BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

God and war

22 comments on God and war

God and war
: Andrew Greeley compares the administration’s spin to Goebel’s as he says that the war in Iraq is the result of a big lie.

: Meanwhile, the Dalai Lama says this:

he Dalai Lama, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and one of the world’s most prominent advocates of nonviolence, said in an interview yesterday that it might be necessary to fight terrorists with violence, and that it was “too early to say” whether the war in Iraq was a mistake.

“I feel only history will tell,” he said. “Terrorism is the worst kind of violence, so we have to check it, we have to take countermeasures.”

22 responses to “God and war”

  1. Diana Avatar
    Diana

    It’s possible to agree with both.
    Prez Bush just admitted that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. As someone said, ‘now he tells us.’

  2. Donut Avatar
    Donut

    Diana:
    When did Bush say that we were going to war with Iraq because of the connection to Al-Queda?
    Was it the UN speech?
    Was it the speeches preceding the vote in Congress?
    If one were to actually listen to what the man says, not what people say about what he says, I think that you might find that this is a way on terrorists and the countries that support them.
    Iraq supported terrorist organizations with money, training, and payoffs to families of suicide bombers. They have been doing it for decades. Maybe they also helped Al Queda. Maybe not. But Saddam’s specific help in planning and implementing the attacks on 9-11 were never used as evidence in any speech by him, or Powell, when making the case for war.
    I believe the “He didn’t help Al Queda!” is nothing more than a straw-man argument.
    If I am wrong, please provide links to the speech from reputable sources.
    Thanks,
    Donut

  3. Donut Avatar
    Donut

    Preview is my friend.
    “I think that you might find that this is a WAR on terrorists and the countries that support them.”

  4. Harry Avatar
    Harry

    Bush has never said Saddam had anything to do with 911. As a matter of fact they have almost gone out of their way to repeat the fact that there is no evidence linking Saddam to 911. Bush’s statements that Saddam had something to do with 911 are a the figments of an irresponsible and creative press.

  5. ....a moment with Easycure Avatar
    ….a moment with Easycure

    Greeley’s article is the big lie. It is trash.

  6. Doug Avatar
    Doug

    From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
    Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate
    March 18, 2003
    Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
    Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
    (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
    (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
    Sincerely,
    GEORGE W. BUSH

  7. Yehudit Avatar
    Yehudit

    Doug, as others pointed out, Saddam financed terrorists. Most of these terrorist groups know each other and work together. For example, IRA terrorists and the Bader-Meinhoff gang and the PLO all worked together at various times, and Islamic terrorists train in South American jungles. So maybe there’s no smoking gun to show that Saddam directly financed Al Queda or the 9-1 attack. Big deal. All that means is he’s good at covering his tracks. There were many good reasons to depose Saddam – it was a good entry and leverage point for tackling the whole global terrorist mess.

  8. Diana Avatar
    Diana

    By that line of reasoning, we should immediately invade and occupy Saudi Arabia. I suppose you’d agree with that, so let me point out that spending $87 billion dollars on Iraq is truly a waste of resources, manpower, translators, you name it, that should be used to fight Al Qa’ida.
    The only terrorist connection that I can see is that Saddam supported Abu Nidal, who was a PLO dissident. Fatah placed a bounty on his head. He paid thousands of dollars to suicide bombers’ families haven’t stopped those attacks. In any case, this is Israel’s responsibility.
    I am positive that Yehudit would, in another context, deny that invading Iraq has anything to do with Israel. Now she says that it does. Which is it? (For the record, I think Israel was far down on the list.)
    In short, Yehudit has advanced some very flimsy reasons for invading and occupying Iraq.
    Bush incessantly made associations between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. His recent denial directly undercut the latest whopper from Cheney, who tried it one last time on the Sunday morning shows. WMD’s are no longer a factor.
    Geez, even the extreme right is feeling cheated:
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34472
    “Osama Bin Forgotten” heh.

