you been in a life or death situation? Doubt it.
I won’t even dignify your anti-American comment since you are obviously a child. I do what I do because i have learned through experience how to make sure that I do my duty, complete my mission, ensure that you have another day to spout your conspiratorial diatribe, and make it back to my wife and kids. Really, disagree with my opinions, sure, vehemently hate my politics, sure, but you should be on your knees kissin’ my ass and all service members’ asses every day for the small part I/we have played over 20 years to safe guard your right to speak openly. Funny I would have thought that folks on this site were old enough to debate like adults.
As for my religion, I’m Catholic, I don’t stand behind religion cause my faith is my own. To even ask that question says quite a bit about you… hmmm Humor me while I take a guess; you must be an anti-semite… right? Down with the Jews… Are you a Liberal Jew hater? Have I pegged you right… probably have. I wonder if your wiccan tree gods will forgive you for hating Jews. ((Really? is rhetorical stereotyping all you have?))
Is that the kind of open debate you want our dialogue to degrade to? When you decide to grow up and have a debate without insults then i’ll be more than happy to engage you again. I try to make my points based on as much fact as possible. I try not to speak rhetorically when at all possible because it makes circular discussions which are a waste of time. If you make points I will either agree, refute, or give another spin but I always try to respond point for point. I speak my peace based on personal and professional experiences directly involved with this issue. You quote them, i’ve worked with them. You’ve read about it, i’ve been there.
Comment posted on 6-7-2009
Nate,
That’s the propaganda sure, the propaganda coming from Al Qaeda too. But don’t forget about the fact that Al Qaeda is a Sunni based movement and what happened in Iraq? Oh yeah, we liberated Shiites from Sunni oppression.
Those Shi’ia then turned and with the help of the US and the Coalition, shunned the Sunnis and did not give them a spot in the new government. I believe this, along with disbanding the Iraq Army, were the two most crucial mistakes we made.
Foreign fighters streamed into Iraq to answer a Fatwah levied against the occupying forces. Al Qaeda strengthened alliances and provided weapons and persons to come to the aid of their Sunni brothers.
My point is again, there are literally hundreds of analysts working on these issues, dozens of interrogators, etc. This is one persons opinion. There are many reasons why and although I will agree that Abu G was a rallying point, it was certainly not the “#1 reason”…
This is all rooted in politics and religion, zealous ideologues who feel they are called to act by the writings of their prophets.
Comment posted on 6-7-2009
Scott, just another one of my observations, but I’m guessing you were not breast-fed as a child. Go find someone to give you a hug, man, you seem to be a very angry person.
I’ll try to answer your comment but — as I stated in my last post — neither of us have particularly original points of view, and they are opposed. I don’t agree with you. Capiche? After a while it isn’t discussion, its repetition.
Paragraph 1: Ugg. I’m lost as to what your point is. You think I don’t know the reality of the pointlessness of being a compassionate person? Um, okay… thanks?
2: You seem to be telling me that I have to accept your Machiavellian world-view because without it I will lose the country we all love so dearly. I reject this argument based on say… the entire constitution. That, and I really don’t believe that we’re in imminent danger of being invaded and overthrown. If you want to worry about the loss of constitutional rights, go look in the mirror. I have a great reverence for our service men so don’t bother playing that stoopit card. My respect for our armed forces doesn’t entitle you to command that I support your personal love of torture. I cite our Commander and Chief who has my back, not yours.
3: Did you just Godwin this thread? That was awesome, man. Apparently if I don’t agree with your “want” of torture then I’m an anti-semite. Nice.
4: Prior to this response, I can’t recall actually attempting to insult you. You should really re-read my last post and then re-read yours.
cheers,
-NP
Comment posted on 6-7-2009
“*** Humor me while I take a guess; you also claim to be a Christian? (I’m just guessing from your use of the same tired list of talking points that are all too familiar in my parts.) I think Jesus would tell you that you’re not going to promote peace by water boarding a guy daily. ***”
So that was friendly banter huh? Gee, my bad chum. I thought you were implying that I was a right wing religious nutcase… apparently if I don’t agree with your uneducated, uninformed opinions on performing interrogations, I am anti-american.