  9. Doug Avatar
    Doug

    Yehudit,
    I wasn’t offering any commentary, just providing a passage that contradicts Harry’s statement above (although people are disputing it in a very Clintonesque “is definition” way). I agree Saddam did reward Palestinian terrorists’ families, was a bad guy, a madman etc. His removal benefits mankind. As for my opinions on the war? I didn’t agree with it. There I said it. It happened though, and I think we now have a responsibility to help Iraq become a democratic nation. I am glad that Saddam is gone BUT… I don’t think this helps the “war on terror”. My opinion is that it is silly to refuse to believe that Rove and crew didn’t want people to draw parallels between 9/11 and Iraq. Bush’s marketing is extremely effective, and I think that helped get the public behind him for the Iraq war.

  10. Donut Avatar
    Donut

    Doug:
    ” including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”
    It says “INCLUDING THOSE”, not “EXCLUDING ALL BUT THOSE” or “ONLY THOSE”. I do not see how this proves what you think it proves. In the set of all terrorists T, there are both those that are involved with Sept 11 (s), and those that were not (~s). We did not declare war on the excluse set s, but on the whole set T. What am I missing that you see here?
    Diana:
    You still have not provided a link that shows where/when/and to whom George W. Bush claims that we needed to invade Iraq because of their occupation. The yahoos at WorldNetDaily are not in any way legitimite white house sources. Put up!
    -Donut
    ps. “Truly a waste of resource”. Man, you dislike those poor Iraqis, don’t you? Do you think that that:
    a. The world is a better place with Saddam in charge of Iraq.
    b. The world is a better place with Saddam NOT in charge of Iraq, but it is not worth the cost that we are paying.
    I am hoping at least that you answer b.

  11. Doug Avatar
    Doug

    “It says “INCLUDING THOSE”, not “EXCLUDING ALL BUT THOSE” or “ONLY THOSE”. I do not see how this proves what you think it proves. In the set of all terrorists T, there are both those that are involved with Sept 11 (s), and those that were not (~s). We did not declare war on the excluse set s, but on the whole set T. What am I missing that you see here?”
    In a document dedicated exclusively to the use of force against Iraq, why bother mentioning 9/11 if there were no supposed ties? That whole latter secion could have been removed and still conveyed it’s meaning, no? We will snuff out countries that support terrorism. PERIOD. Listen, I don’t think this is a “smoking gun” against Bush, nor do I think it’s really a big deal, but I do think seeds were planted in the heads of Americans that Iraq and 9/11 were related. More importantly, I certainly don’t think we’ve made any real progress in this vague “War on Terrorism” by attacking Iraq.

  12. balbulican Avatar
    balbulican

    “a. The world is a better place with Saddam in charge of Iraq.”
    Yup.
    b: The world is a better place with one superpower unilaterally taking military action selectively against countries that piss it off, reversing an international movement toward the abandonment of unsanctioned armed intervention.
    Nope.

  13. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    This is all arguing past the point. I don’t believe Saddam had something to do with 9-11 because Bush & Co. insinuated he did. I believe Saddam likely had something to do with 9-11 because that’s just the kind of guy he was. And, 70% of the American people agree with me.
    Please note, that 70% did NOT say they believed Saddam was responsible. The poll found that nearly 70% of respondents thought it was very likely or somewhat likely that Saddam had something to do with 9-11. This is a matter of opinion, not right or wrong. But, of course, liberals get enraged when the common folk, despite years of careful indoctrination, presume to have an independent thought.

  14. balbulican Avatar
    balbulican

    I agree with two thirds of your message Reid. As you observed, Bush and Co. insinuated that Sadam and Co. had “something to do with 9-11”: and 70% of Americans agree.
    I’m just not clear on how succumbing to administration progaganda and agreeing with the majority constitutes “independent thought”.

  15. R C Dean Avatar
    R C Dean

    “an international movement toward the abandonment of unsanctioned armed intervention.”
    There is no such movement, other than in the press releases of countries who would like to have a veto on American foreign policy. The French, for example, feel perfectly free to send their troops into any of their former colonies without asking for anyone’s by-your-leave. The Chinese have done so at least twice in recent history. Other examples by third-world nations abound, especially in Africa.
    Believe me, when any nation feels that “armed intervention” is in its best interest, it will do so with or without anyone else’s “sanction.”
    Further, the invasion of Iraq was sanctioned. it was sanctioned by the only body with any legal authority to do so – the US Congress. Not that it was needed, but the UN also sanctioned the invasion by the terms of numerous resolutions that were never withdrawn. The invasion this year was no more than the enforcement of the 1991 cease-fire agreement.