Classic re-direct, nice play, but it won’t work with me. You throw out a random “you claim to be a Christian…” comment and when I reply to that statement you somehow tie it back to my support for Interrogations. What on earth are you talkin’ about? I’m not a right wing Christian zealot and you aren’t a Liberal anti-Semite. Glad we cleared that up. If you want to throw out a stereo type so can I.
If you don’t agree with me I really don’t care, but if you think your post was friendly and worthy of a slap on the back you need to re-read it. My only goal is to enlighten this thread with truth and base my comments in reality and my own experiences which I have done so far.
Believe me service men don’t want your reverence they want you to walk a mile in their shoes and then be the judge. Make some of the split decisions between who lives and who dies and tell me how our constitution protects your life. Our Commander in Chief is a putz and has been absolutely treasonous by it’s very definition. I hope to be long retired from service before this idiot puts my life in danger with his apologist policies. He is weak and for that we as a country will suffer. I agree he doesn’t have my back and that’s too bad.
I do not support torture, I do not love torture or war for that matter, but just to clarify, I do not believe we have tortured anyone since by it’s definition the term “severe” with regards to pain both physical and mental is a subjective term. Just being a prisoner of war could cause severe mental anguish to some.
Finally, this thread was not about me, it’s about the issues which I have clearly stated in post #9, #19. To which you apparently either concede or just don’t know enough to answer. Re-read #13 and see where I defer to the professionals as a whole on the issue of interrogations.
Comment posted on 6-7-2009
Scott, I carefully re-read all of the above and NP didn’t insult you at all – at least not like you insulted *him*. I think we should chalk that last vile post up to “drunk blogging” and move on?
The trouble with a standing military goes all the way back to the drafting of the Constitution. Today, as then you will find as many people who see a standing military as dangerous to a democratic society (because they have the means to overthrow the civilian government) as you will those who believe it to be necessary to prevent mob rule by an armed citizenry (Shay’s Rebellion). To hear military people saying civilians should be “kissing their asses” is condescending and vile. The military works only to further the goals of the civilian authorities, or in other words the military *works for the people* toward our common defense.
Or, at least that is what it is supposed to be doing. What’s been happening in Iraq has less to do with defense than it does with imperialism. I agree with Thomas Jefferson when he said “Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government.” There is no way you can justify imposing democracy on another nation as Constitutional – people must choose it for themselves. If they decide to have a revolution and overthrow their tyrannical leaders perhaps we’ll help them – but we should be the first people on the planet to cry foul when a sovereign nation is invaded and occupied.
Having an abhorrence to an imposed military rule from afar is, after all the very reason we exist as a nation at all.
Comment posted on 6-7-2009
Regarding #9 where you say that the Bush administration didn’t say there was a link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein: This Christian Science Monitor article from March, 2003 is worth a glance. While Bush didn’t say they were linked, he sure made it sound that way to folks by repeating 9/11 in the same sentences as Hussein’s name and making it seem like they were linked somehow. The article cites a NYT poll that 45% of respondents believed there was a linkage. I have a brain – I remember what I saw in the media and what I heard Bush say. His administration was definitely trying to link the two and it was obvious to me that they didn’t have good intel that they were connected. What Hillary and as many as 7 (and as few as 3) others may have been told by the administration at the time I can only guess – but of course we have already seen how these guys operated. They figured that if the invasion went well nobody would complain. We would have gotten rid of the dirtbag Stalinist and we’d be helping pump out the oil and the war “would pay for itself” I think was the claim at the time. Nobody (including you?) seems to remember that Hussein was a secularist and hated the fundamentalists. He had a stated dislike of Osama and wouldn’t allow him or his gang into the country (if he could help it). It just didn’t make sense.
Comment posted on 6-7-2009
“I thought you were implying that I was a right wing religious nutcase… apparently if I don’t agree with your uneducated, uninformed opinions on performing interrogations, I am anti-american.”
I have and will continue to skip commenting on your assaults on my character. I asked if you were a Christian. That shouldn’t set you off. If it does I’m even more confused. I stated very clearly that it was “my opinion” that your pro-torture (whatever you want to call it) views were un-American. I was sharing my perspective on the situation. Please notice when I’m contrasting my views with yours and citing our differences, rather than flying off the handle when someone says that “they” don’t agree with you.
I am now close to actually calling you a “nut-bag” at this point though. Not because of what you believe, but because you’re all pissy/grumpy about it.