  16. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    balbulican – you have willfully twisted my statement. I see no advantage in responding to you.

  17. balbulican Avatar
    balbulican

    Mr. Dean…if you feel there is no “international movement toward the abandonment of unsanctioned armed intervention”, I suggest you read the Charter of the United Nations and the mandate of the Security Council.

  18. Buzz Avatar
    Buzz

    If Bush is guilty of overspinning the threat from Iraq,
    are the anitwar activists guilty of ignoring the human
    consequences to ordinary Iraqis of leaving Saddam in
    power?
    This is why the antiwar activists have no credibility.
    They had no plan for removing Saddam. The best they
    could do is point a finger at previous administrations’
    support for Saddam. But it doesn’t change the basic
    fact that more people would be dying this year under
    Saddam’s boot on average than have died in the war.
    Why do antiwar activists want Iraqis to die? People
    should be taking them to task for it.
    If Bush lied about WMD, I’m glad he did it to get rid
    of that sick bastard.

  19. Diana Avatar
    Diana

    Regarding deliberate, misleading associations made by the Bush Admin between 9/11 and Saddam, as they say, read the whole thing:
    http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/6821495.htm
    Regarding: “If Bush is guilty of overspinning the threat from Iraq,are the anitwar activists guilty of ignoring the human consequences to ordinary Iraqis of leaving Saddam in power?”
    Yes, I think so, which is why we are where we are.
    But lying a country into a war is unacceptable, and no matter how many blog commenters think it’s good, this ain’t going over well in the real world.
    “Getting rid of a sick bastard” is no reason to go to war, because the world is full of sick bastards, and by the way, we supported this sick bastard full out until he decided to steal oil, the big no-no. Killing Iraqis was fine, stealing oil is not.
    Three more Americans dead today in an ambush outside Baghdad.

  20. Buzz Avatar
    Buzz

    The poll that purportedly shows that 70% of Americans thgouht that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks is important to the antiwar crowd because they interpret this as proof that there are people out there who got this idea from Bush and supported the war as a directresult. Without having seen the actual poll questions, (if someone has a link to the entire survey, we would all like to see it I think) how do we know what exactly was being measured? I conducted my own small poll:
    Buzz: Hey Dad, did Saddam have anything to do with 9/11?
    BuzzDad: Of course, son. All those people (terrorists)
    help each other.
    Buzz: Hey Bro, did Saddam have anything to do with 9/11?
    BuzzBro: Maybe, maybe not. He probably knew.
    So what exactly is being measured by this survey? Does it measure the effects of a lie from the Bush white house or does it measure some inchoate feeling already thereamong the American populace?
    Second, and I followed Diana’s link to the Miami Herald, (thanks Diana!) but I still cannot find evidence that Bush lied on this issue. At worst, we have Cheney saying,”We don’t know.”
    So the two main legs of this particular argument, briefly that the survey shows that Bush lied to lead the US into war with Iraq, are baseless: the survey doesn’t show that anybody was swayed one way or the other by anything that Bush said about 9/11, and no one can find an instance where Bush administration lied to make that connection.
    In response to the readers who are throwing up their hands, “But what about the letter posted above by Doug from Bush to Congress?” Well, despite proximity of the symbols “9/11” and “Saddam ussein” (a) it neither makes any conclusions nor assumptions about Saddam and 9/11 (b) it is completely consistent with the referenced public law (http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf) and (c) it was even not addressed to the public.

  21. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    Buzz – yep. See my comment above.

  22. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    Diana – saying we “supported” Saddam is stretching the truth to the breaking point. We did help the Ba’athists come to power when the alternative was worse. And, we did try to deal with Saddam before it became apparent what a ruthless basterd he was. And, we did give intelligence about Iranian troop movements to Iraq late in the Iran-Iraq war when it looked like the Iranians would triumph (Iran under Khomeini was as bad as Iraq under Saddam and the fountainhead of radical terrorism all over the world, and that outcome would have been a disaster).
    Saddam’s war machine was built by the Europeans, the Russians and the Chinese. Our contribution was negligible. Learn a little about your subject before you go blaming America first. You’re liable to knock out your own teeth with your knees jerking like that.